Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion

[knocker]

And on that subject

 

Energy storage getting real

http://johnquiggin.com/2014/08/19/energy-storage-getting-real/

[jonboy]

So, the climate is controlled by f10.7 and EUV? How big (if you accept it) is the GH effect on this planet?

 

negligble and certainly not worth the billions being spent on carbon capture and the like. Now if you talk about money spent on reducing pollution, soot, throwing waste into our oceans etc then I'm all for it. In my opinion 95% of climate change drivers are not in the control of man and we should not waste time and effort trying to change something we can't influence but we do need to fundamentally understand what creates these cycles so that we react in appropriate ways to these cyclical changes

[knocker]

negligble and certainly not worth the billions being spent on carbon capture and the like. Now if you talk about money spent on reducing pollution, soot, throwing waste into our oceans etc then I'm all for it. In my opinion 95% of climate change drivers are not in the control of man and we should not waste time and effort trying to change something we can't influence but we do need to fundamentally understand what creates these cycles so that we react in appropriate ways to these cyclical changes

 

I'm still interested in the answer to the question I asked before.

 

Turning the question on it's head. Given that the greenhouse effect is not in question what are the reason(s) why a massive increase in atmospheric CO₂  doesn't cause warming?

[jonboy]

I'm still interested in the answer to the question I asked before.

 

Turning the question on it's head. Given that the greenhouse effect is not in question what are the reason(s) why a massive increase in atmospheric CO₂  doesn't cause warming?

 

Perhaps because the greenhouse effect theory is wrong. Perhaps the impact is so negligble that a massive increase has no effect. Perhaps we should go back to basics and reassess the theory. Perhaps a large element of the increase is driven by temperature and not the other way round. Just my humble opinion

[Devonian]

negligble and certainly not worth the billions being spent on carbon capture and the like. Now if you talk about money spent on reducing pollution, soot, throwing waste into our oceans etc then I'm all for it. In my opinion 95% of climate change drivers are not in the control of man and we should not waste time and effort trying to change something we can't influence but we do need to fundamentally understand what creates these cycles so that we react in appropriate ways to these cyclical changes

 

The natural GH effect is at least ~33C. Our activities might add 2-4C to that.

 

But, if you disregard that then, yes, you're going to think it's not a problem.

Edited August 20, 2014 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

If you talk total TSI with a variance of 0.1% and equate that then you are wrong simply because the components that affect climate ie the F10 and EUV wavelengths can vary between 10 /30% or more between high and low cycles these are not small changes as you assert and therefore your statement is false.

 

Equally I could argue that given that ozone production / reduction is greatly influenced by EUV that perhaps the greater portion of the ozone hole over the southern hemisphere and subsequent reduction was in fact down to solar influences and not man's but that would only set the hares running!!!

You could 'argue' about a lot of things, JB; but, none of those will prove that CO₂ has suddenly ceased being a GHG...We know it's a GHG; we know it's increasing, due to us. Ergo, we know it's warming the planet...

 

What we don't know, is that all these 'as yet unquantified' solar effects do anything like what it says on the tin...Or anything like Monckton would have us believe...

Edited August 20, 2014 by Mrs Trellis

[knocker]

Talking of Monckton some light relief

 

The Monckton Files and his rap sheet.

 

http://desmogblog.com/2014/08/19/monckton-files-threatwatch-1-barry-bickmore

[Methuselah]

Perhaps because the greenhouse effect theory is wrong. Perhaps the impact is so negligble that a massive increase has no effect. Perhaps we should go back to basics and reassess the theory. Perhaps a large element of the increase is driven by temperature and not the other way round. Just my humble opinion

Then again, the entire edifice of quantum theory might also be 'wrong'?

[jonboy]

This assumes earth is a greenhouse which it is not. Most experiments demonstrating CO2's so called green house effect are carried out within glass jar's with air or concentrated CO2 show me an experiment that has air with a concentration of say 300ppm and then one with a concentration with say 400ppm and show me that we have the predicted temperature increase.

Gore and the like use a jar full of CO2 and a Jar full of air hardly a true comparrision because if our atmosphere was CO2 we wouldn't be here. Equally it has more to do with the density of CO2 compared to air ( you could use argon and get the same if not slightly higher results than CO2) a Greenhouse/glass jar prevents natural mixing which our atmosphere allows so I'm sorry but I do not get CO2 being a green house gas. We don't live in a greenhouse we live on planet earth.

[Devonian]

This assumes earth is a greenhouse which it is not. Most experiments demonstrating CO2's so called green house effect are carried out within glass jar's with air or concentrated CO2 show me an experiment that has air with a concentration of say 300ppm and then one with a concentration with say 400ppm and show me that we have the predicted temperature increase.

