Economist: Climate science -- A sensitive matter

[Wild Cobra]

Random, does this image and link from NOAA help:



And...

Not sure because it was a log graph, but it appears to me that the IR from greenhouse gasses only penetrate 0.01% the depth and less of visible light. I'll find it again and post that if you don't believe me.

[Wild Cobra]

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, Chinese burning of high sulphur fuels like coal, etc., could have a marked cooling effect.

It depends on the contents of the solids released and particle sizes.

Your "soot" could end up reflecting far more energy than the dark color stuff you imagine is a big deal.

The "soot" itslf absorbs solar energy. It's other components in the pollution that reflect the solar energy.

Do some research on the kinds of coal the Chinese are using. It is the dirty dirty dirty sulfuric kind.

Fine.

It is also ending up over the norther ice cap and accelerating any natural melting. This increases the solar energy absorbed in the ocean and decreases reflected solar energy of the ice. The "sooty" ice now reflects 1/2 or less of the solar energy instead of around 90%. The increasing open water absorbs about 90% of the solar energy `instead of reflecting about 90% that the ice would have.

If these areosols are cooling the atmosphere, but still causing large amounts of CO2, we would expect that, all other things equal, one might get higher CO2 concentrations and just modest temperature rises.

*IF*...

I agree that in the atmosphere, there is likely a small cooling effect from the combined aerosols. In fact, I have in the past posted that I believe the reason solar changes were not apparent from the 1900 to 1950 increase is because at the same time, we were industrializing, and the aerosols we put in the air were having a counter effect to the natural warming. Back then, before the EPA started regulating emissions, there was widely publicized "global cooling" scares. We then, over the years, as we cleaned up our industrial and auto emissions, starting seeing large increases in measured global temperatures.

What happens when the Chinese decide that they need to scrub their coal emissions to keep them from dying in the streets from emphasema?

Then a few decades later, the Arcitic Ice cap will return, I bet.

The areosols go away, and the CO2 sticks around.

So?

[Wild Cobra]

Still something we should put some efforts to avoid.

Bottom line the problem still appears pressing, and despite what the economic alarmists claim, would not bankrupt us, or even cost the average person much.

It baffles me why we can't do more.

I agree we should reduce CO2 output, and even eliminate it. At the same time, it is difficult to determine how much we need to reduce it by. It is obvious that we have at least 100 years to get a handle on it. I trust that the natural progress of the sciences will provide solutions, and that we don't have to do anything that would harm our economy to reduce CO2 output.

Keep in mind, that over a 800 year period, the ocean will claim about 98% of the CO2 we put in the atmosphere, in terms of (I think) a rolling average. It is currently absorbing (I forget for certain) something like 55% of the anthropogenic CO2. The added CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere, and finds equilibrium as solution solubility formulas dictate.

As for some clarification on the ocean warming causing increased atmospheric CO2, it is my contention, that the atmospheric levels would be higher if we added no CO2. They could be close to the levels we see today, but probably not. The ocean is both a source of CO2 and a sink. The colder regions from the poles, towards the equator are net sinks of CO2. The equatorial regions towards the poles are a net source of atmospheric CO2.

Hypothetical, for illustration purposes:

I'm going to draw an arbitrary at 40 degrees north and south as an annual average zero point. At this point, we have balance. The earth system is stable, at 280 ppm as the cold regions absorb as much CO2 as the warm regions release. Now the solar output changes. The sun is now warming the entire earth more, and the oceans more. As this happens, the la ude at which there is a zero point gets closer to the poles. now that this has happened, we have relatively more surface areas as a source, and relatively less area as a sink. This causes a net sourcing effect of CO2 from the ocean as a whole. it is no longer in balance, and will continue to source CO2 until the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean equals the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, for the given temperature changes in the ocean.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A testable, scientific hypothesis.

I don't care what you *say*.

I care what you can prove.

Design a test for this hypothesis. Tell me how to go about confirming it.

