My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[engineerdude]

Originally Posted by Essay

"...is logical or correct. By my judgment it is neither.
Want proof?"

Showing that the models aren't correct doesn't "prove" anything about the CO2 mechanism.
Or maybe I'm confusing whether or not the models are "logical and correct" with the physics of the CO2 mechanism.

How that CO2 mechanism plays out in our atmosphere is open to question and modeling, but just because the models aren't perfect doesn't mean that CO2 isn't contributing more instability (heat) to the overall system.

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I think you're aware of the claim that pre-industrial levels of CO2 help keep the planet a few degrees warmer than it would be without the CO2.
Do you think that widely publicized number is wrong?
...or do you think that doubling the CO2 concentration won't have a similar effect?

The models that show the planet is warmer due to preindustrial CO2 are the same models that predicted a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature over the next century - and the real-world data is quickly removing that possibility. Until somebody comes up with a model that works, all we can say for sure is that the effects of CO2 on planetary climate have been overstated.

[modest]

Originally Posted by Essay

I'm not sure of the exact numbers, but I think you're aware of the claim that pre-industrial levels of CO2 help keep the planet a few degrees warmer than it would be without the CO2.
Do you think that widely publicized number is wrong?
...or do you think that doubling the CO2 concentration won't have a similar effect?

I believe you’re referring to earth’s emission temperature. The expected temperature of our planet can be can be found by knowing the heat we receive from the sun and using the Stefan–Boltzmann law to solve for the temperature at which that amount of heat is expected to radiate from the earth as black body radiation.

This method ignores any contribution by the greenhouse effect. Were earth’s atmosphere completely transparent to infrared radiation then we would expect the Stefan-Bolzmann law to give a good approximation of earth’s actual average surface temperature.

The answer (depending on the values used for earth’s albedo and solar irradiance) comes out to be about -18°C (just below zero Fahrenheit)—well below earth’s actual mean surface temperature of approximately +15°C. There is more than a thirty degree Centigrade difference between the expected temperature without any greenhouse gases and the actual temperature with greenhouse gases. This would be true before AGW.

The reasoning behind this is explained very well at this link and the calculations are also done in this post.

I’m afraid the tendency to question the effectiveness of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas comes from a desire to refute AGW rather than the more noble and scientific goal of understanding climate. CO2 as an effective greenhouse gas not only agrees with laboratory experiments involving its absorption spectrum, it helps explain earth’s radiation budget and ultimately gets us closer to understanding global climate.

~modest

[Flying Binghi]

Via modest -

I’m afraid the tendency to question the effectiveness of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas comes from a desire to refute AGW rather than the more noble and scientific goal of understanding climate. CO2 as an effective greenhouse gas not only agrees with laboratory experiments involving its absorption spectrum, it helps explain earth’s radiation budget and ultimately gets us closer to understanding global climate.

I guess there would be no problems if the AGW theorys stayed in the lab, problem is, we're having those theorys used to impose an economic stupidity of epic proportions on the world.

The AGW theorys re increased levels of CO2 and the effects have not stood up to real world observations, e.g. ice core data and the non warming of the last decade are a couple of examples.

[Cedars]

A sentence from a paper on climate change:

"Despite the media blitz over the latest IPCC report, the report provides no tangible evidence that CO2 is causing global warming. It assumes CO2 is the cause and computer model simulations are all based on that assumption."

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/research/global/geoev.pdf

Don J. Easterbrook, Professor, WWU: Home Page

Around page 8 he listed many events of dramatic temp changes, both up and down in very short times. Fig 5 shows the medieval warm period as warmer than today.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate...empRank_pg.gif

Its obvious that the lower temps are not isolated to the USA as any quick search on weather in europe, china, s.america, etc will show plenty of cold to wrap around the globe.

From 2002:
Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years - despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.06 degrees Celsius during the 20th century - making it unique among the Earth's continental landmasses, according to a paper published today in the online version of Nature.

Global Cooling In Antarctica

I am aware of no AGW climate model that predicted lower temps this year or in 2007. They are expensive toys that seem to work about as well as the math models used by wall street to assess risk.