Gore and the like use a jar full of CO2 and a Jar full of air hardly a true comparrision because if our atmosphere was CO2 we wouldn't be here. Equally it has more to do with the density of CO2 compared to air ( you could use argon and get the same if not slightly higher results than CO2) a Greenhouse/glass jar prevents natural mixing which our atmosphere allows so I'm sorry but I do not get CO2 being a green house gas. We don't live in a greenhouse we live on planet earth.

 

If you reject the reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas you really are out there with the dragons. I'm not sure what anyone could do to help you tbh - except continuing to state reality to you .

[BornFromTheVoid]

This assumes earth is a greenhouse which it is not. Most experiments demonstrating CO2's so called green house effect are carried out within glass jar's with air or concentrated CO2 show me an experiment that has air with a concentration of say 300ppm and then one with a concentration with say 400ppm and show me that we have the predicted temperature increase.

Gore and the like use a jar full of CO2 and a Jar full of air hardly a true comparrision because if our atmosphere was CO2 we wouldn't be here. Equally it has more to do with the density of CO2 compared to air ( you could use argon and get the same if not slightly higher results than CO2) a Greenhouse/glass jar prevents natural mixing which our atmosphere allows so I'm sorry but I do not get CO2 being a green house gas. We don't live in a greenhouse we live on planet earth.

 

The planet would be a frozen wasteland without GhGs though?

 

Those experiments you describe aren't most experiments, not by a long shot. They're more like the things you show to school children to demonstrate the basics of some scientific concept. Like showing big blobs of magma rising to the surface for volcanoes and such, only useful for getting the general idea across, but not perfectly, scientifically accurate.

 

I've already described (I think to you?) the spectral measurements taken from satellites and the surface that show how our CO2 emissions are affecting the solar radiation reaching the surface and being emitted back to space. CO2 absorbs and emits along specific wavelengths of light. These can be measured, have been measured, and have shown to be changing because of increased GhGs. That's direct, clear, empirical evidence. Not the kind of thing that can simply be dismissed

 

Rather than assuming something is wrong because it doesn't make sense to you, why not try a little harder to learn about it?

[jonboy]

Because i have a different viewpoint I am now a dragon who needs to get reality and must try harder and learn that my views are incorrect. Don't you just love these discussions!!!!

[Devonian]

Because i have a different viewpoint I am now a dragon who needs to get reality and must try harder and learn that my views are incorrect. Don't you just love these discussions!!!!

 

But, aren't you claiming to be right?

 

I'm here because I like to test my views but if your claim is that well understood science is wrong, that f10.7 and UV control the climate and the GH effect doesn't exists then such extraordinary claims need more than assertions to stand up to critical assessment...

 

Oh, and your views are those of the 'dragons'.

[jonboy]

But why name call them at all you don't see me doing that to those who have opposite views to mine!! In regard to the ongoing research into the effect of F10.7 and EUV this is begining to show that these are the main drivers and at this moment of time I believe this is the area that will prove critical in our understanding of what drives our climate to change

[jonboy]

This link might help some understand the complexities of how solar affects our climate

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

[Devonian]

But why name call them at all you don't see me doing that to those who have opposite views to mine!! In regard to the ongoing research into the effect of F10.7 and EUV this is begining to show that these are the main drivers and at this moment of time I believe this is the area that will prove critical in our understanding of what drives our climate to change

 

But, you still think the GH effect is negligible rather then the 30C plus it's known to be?

 

Have you read widely around this subject? have you read the IPPC reports, or the book I mentioned (one of many on the subject)?

 

It's known that there are greenhouse gasses, it's known the GH effect is 30C plus. I'm sorry but I doubt (go on, say otherwise) you have done the reading I mention, or noted the profuse evidence harder working posters than me, like BFTV, have provided...

[BornFromTheVoid]

Because i have a different viewpoint I am now a dragon who needs to get reality and must try harder and learn that my views are incorrect. Don't you just love these discussions!!!!

 

C'mon now. Claiming that a simple demonstration is equal to most experiments on the greenhouse effect is a lazy statement. Everyone here is of course entitled to their view, but backing up ones view seems a tad more difficult. These are supposed to be scientific discussions, not just "this is my opinion, no go away and don't challenge it!".

 

Have you any views on the empirical evidence of an enhanced greenhouse effect?

 

Btw, I, and imagine most others here, absolutely agree that variations in solar activity has an impact. However, the biggest of those impacts, based on the majority of the research and evidence, is regional (mostly from UV) and while the effect on global temperatures is far from negligible, it pales in comparison to the changes in GhGs.

 

Yes, it's all complicated, and yes, we will discover new things, but that doesn't take away from what we know, can observe and can measure about the influence of increasing GhG concentrations.

[Devonian]

This link might help some understand the complexities of how solar affects our climate

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

 

Actually I think it's all very interesting - you'll find no one here who denies the sun, 1, provides nearly all the energy in the atmosphere, 2, can have climate changing effects. Would that you could be so open minded about greenhouse gasses and changes to said...