Has this work already been done?

Thisi s what you get when you take him seriously and ask questions I suppose. I do find it amusing that he is ignoring the UV question from me that you put to him again.

You're just giving him what he wants so he can have fun with it. He is now doubling down on the idea that scientists have ignored surface energy flux. I've just gotten to the point where I find studies where 'alarmists' ie anyone associated with the IPCC, national academy etc that do consider those effects he claims they don't and rub his face in it.

A friend of mine was a GOP senatorial aid and he would give me science briefings on the new findings from the solar satellites that we put up a decade ago. They were chock full of astrophysicists talking about bandwidth amplitudes being out of phase and how current models don't consider this. I remember him sending me the information and telling me "I know where you stand on this politically but tell me that this is not compelling science." It was. 10 YEARS AGO. They had just gotten the data.

It's like you say though. He would rather pretend that they are all lying to us or are all stupid. It's really simple to find studies that quantify and qualify these phenomenon on google scholar.

And sure enough the first link is from TAMU.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...apter05_01.htm

The only sad this is that he thinks scientists wouldn't consider surface flux or the pea-brained view he has on the issue.

[boutons_deux]

Climate change will increase extreme precipitation levels

Rainfall or snowfall dumped by the most intense storms could grow significantly heavier in most of the United States by the final decades of the century, according to a new climate change study.


The paper, written by a research team led by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, examines the effects of rising greenhouse gas emissions on factors that influence maximum precipitation.


The authors concluded that increasing atmospheric moisture will play the dominant role in ramping up rainfall intensity, which they projected using climate models.


As the Earth warms, sea surface temperatures rise, accelerating evaporation and increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. If greenhouse gas emissions continue at high levels, atmospheric water vapor levels will jump 20% to 30% in the final decades of the century, the researchers found.


That will push up maximum precipitation by a corresponding amount, with increases in the Western U.S. falling in the high end of that range, according to the paper, which has been accepted for publication in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.


"We have high confidence that the most extreme rainfalls will become even more intense, as it is virtually certain that the atmosphere will provide more water to fuel these events," said lead author Kenneth Kunkel of the National Climatic Data Center.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/17.../p2p-75211582/

[Wild Cobra]

Thisi s what you get when you take him seriously and ask questions I suppose. I do find it amusing that he is ignoring the UV question from me that you put to him again.

Thanks. I didn't realize I missed one of Randoms posts.

And sure enough the first link is from TAMU.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources...apter05_01.htm

Thanks again. Great link! It supports what I have been saying, doesn't disagree with any, and the solar value is pretty close to my arbitrary example in post #84.

[Wild Cobra]

Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI
Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.

Last one before I log off. Either he is re-stating your position accurately, or his is not.

If not then, say why not.

He never restates my position correctly. There is always something wrong in the way he rewords things.

After the satellite carrying the TIM equipment was launched, we now have the capability of measuring accuracy better than the error and drift. On top of that, it now measure the shorter UV signals not previously measured. I believe it is those shorter than 200 nm, but I would have to look that up to be certain. The UV is now known to be, I believe a factor of six, greater than previously thought to be.

I would hate to miss something important, and believe something falsely, either about what you are trying to say, or something as important as climate change, and its causes.

Just hold on to an open mind, and not dismiss anything out of hand. Remain skeptical.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Stupid says, "They cannot see the color of the sky."
I play a recording of them saying, "the sky is blue."
Stupid says, "See, I said the sky is blue."

[Wild Cobra]

You should give up Fuzzy. It's all in your imagination. Maybe you should be committed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

1)Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI
2)Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
3)That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.

You do not hold the above to be true?

[Wild Cobra]

1)Climate models do not consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI
2)Climate scientists in their models only consider direct solar forcing mechanisms and disregard surface flux
3)That they ignore these issues and claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect.

You do not hold the above to be true?

Not in all cases.

Why are you an all or nothing idiot?