Surfacestations.org has provided some insight (for me at least) as to the quality of data and questionable conditions surrounding these stations who we rely on to provide accurate temperature data. Besides the fact that large numbers of stations have been removed from the grid, I was shocked to see the majority of MN weather stations who provide data on surface temps rated a 4 or lower on the CRN Site Quality Rating.

2 = CRN 5 (error >= 5C)
14 = CRN 4 (error >= 2C)
4 = CRN 3 (error 1C)
4 = CRN 2
0 = CRN 1
2 had been closed in the 90s
4 not surveyed
1 needed re-survey so not included in rating list.

And thats just the MN stations.

526 have been surveyed (43.7%)
687 need to be surveyed

Only 13% come in with a CRN 1 or 2 rating.
19% have a CRN 3 rating
57% have a CRN 4 rating
12% have a CRN 5 rating

So 32% of the ratings fall between good and marginal.
69% have suspect data (in my opinion).

Several different reports of changes to the GISS temperatures over the last few years with changes further back shifted downward and changes closer to the present shifted upwards.

Specific station data shifted when quality issues arouse in other state stations. Apparently good data shifted upward .4-.6 F and the bad data shifted downward .15F (this happened in AZ).

How long (in seconds, minutes, hours) after the sun goes down does it take for a co2 molecule to begin shedding its warmth? How long before it is not retaining the (alleged) heat its absorbed in the day? Its not like CO2 is plutonium or uranium and self heating. These are teeny little things that are insignificant in the total of the atmospheric makeup. 38-39 of them floating around per 100,000 pieces of atmospheric stuff.

Dont you at least kinda wonder if whats being fed to us may be tainted, with or without intent?

[modest]

Originally Posted by Cedars

Fig 5 shows the medieval warm period as warmer than today.

For central Greenland.

Originally Posted by Cedars

I am aware of no AGW climate model that predicted lower temps this year or in 2007. They are expensive toys that seem to work about as well as the math models used by wall street to assess risk.

I'm not very familiar with climate models. Can you point out a link to one that shows a temperature (any temperature) predicted for 2007 or 2008?

Originally Posted by Cedars

How long (in seconds, minutes, hours) after the sun goes down does it take for a co2 molecule to begin shedding its warmth?

The surface and the lower atmosphere shed their warmth in the form of infrared radiation. That radiation is then either emitted into space and lost to the earth, or it is reflected back down to the surface and reabsorbed. The proportion of radiated heat that is retained over any given period of time rather than being lost to space depends on the composition of the atmosphere.

Where greenhouse gases are present, the temperature will persist longer at night and the overall equilibrium temperature (of day, night, month, season, year, etc.) will be greater than it would otherwise be (without greenhouse gases).

Originally Posted by Cedars

These are teeny little things that are insignificant in the total of the atmospheric makeup. 38-39 of them floating around per 100,000 pieces of atmospheric stuff.

If carbon dioxide made up a significant portion of our atmosphere then it's likely earth would be like Venus with average temps well above the melting point of aluminum or lead. Compared to that—I'd say it's the little changes we're interested in.

~modest

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by modest

For central Greenland.

So you didnt make it past page 8?

Originally Posted by modest

I'm not very familiar with climate models. Can you point out a link to one that shows a temperature (any temperature) predicted for 2007 or 2008?

Your not familiar with climate models?? I said I know of no climate model that predicted 2007/2008. You surely have that source as a proponent of AGW correct?

Originally Posted by modest

The surface and the lower atmosphere shed their warmth in the form of infrared radiation. That radiation is then either emitted into space and lost to the earth, or it is reflected back down to the surface and reabsorbed. The proportion of radiated heat that is retained over any given period of time rather than being lost to space depends on the composition of the atmosphere.

Where greenhouse gases are present, the temperature will persist longer at night and the overall equilibrium temperature (of day, night, month, season, year, etc.) will be greater than it would otherwise be (without greenhouse gases).

Well that might be the answer to some question. But its not an answer to mine.

How long (in seconds, minutes, hours) after the sun goes down does it take for a co2 molecule to begin shedding its warmth?

Thinking about it, probably starts breaking down even before the sun sets being as temps (in general) reach their peak hours before sunset.

