Let's Get Physical About Climate Change

a reply to: jrod

All you can do is draw a parallel between co2 levels and estimate man's contribution to those levels. The increase in co2 levels produces a logarithmic response in the greenhouse effect. So, figure how much of an effect the doubling between 200 to 400ppm would have, and then project that forward to 800ppm. There is no doom and gloom.

No one can honestly say that "were it not for man the average global temperature would be X, or were it not for man the west coast drought would not have happened, as an example." Or...at least I have not yet seen that presented in any convincing way.

While I do not doubt man has had an affect... man has had many deleterious effects on our environment. I also believe that we should be resonsible stewards of our planet. Tis the only one we have.... I also feel that we should have, long ago, launched a "Manhattan project" style approach to alternate energy sources. However, as things are, I cannot and do not support the ignorant BS being presented as "green solutions" in most cases, anymore than I can support most govt driven directions regarding carbon crap. It is rife with corrupt hypocrisy.

I do not support the philosphy that man is causing everything climate or weather related event on the earth. Again, total and absolute BS. Katrina! Caused by AGW and the sign of things to come! Yep... Now it's the drought on the west coast.

Funny how weather is often confused for climate to justify either side of the debate.

From my perspective we are still within the parameters of previous interglacial periods. If anything, delaying the onset of global cooling is a good thing. The last time man was threatened with near extinction was during the last glacial period.

Pointing at receding glaciers and arctic ice as indicators of man's effect on climate is BS. It is what has happened during every interglacial period during the current ice age. We have not yet reached the typical high of temperatures indicated during previous interglacial periods.

What I see is nothing more than politicized science. A branch of science that is poorly understood (failed hypotheses in the form of climate modeling) along with the knowledge that we do NOT comprehend all of the forces at play inffluencing climate and how they relate and combine to produce the obervable phenomena.

That is the bottom line.

a reply to: bbracken677

So you did not take the time to look through this thread. At least look at the first couple of pages and actually read what mc_squared has to say.

CO2 levels have risen significantly as a result of human activity, specifically burning fossil fuels.

You act like because no one has a complete solution that we should ignore the problem and act like we are not causing harm.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: Nathan-D

Goodness me, I've never come across such a stubborn fixation as you appear to have before. Look, this is going to be my last reply and then I shall have to leave you to your own devices.

Remember that? I do, because it was probably the most all-time facepalm moment I’ve ever experienced on ATS

So, instead of addressing my arguments you instead decide to trawl through my back-catalogue of posts to find a comment I made on this forum 5 years ago in some feeble attempt to humiliate me. Your humiliation-technique is pathetic. A character-assault from you is like being attacked by a child wielding a bath-sponge.

so please - continue to post intellectually dishonest and nonsensical talking points in support of their schemes, while you demand the rest of us “phonies” bow down to your emperor’s new clothes..

On the contrary, if anyone here is being ‘intellectually dishonest’ it’s you. I am the one who's been discussing AGW while you have attempted to divert attention away so as to evade my challenges to you about them. You did this graphically in your previous reply to me by quoting a comment I made 5 years ago to give yourself a pretext for dismissing my objections.

Your posts are some of the best examples I’ve ever seen of the brainwashing power these shills have in transforming naïve skeptics into full-fledged deniers

I’m not the one who is in denial here. You made the claim that the warming from CO2 is well-established science and now it is up to you to demonstrate its truth and to answer our objections to it before you can expect us to accept it. Accusing me of being in denial while citing papers that exist behind pay-walls will not convince rationally-minded people of the truth of your claim one bit. Your implicit suggestion that I should just accept your claims while my real and honest objections to it remain unanswered and even unaddressed by you is beneath my consideration as a skeptic. It implies that my reasons for rejecting your claims are irrelevant and of no importance and that I should just accept it anyway because expert ‘climate scientists’ say it is so. Much of humanity evolved out of that authoritarian mindset about five hundred years ago via the Renaissance. Apparently you want to put us back inside it again.

I have a degree in this stuff from an actual accredited university, not wattsupwiththat.com.