Past ones didn't consider many things that have become known of later years.

Now... you paraphrase a generic statement of mine, outside of the specific topic, you just prove to everyone how ing lame you are.

Context is everything idiot.

Maybe you are so dumb, that you think you have me when I don't respond to your stupid out of context . Don't blame me for your stupidity.

[boutons_deux]

All the es in the past were from large volcanic eruptions, not in evidence today.

You mean from 100s of volcanoes long before the human epoch?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volc...al-warming.htm

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not in all cases.

Why are you an all or nothing idiot?

Past ones didn't consider many things that have become known of later years.

Now... you paraphrase a generic statement of mine, outside of the specific topic, you just prove to everyone how ing lame you are.

Context is everything idiot.

Maybe you are so dumb, that you think you have me when I don't respond to your stupid out of context . Don't blame me for your stupidity.

You were the one that said 'alarmists' didn't consider these things. You were the one that brought it up. Those were your words. The lesson that should be taken is you shouldn't say ignorant . You can try your normal tactic of leaving the topic for at least two weeks and try sneak in the same take later. Didn't work with ocean as soda pop or deep ocean currents just like it hasn't worked for this stupidity. Ignoring me didn't work. You know better than to try and argue on merit. The solution is to stop.

So you agree that,

1) there are cases where 'climate alarmists' consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI?
2) there are cases where 'climate alarmist 'in their models consider more than direct solar forcing mechanisms and consider surface flux?
3) there are cases where 'alarmists' consider these issues and don't claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect?

[Wild Cobra]

All the es in the past were from large volcanic eruptions, not in evidence today.

No, that's very unlikely true. Boutons' post is actually closer than your remark.

You mean from 100s of volcanoes long before the human epoch?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volc...al-warming.htm

Now this article is also in error, but the end point is true. First of all, the 1 in 10,000 (100 ppm) CO2 it speaks of is easily more than 2 in 10:000. Somewhere around half of mankinds added CO2 was absorbed by the natural carbon sinks.

Even the largest activity of volcanoes monitored claims only a years worth of CO2 output for one eruption, at best for a reasonable assessment.

Your past es would not only have to be multiple and intense, but last several hundred years, and the ice core time slices are really far apart. They have something like a 90% chance of missing a 50 year blip.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Volcanoes? Not my thing. There you go again making up, to see what sticks.

[Wild Cobra]

Volcanoes? Not my thing. There you go again making up, to see what sticks.

By meaning it's not my thing, I don't blame volcanoes for the CO2 or climate change.

You are making up again by bringing this quote up.

Go back and look at what I was responding to:

After poo pooing the amount of warming as insignificant you moved to your current strategy of looking for any other cause than CO2. You are clearly sophist for the stance 'it's not CO2.' Solar, soot, volcanoes, the ocean or anything else the Koch/Exxon lobby puts out and you grandstand on it. You choose them all and when one gets some love you have your hands and scream 'look at me, look at me.'

[Wild Cobra]

Fuzzy...

Can you say "context?"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

By meaning it's not my thing, I don't blame volcanoes for the CO2.

You are making up again by bringing this quote up.

Go back and look at what I was responding to:

So what your point? You said that volcanoes demonstrated how CO2 was not to be held up as cause. Your quotes only reinforce that notion. You might as well just type out "I'm talking out of my ass" if you are going to try and invoke 'context' to go full weasel.

Interesting so you will argue that but you won't even acknowledge:

So you agree that,

1) there are cases where 'climate alarmists' consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI?
2) there are cases where 'climate alarmist 'in their models consider more than direct solar forcing mechanisms and consider surface flux?
3) there are cases where 'alarmists' consider these issues and don't claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect?

Still no bull to shine that turd up? Regale us with your insight....

[Wild Cobra]

All or nothing Fuzzy, who doesn't know the reality of generalized statement.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All or nothing Fuzzy, who doesn't know the reality of generalized statement.

