Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11
Send Topic Print
Tired of stupid AGW denialism? (Read 9686 times)
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #45 - Mar 19th, 2017 at 10:48pm
 
Spectrometry both terrestial and satellite gives the lie to that tosh.

Read this crap from that paper:
Quote:
Since the popularization of the information about a hypothetical anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in 1988, AGW proponents have been arguing that the carbon dioxide causes an increase in the total absorptivity of the atmosphere1, 2


The authors wanted to show AGW did not exist and looked for ways to show that. Peer reviewed (doubt it) or not that is bad science.

The theory has more than arguments, it has data. Temperature readings, spectrometric data, sea level readings etc.


Desperate Lee.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 19th, 2017 at 10:59pm by Jovial Monk »  

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #46 - Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:18am
 
Oh dear oh dear.

The paper references a book Slaying the Sky Dragon - Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory which shows the paper is not a search for truth.

Anyway, found the book on Amazon. Oh dear oh dear. Oh my.

Some comments from readers:
Quote:
I like reading verifiable reports, unlike reading news articles / press releases from the criminals who pushed Global Warming on the rest is the planet.


Very rational, very scientific.

It gets better.

Quote:
Finally, the truth is told backed up with actual facts. Global warming is pure fiction invented for liberals to gain power and control over the masses.


Do those “actual facts” include the melting of polar sea ice, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the retreat of nearly all glaciers, hmmm? Do the facts include wild/bush fire seasons getting longer and longer and the fires bigger and more destructive?

I have left the best till last, oh boy!
Quote:
The fact taught in the book that real greenhouses stay warm not because of any transmissive properties of the glass, but simply because of the blocking of the cooling breezes is a key fact that (a) even grade school children will understand when taught and (b) should completely neutralize the "AGW" propagandists.


Greenhouses are warm because they block “cooling breezes.” What tosh! What 100% pure garbage! How can anyone, even a denier, come up with baloney like that? Such poor science! Pseudoscience!

A “cooling breeze” is a cooling breeze to us because it evaporates sweat from our skin. Plants don’t sweat so to them a breeze is a breeze is a breeze. I do have a little walk–in greenhouse 1.8m long. It is always warmer inside the greenhouse than outside. Every greenhouse is!

Poor, poor desperate Lees.


Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21502
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #47 - Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:07pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:18am:
Do those “actual facts” include the melting of polar sea ice, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the retreat of nearly all glaciers, hmmm? Do the facts include wild/bush fire seasons getting longer and longer and the fires bigger and more destructive?



Are they proof of AGW or merely warming. Or restricted burning seasons due to "environmental" concerns. WinkJovial Monk wrote on Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:18am:
I do have a little walk–in greenhouse 1.8m long. It is always warmer inside the greenhouse than outside. Every greenhouse is!



And does it have convective breezes? Or is there no breeze?Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:18am:
A “cooling breeze” is a cooling breeze to us because it evaporates sweat from our skin.



And a "warming breeze" doesn't evaporate the sweat from our skin? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21502
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #48 - Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:14pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 19th, 2017 at 10:48pm:
Spectrometry both terrestial and satellite gives the lie to that tosh.


Please quote the scientific article that shows Spectrometry proves CO2 causes AGW.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #49 - Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:57pm
 
You might trust this one:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-al...

Plenty of REAL science papers if you care to look.,
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21502
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #50 - Mar 20th, 2017 at 9:33pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:57pm:
You might trust this one:

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/4-carbon-dioxide-is-already-absorbing-almost-al...

Plenty of REAL science papers if you care to look.,



Yeah. just look at all that warming the extra CO2 is causing? From the joannenova thread you picked.

...

It looks to be an inverse relationship to temperature. (Not saying it is, just looks that way) Wink

...

Image courtesy NASA.

CO2 causes AGW. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 20th, 2017 at 9:41pm by lee »  
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Moderator
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 121939
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #51 - Mar 20th, 2017 at 9:36pm
 
Nice post Lee,

keep up the good work.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #52 - Mar 20th, 2017 at 9:58pm
 
JoNova is such a world authority on AGW  Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #53 - Mar 21st, 2017 at 7:08am
 
So Lee now accepts CO2 causes global warming.
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #54 - Mar 21st, 2017 at 8:15am
 
What I noticed when looking through the list of hits is that deniers (and not just JoNova) have now accepted CO2 causes warming and have retreated to saying that more CO2 won’t cause more warming. Yeah, just like in winter putting another blanket on your bed doesn’t keep you warmer  Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

Let us have a look at a real paper (Booby, you might as well stop reading because it will be above your limited comprehension. Will be above Lees’ too but he will make a silly one liner to pretend to understand and refute it.

...

Note the 100K year cycle of major ice ages? No cooling for quite a while yet!