You have a degree? When did you ever study any climate science? If you were actually to do the unthinkable and investigate the so-called “science of climate change” for yourself with his mind open and unprejudiced, you would find that it is all mere conjecture and make-believe with no real substance, just like the King’s New Clothes. But of course doing that would require you to dig deeply into the subject and to trace up the sources of the ideas and beliefs that comprise its contents and then to evaluate them rationally and properly in your mind. It would take a lot of time and a lot of mental effort on your part that no-one else could do for you – no servants and no “experts” with their ready-made opinions to offer you. It is much easier for you to accept what all those interested parties are telling you is the obvious truth that only climate change denier fools cannot see and to perpetuate the delusional mindset that plainly you have already bought from them.

(but is sooo complicated for people like yourself that you have to invent a deranged, non-sensical 150 year long conspiracy theory to explain it away).

I have not been talking about ‘conspiracy theories’ in this thread. That is something you invented all by yourself.

Or maybe I had to ask because you have no idea what you’re doing. I did calculate it using a formula that IS in textbooks and got 0.09K.

The greenhouse positive feedback formula you applied in that paper has been derived from computerised models whose natures and parameters have been determined arbitrarily by the modellers. The increase in temperature from a given increase in ‘radiative forcing’ is not calculated with that formula. It is calculated with the Stefan-Boltzmann law which relates a body’s total amount of radiance to its absolute temperature. It is written as:

I = 0.000000056704*T^4

Where I is the intensity of the body’s radiance, 0.000000056704 is the Stefan-Boltzmann Constant and T is the body's absolute temperature.

Rearranging the formula to make T the subject, we obtain:

T = (I/0.000000056704)^0.25

If a body absorbs an amount of radiation so that its absolute temperature increases by a corresponding amount, then this equation gives us:

deltaT = (T^4 + deltaI/0.00000005604)^0.25 - T

So, a radiative forcing increment of 0.2W/sq.m at the earth’s average surface temperature of 288K comes out as:

deltaT = (288^4 + 0.2/0.000000056704)^0.25-288 = 0.037C.

It’s a simple calculation that I would have thought a practicing scientist of your calibre could do in his sleep. 0.037C/decade from CO2 is hardly the stuff of which the eco-cult’s doomsday scenario is made, is it? You appear to have got your green knickers in a twist over this.

Yes, “politically-correct pseudoscience based on speculative, unvalidated and unproven climate models” that was first confirmed by an Irish physicist in 1859 before there was such thing as a computer model

Your arrogant dogmatism is breath-taking. The only sources for your flat assertions which you provide as though they were established matters of fact are papers that exist behind pay-walls and from a scientist over 200 years ago before IR-spectrometers had even been invented. Sorry, but I should not be expected to pay any fees for the privilege of enabling you to provide me with purported evidence to support your assertions. As for Arrhenius, he was wrong and his equation is bunk. The IPCC’s (modified) Arrhenius equation’s essential conflict with the laws of physics can be seen most graphically from the fact that the equation implies that the global warming from all the CO2 on the planet Mars should be 30C, when the actual global warming on Mars is only 5-8C (This information was not available to Arrhenius in his day of course). These results are radically different to the predictions of the IPCC based on their Arrhenius model. I don’t know how they may wish to explain away the flaws in the Arrhenius law but I imagine they will have a hard time trying. They have not had to up to now of course because, as far as I know, they have not been challenged on them. However, I think those of us who want to insist upon scientific rigour may now be in a position to call their bluff.

such willful idiocy.

No. Skeptics are assuming the “null hypothesis” that the climate is changing due to natural causes and then examining and evaluating the proposed evidence for it not being natural but being man-made. To date skeptics have found that proposed evidence to be unconvincing and far short of compelling. Therefore we do not accept it and we are not convinced of the man-made global warming theory that the proposed “evidence” is supposed to prove.

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bbracken677

let’s look at what the IPCC have actually said in their own words

What a delusional dreamworld you seem to be living in. IPCC (AR4-AR5) was produced by UN bureaucrats and politicians, not scientists. They filtered and edited the scientists’ input and mixed it up with reports from Greenpeace activists before publishing it as gold-standard climate science.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gothmog

Ice weighs more than water.

Then why doesn't it sink?

Cough splutter. I've been on holiday and am reading through stuff. Phage I think you are getting bored when you need to respond to these things ! The lunacy and ignorance on ATS has abatted not one jot whilst I was in Rome.....in a freaking heatwave, coincidentally enough.

originally posted by: bbracken677

Pointing at receding glaciers and arctic ice as indicators of man's effect on climate is BS. It is what has happened during every interglacial period during the current ice age. We have not yet reached the typical high of temperatures indicated during previous interglacial periods.