[knocker]

This link might help some understand the complexities of how solar affects our climate

 

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/

 

As has been said by others nobody is doubting that sun is part of the equation but I'm struggling to understand why you refute the radiative properties of CO₂

I mean how can they know whether a new gas is a GhG or not? Well.....

 

New Greenhouse Gas Proves More Powerful Than CO2 Perfluorotributylamine: A novel long-lived greenhouse gas

 

[1] Perfluorinated compounds impact the Earth's radiative balance. Perfluorotributylamine (PFTBA) belongs to the perfluoroalkyl amine class of compounds; these have not yet been investigated as long-lived greenhouse gases (LLGHGs). Atmospheric measurements of PFTBA made in Toronto, ON, detected a mixing ratio of 0.18 parts per trillion by volume. An instantaneous radiative efficiency of 0.86 W m^−2 ppb^−1 was calculated from its IR absorption spectra, and a lower limit of 500 years was estimated for its atmospheric lifetime. PFTBA has the highest radiative efficiency of any compound detected in the atmosphere. If the concentration in Toronto is representative of the change in global background concentration since the preindustrial period, then the radiative forcing of PFTBA is 1.5 × 10^−4 W m^−2. We calculate the global warming potential of PFTBA over a 100 year time horizon to be 7100. Detection of PFTBA demonstrates that perfluoroalkyl amines are a class of LLGHGs worthy of future study.

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058010/abstract

Edited August 20, 2014 by knocker

[jonboy]

There are many components of our atmosphere that have radiative properties and each in some way enables the earth over millenium to sustain life in its many and varied forms. History tells us that sometimes the planet has been significantly warmer and sometimes significantly cooler. To say that one component and only one component that makes up between 0.0003% to present day 0.0004% of our atmosphere changes our climate just doesn't make sense especially if the models you use do not demonstrate the reality. We don't live in a greenhouse the physics and dynamics of our atmosphere are not fully understood and it is only really since the space age have we started to understand the external forces that impact our small planet.

 

So please stop trying to lecture me I am open minded but still believe that CO2 is not the enemy of the human race

[Devonian]

There are many components of our atmosphere that have radiative properties and each in some way enables the earth over millenium to sustain life in its many and varied forms. History tells us that sometimes the planet has been significantly warmer and sometimes significantly cooler. To say that one component and only one component that makes up between 0.0003% to present day 0.0004% of our atmosphere changes our climate just doesn't make sense especially if the models you use do not demonstrate the reality. We don't live in a greenhouse the physics and dynamics of our atmosphere are not fully understood and it is only really since the space age have we started to understand the external forces that impact our small planet.

 

So please stop trying to lecture me I am open minded but still believe that CO2 is not the enemy of the human race

 

Actually CO2 within a smidgeon of .04% of the atmosphere...Indeed this ppm business might well be confusing since 400ppm is in fact nearly half a part per thousand...Co2 isn't as small a fraction as a 'ppm' figure might suggest...

 

And you're still to accept the science that is known or to indicate whether you are read up on this subject.

 

Edit: check my maths someone

Edited August 20, 2014 by Devonian

[jonboy]

Actually CO2 within a smidgeon of .04% of the atmosphere...Indeed this ppm business might well be confusing since 400ppm is in fact nearly half a part per thousand...Co2 isn't as small a fraction as a 'ppm' figure might suggest...

 

And you're still to accept the science that is known or to indicate whether you are read up on this subject.

 

Edit: check my maths someone

 

I don't pretend to be fully read up on the subject but to use that to try and assert that my opinion is incorrect is plain wrong. I could ask if you have read up and fully understand my side of the arguement because if not i could equally assert your arguements are wrong for the same reason you assert i'm wrong!!!

[Devonian]

I've certainly spent far to much time reading the likes of WUWT, that 'Goddard' fellow and the rest....

 

As to the 'ppm' bit, I just thought it was interesting to ponder if expressing a concentration by 'ppm' as opposed to 'ppt' gives a different impression.

[mikeworst]

Agreed jonboy, of course co2 and the rest of the gasses in our atmosphere absorb and emit certain wavelengths of the light spectrum and this is measurable in the lab but any effect on the real world is not except by theoretical modelling. These models are wont to tell us that the additional (very small) amount of extra back radiation with increasing "greenhouse gas" will increase water vapour that in turn will amplify the back radiation and warm the surface even more. It seems however that this increase in water vapour is not happening and that possibly the theory needs revisiting. Not too long ago there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth when the possibility of the sun controlling the climate in some way was mentioned ,there still is, but the main stream has now softened to this idea not only because there is palio evidence to support this but the fact that their pet theory appears to have no legs. Whatever the case may be if it is the sun we will find out in the next few years if not sooner.

[knocker]

Okay that's fine. What mechanism is the sun using to keep the surface of the earth at 15C?