You were the one that said that climate alarmists didn't consider this or did not consider that and that climate believers couldn't see it. Those are statements of absolutes. You are right in making such claims with obvious limited knowledge is a bad idea.

Now review my quote:

So you agree that,

1) there are cases where 'climate alarmists' consider the effect of the UV spectrum amplitudes differing from TSI?
2) there are cases where 'climate alarmist 'in their models consider more than direct solar forcing mechanisms and consider surface flux?
3) there are cases where 'alarmists' consider these issues and don't claim that they are due to the greenhouse effect?

Did I speak in absolutes? No I did not. If you are going to parrot arguments at least try and make sure that they apply. You are already very poor at original thought and this does not help.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think any of the "alarmist" catagory of climate scientists acknowledge anything that disputes their claims.

Goodbye Gilligan. If you have something actually relevant to what I say, I will respond. Otherwise, expect to be ignored from now on.

[ElNono]

Otherwise, expect to be ignored from now on.

Where does one sign up for that?

[Wild Cobra]

Where does one sign up for that?

LOL...

What?

Do you have a scientific comment on my GW views, or are you in the peanut gallery?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think any of the "alarmist" catagory of climate scientists acknowledge anything that disputes their claims.

Goodbye Gilligan. If you have something actually relevant to what I say, I will respond. Otherwise, expect to be ignored from now on.

Those 14 scientists are some of the leading contributors to IPCC. The way you style the conference is that it is a bunch of agenda driven 'alarmists' that don't consider the UV spectrum absorption by the atmosphere or thermodynamic properties of water or that there are thermal layers and currents in the ocean or that water becomes less soluble at higher temperatures. Yet they do all of these things.

[boutons_deux]

Denier Delingpole Wishes For ‘Climate Nuremberg’, Says ‘Hanging Is Far Too Good’ For Climate Scientists!




read James Delingpole’s latest piece.


It will nauseate you — consider yourself warned. But I think it’s important to dissect this hate speech in detail because Delingpole seems to think that hate speech isn’t hate speech if you just use rhetoric — the figures of speech, like metaphor.


Having spent a quarter century studying rhetoric and having just published a well-received book on this very subject — Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga — I think I can safely say that is bull , though most likely only metaphorical bull (see below).


You may recall Delingpole’s 2011 meltdown on the BBC, where they got him to admit he is a hand-waving know-nothing: “It is not my job to sit down and read peer-reviewed papers because I simply haven’t got the time…. I am an interpreter of interpretations.” This pieces makes that meltdown look like the height of lucidity.


The piece is worth examining in detail because I think it is indicative of how the deniers and disinformers really feel — and we’ll know if that’s true if none of them denounce it.


The headline is “An English class for trolls, professional offence-takers and climate activists.” Delingpole is going to lecture us plebes on our native tongue.


Under the headline is the photo above, which is one of the popular pictures of the post-WWII Nuremberg trials in which Nazis were tried for “war crimes” and “crimes against humanity.” The Telegraph‘s caption is simply, “Not pictured: Monbiot, Flannery, Mann….” That would be George Monbiot, Tim Flannery, and Michael Mann.


Yes, that’s right, this isn’t hate speech just from Delingpole — senior editors at the paper must have signed off on all this. Oh, but it gets much worse.


The piece opens (emphasis added):


Should Michael Mann be given the electric chair for having concocted arguably the most risibly inept, misleading, cherry-picking, worthless and mendacious graph – the Hockey Stick – in the history of junk science?


Should George Monbiot be hanged by the neck for his decade or so’s hysterical promulgation of the great climate change scam and other idiocies too numerous to mention?


Should Tim Flannery be fed to the crocodiles for the role he has played in the fleecing of the Australian taxpayer and the diversion of scarce resources into pointless projects like all the eye-wateringly expensive desalination plants built as a result of his doomy prognostications about water shortages caused by catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...te-scientists/