These things indicate that the world is warming, not the cause DUH!!. There are people whe even deny that basic fact. We also have the movement of flora and fauna polewards indicating warming.

The next trick is to ascertain whether the warming is cyclical or linked to any trigger events. This is where all those climate scientists and geologists and zoologists come to the fore. Guess what those glaciers are receding at an accelerating rate. The flora and fauna movement is a recent phenemenon. So what has happened recently that would trigger this ?

Cue .... skeptiks.....to get all defensive........

a reply to: Nathan-D

Give it up. In this thread you have been shown to provide false information over and over again. Your credibility here is nil.

In fact your rants keep on getting more delusional. Do you really think the IPCC and Greenpeace are in cahoots in some grand AGW scam?

If so, is it reasonable to ignore the disinformation/propaganda that is being put out by oil companies to protect their profits or in your delusional mind do you think Big Petro will come up with solutions that are backed by science when they have the most to lose financially when dealing with climate change responsibly?

a reply to: jrod

It's pretty incredible watching denier extremists melt down right in front of your eyes isn't it?

I try to stay away from the more deranged ones these days because they're a complete waste of time and sanity, but have a really low tolerance for hypocrisy and phonies sometimes.

He triggered the whole thing by writing this in his response to you:

Phage and other warmists here I think have demonstrated far beyond reasonable doubt and made abundantly clear now that the essential defect in their arguments is that they do not appear to know what they pretend to know.

So when I pull up old posts of his demonstrating him not knowing things he pretends to know (like how logarithms work lol), suddenly that's a character assault and the sort of depths we have to dredge to deflect from his arguments, the same ones that have been shown to be dishonest and delusional a hundred times over already.

Let that be a lesson to you kids: this is what happens to your brain when you get your science education from blogs sponsored by Shell and the Koch brothers.

a reply to: Nathan-D

So, instead of addressing my arguments you instead decide to trawl through my back-catalogue of posts to find a comment I made on this forum 5 years ago in some feeble attempt to humiliate me. Your humiliation-technique is pathetic. A character-assault from you is like being attacked by a child wielding a bath-sponge.

This is the best retort I have ever seen. Hilarious.

a reply to: mc_squared

Let that be a lesson to you kids: this is what happens to your brain when you get your science education from blogs sponsored by Shell and the Koch brothers.

buahaha. This one was pretty good too.

originally posted by: Nathan-D
originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: bbracken677

let’s look at what the IPCC have actually said in their own words

What a delusional dreamworld you seem to be living in. IPCC (AR4-AR5) was produced by UN bureaucrats and politicians, not scientists.

This is false. Ten seconds of Googling reveals:

www.ipcc.ch...

a reply to: mbkennel

One of the names on this list, on page 39, was my University professor.

He rode his bike to work every day, even when it was -20 outside, and wrote an entire textbook on renewables that he gave away for free - but yeah - it's a big conspiracy dating back to Tyndall so the scientists can get all the tax monies, and send everyone back to the stone age.

What a delusional dream world *we* live in

originally posted by: Nathan-D
So, a radiative forcing increment of 0.2W/sq.m at the earth’s average surface temperature of 288K comes out as:

Well,

* the estimated forcing from doubling of CO2 is estimated to be around 4.5 W/m^2
* there are other anthropogenic effects other than CO2; CO2 is estimated to be just a bit over half
* the Earth is not a simple blackbody, and there are climate feedbacks and feedforwards in various ways

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: mbkennel

One of the names on this list, on page 39, was my University professor.

He rode his bike to work every day, even when it was -20 outside, and wrote an entire textbook on renewables that he gave away for free - but yeah - it's a big conspiracy dating back to Tyndall so the scientists can get all the tax monies, and send everyone back to the stone age.

Yeah, that's right, in the future them posh professors will be helicoptering in their coal powered luxury airships, as the rest of the poor oil billionaires will have to put their fat butts on the bicycle when it's -20 outside (which it won't be anymore)

The scam's been unraveled for sure!

Or maybe all the REAL climate professors were on the flights on 9/11, and replaced by extraterrestrial draconian lizardmen clones who want to lower our capitalist standard of living so they can take over, aided by turncoat UN Agenda 20/20 bureaucrats. Did I get the conspiracy right?