Originally Posted by modest

If carbon dioxide made up a significant portion of our atmosphere then it's likely earth would be like Venus with average temps well above the melting point of aluminum or lead. Compared to that—I'd say it's the little changes we're interested in.

~modest

Here we go with the NON-comparison.

CO2 doesnt make up a significant portion of our atmosphere. Even with the increases noted its STILL not a significant portion of our atmosphere.

I am always disappointed when someone tosses around venus as an example to be compared with earth, when the moon is oh so much closer.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Interesting. What about this one?
Attachment 2563

Or this one, which assigns causality (or at least correlation) to solar activity?
Attachment 2564

What are you trying to show exactly?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Here's what's wrong with the data:
IPCC Scientists Caught Producing False Data To Push Global Warming
The chart you reference above was created with the incorrect data. 2008 was the coldest year in a long time, and global temperatures have been in an overall decline since 1996.

Again, the chart is from an article written in 2007. It's not incorrect data, it just doesn't include 2008. Also again, 2008 is only one year of data. AGW theory does not fall apart from one year of cold temps. The chart I posted reflects that and refutes the claim that temps have been declining since 1996.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Looks like the AlGorians can scrub that one from their list. Some new research from a pro AGWer -

(extract)
The persistence of coral reefs through geologic time – when temperatures were as much as 10-15°C warmer than at present, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 2 to 7 times higher than they are currently – provides substantive evidence that these marine entities can successfully adapt to a dramatically changing global environment.

(bolding mine)
Life can adapt to changing conditions, indeed. Life can also be annihilated by quick, massive changes such as super volcanoes or meteors. It's the time frame that is significant.

Thus, the recent die-off of many corals cannot be due solely, or even mostly, to global warming or the modest rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration over the course of the Industrial Revolution.[/COLOR][/I]

I agree. The vanishing coral reefs are due to many factors.

Coral reefs can be damaged by natural processes, such as storms, but they are increasingly at risk from human activities. Oil spills and pollutants can threaten entire reefs. Excessive nutrients from land sources, such as sewage and agricultural fertilizers, promote the growth of algae that can smother corals. Other organisms harmful to corals, such as crown-of-thorns starfish, multiply when the species that prey on them are removed.

Coral productivity is also decreased when land developments for agriculture, industry, and housing increase sediment transported from land into coastal waters as runoff. This clouds the waters and blocks light necessary for photosynthesis by algae living in corals. Corals face serious risks from various diseases. When corals are stressed, they often expel the algal symbionts that are critical to their health in a process commonly known as coral bleaching. One known cause of coral bleaching is increases in ocean temperatures, possibly due to global warming.

Why are coral reefs in peril and what is being done to protect them?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by engineerdude

Until somebody comes up with a model that works, all we can say for sure is that the effects of CO2 on planetary climate have been overstated.

Many models work, but no models work perfectly for every scenario. It's simply unrealistic to expect that we can model such a chaotic system with 100% accuracy.

That said, here's a good read on climate models and why they are efficient and useful.

Though the models are complicated, rigorous tests with real-world data hone them into robust tools that allow scientists to experiment with the climate in a way not otherwise possible. For example, when scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NASA’s division spearheading climate modeling efforts, put measurements of volcanic particles from Mount Pinatubo’s 1991 eruption into their climate models well after the event, the models reported that Earth would have cooled by around 0.5°C a year or so later. The prediction matched cooling that had been observed around the globe after the eruption.



Graph comparing aerosol optical thickness, measured temperature, and modeled temperature during and after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo.

As the models reconstruct events that match the climate record, researchers gain confidence that the models are accurately duplicating the complex interactions that drive Earth’s climate. Scientists then experiment with the models to gain insight into what is driving climate change. By experimenting with the models—removing greenhouse gases emitted by the burning of fossil fuels or changing the intensity of the Sun to see how each influences the climate— scientists can use the models to explain Earth’s current climate and predict its future climate. So far, the only way scientists can get the models to match the rise in temperature seen over the past century is to include the greenhouse gases that humans have put into the atmosphere. This means that, according to the models, humans are responsible for most of the warming observed during the second half of the twentieth century.

Global Warming : Feature Articles