Quote:
Humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere by about 40% over the past 150 years.


Now let us look at the spectrometry:
...
Quote:
Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).


(Booby, you see how Yogi was wrong about NO? GREAT discussion about your videos at PA by the way, just great!)

Lees could not answer how the absorption and re-emission of IR by CO2 (etc) heated the earth. I even gave him a clue! The IR that a molecule of GHG absorbs is headed outwards. When the IR is re-emitted it can go in any random direction so at least half will be emitted back down and that is how GHGs warm the globe. My 4yo great niece understands this.

Now let us look at the IR spectrum from space:
...
Quote:
Figure 3: Change in spectrum from 1970 to 1996 due to trace gases. 'Brightness temperature' indicates equivalent blackbody temperature (Harries 2001).


Quote:
The increased energy reaching the Earth's surface from the increased greenhouse effect causes it to warm. So how do we quantify the amount of warming that it causes?

Radiative Transfer Models

Radiative transfer models use fundamental physical equations and observations to translate this increased downward radiation into a radiative forcing, which effectively tells us how much increased energy is reaching the Earth's surface. Studies have shown that these radiative transfer models match up with the observed increase in energy reaching the Earth's surface with very good accuracy (Puckrin 2004). Scientists can then derive a formula for calculating the radiative forcing based on the change in the amount of each greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (Myhre 1998). Each greenhouse gas has a different radiative forcing formula, but the most important is that of CO2:

dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

Where 'dF' is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter, 'C' is the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and 'Co' is the reference CO2concentration. Normally the value of Co is chosen at the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv.

Now that we know how to calculate the radiative forcing associated with an increase in CO2, how do we determine the associated temperature change?


BTW, ln() is the natural logarithm. You can look it up.

Quote:
Climate sensitivity
As the name suggests, climate sensitivity is an estimate of how sensitive the climate is to an increase in a radiative forcing. The climate sensitivity value tells us how much the planet will warm or cool in response to a given radiative forcing change. As you might guess, the temperature change is proportional to the change in the amount of energy reaching the Earth's surface (the radiative forcing), and the climate sensitivity is the coefficient of proportionality:

dT = λ*dF

Where 'dT' is the change in the Earth's average surface temperature, 'λ' is the climate sensitivity, usually with units in Kelvin or degrees Celsius per Watts per square meter (°C/[W/m2]), and 'dF' is the radiative forcing.

So now to calculate the change in temperature, we just need to know the climate sensitivity. Studies have given a possible range of values of 2-4.5°C warming for a doubling of CO2 (IPCC 2007). Using these values it's a simple task to put the climate sensitivity into the units we need, using the formulas above:

λ = dT/dF = dT/(5.35 * ln[2])= [2 to 4.5°C]/3.7 = 0.54 to 1.2°C/(W/m2)

Using this range of possible climate sensitivity values, we can plug λ into the formulas above and calculate the expected temperature change. The atmospheric CO2 concentration as of 2010 is about 390 ppmv. This gives us the value for 'C', and for 'Co' we'll use the pre-industrial value of 280 ppmv.

dT = λ*dF = λ * 5.35 * ln(390/280) = 1.8 * λ

Plugging in our possible climate sensitivity values, this gives us an expected surface temperature change of about 1–2.2°C of global warming, with a most likely value of 1.4°C. However, this tells us the equilibrium temperature. In reality it takes a long time to heat up the oceans due to their thermal inertia. For this reason there is currently a planetary energy imbalance, and the surface has only warmed about 0.8°C. In other words, even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state


cont’d
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #55 - Mar 21st, 2017 at 8:26am
 
Quote:
(confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'.

Of course this is just the temperature change we expect to observe from the CO2 radiative forcing. Humans cause numerous other radiative forcings, both positive (e.g. other greenhouse gases) and negative (e.g. sulfate aerosols which block sunlight). Fortunately, the negative and positive forcings are roughly equal and cancel each other out, and the natural forcings over the past half century have also been approximately zero (Meehl 2004), so the radiative forcing from CO2 alone gives us a good estimate as to how much we expect to see the Earth's surface temperature change.


So aerosols cause cooling that balances the warming from the minor GHGs. If we were to get massive “burps” of methane—a VERY powerful GHG, just look at the spectrometry graphs—as the tundra melts then methane forcing will also force warming. Not a nice prospect to look forward to!

...
Quote:
Figure 4: Global average radiative forcing in 2005 (best estimates and 5 to 95% uncertainty ranges) with respect to 1750 (IPCC AR4).


Just for those skeptics:
Quote:
We can also calculate the most conservative possible temperature change in response to the CO2 increase. Some climate scientists who are touted as 'skeptics' have suggested the actual climate sensitivity could be closer to 1°C for a doubling of CO2, or 0.27°C/(W/m2). Although numerous studies have ruled out climate sensitivity values this low, it's worth calculating how much of a temperature change this unrealistically low value would generate. Using the same formulas as above,

dT = 1.8 * λ = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C.

Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature.


Quote:
Conservation of Energy

Huber and Knutti (2011) published a paper in Nature Geoscience, Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance.  They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget using the measurements discussed above, and summarize their methodology:

"We use a massive ensemble of the Bern2.5D climate model of intermediate complexity, driven by bottom-up estimates of historic radiative forcing F, and constrained by a set of observations of the surface warming T since 1850 and heat uptake Q since the 1950s....Between 1850 and 2010, the climate system accumulated a total net forcing energy of 140 x 1022 J with a 5-95% uncertainty range of 95-197 x 1022 J, corresponding to an average net radiative forcing of roughly 0.54 (0.36-0.76)Wm-2."

Essentially, Huber and Knutti take the estimated global heat content increase since 1850, calculate how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation.  The authors note that more than 85% of the global heat uptake (Q) has gone into the oceans, including increasing the heat content of the deeper oceans, although their model only accounts for the upper 700 meters.


Quote:
Figure 3 is a similar graphic to that presented in Meehl et al. (2004), comparing the average global surface warming simulated by the model using natural forcings only (blue), anthropogenic forcings only (red), and the combination of the two (gray).


Fig3:
https://skepticalscience.com/pics/KnuttiAttributionGraph.png
Quote:
Figure 3: Time series of anthropogenic and natural forcings contributions to total simulated and observed global temperature change. The coloured shadings denote the 5-95% uncertainty range.


5–95% confidence. Hmmmm must be a two tailed test, eh Lees?  Wink

Quote:
As expected, Huber and Knutti find that greenhouse gases contributed to substantial warming since 1850, and aerosols had a significant cooling effect:

Quote:
"Greenhouse gases contributed 1.31°C (0.85-1.76°C) to the increase, that is 159% (106-212%) of the total warming. The cooling effect of the direct and indirect aerosol forcing is about -0.85°C (-1.48 to -0.30°C). The warming induced by tropospheric ozone and solar variability are of similar size (roughly 0.2°C). The contributions of stratospheric water vapour and ozone, volcanic eruptions, and organic and black carbon are small."


The paper being discussed is:
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effe...

cont’d
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 21st, 2017 at 1:54pm by Jovial Monk »  

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #56 - Mar 21st, 2017 at 8:26am
 
AGW is worse than we think:
Quote:
Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming).  The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming.

"It is thus extremely likely (>95% probability) that the greenhouse gas induced warming since the mid-twentieth century was larger than the observed rise in global average temperatures, and extremely likely that anthropogenic forcings were by far the dominant cause of warming. The natural forcing contribution since 1950 is near zero."


Other studies have shown that too.


ahahahaha
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 21st, 2017 at 2:03pm by Jovial Monk »  

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
Jovial Monk
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Dogs not cats!

Posts: 51474
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #57 - Mar 21st, 2017 at 10:36am
 
lee wrote on Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:07pm:
Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:18am:
Do those “actual facts” include the melting of polar sea ice, the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the retreat of nearly all glaciers, hmmm? Do the facts include wild/bush fire seasons getting longer and longer and the fires bigger and more destructive?



Are they proof of AGW or merely warming. Or restricted burning seasons due to "environmental" concerns. WinkJovial Monk wrote on Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:18am:
I do have a little walk–in greenhouse 1.8m long. It is always warmer inside the greenhouse than outside. Every greenhouse is!



And does it have convective breezes? Or is there no breeze?Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 20th, 2017 at 7:18am:
A “cooling breeze” is a cooling breeze to us because it evaporates sweat from our skin.



And a "warming breeze" doesn't evaporate the sweat from our skin? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


They are proof of AGW available to anyone. Just some don’t want to look. From the BuMet report:
Quote:
Around 80 per cent of the additional energy accumulated by the climate system is accounted for by the warming of the upper 2000 m of the ocean. At least 75 per cent of the ocean warming occurred in the southern hemisphere, predominantly between latitudes 30° S and 50° S.


So most of the extra warming goes into the sea. No wonder sea ice extent is decreasing.

I mentioned the “cooling breezes” because that is what the silly book mentioned. A warming breeze would do what, you reckon Lees?
Back to top
 

OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now!
OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now!

Topics in the right MRB!
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21502
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #58 - Mar 21st, 2017 at 3:02pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21st, 2017 at 7:08am:
So Lee now accepts CO2 causes global warming.



nope. it may case global warming ALL other things being equal. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
lee
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 21502
Gender: male
Re: Tired of stupid AGW denialism?
Reply #59 - Mar 21st, 2017 at 3:07pm
 
Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21st, 2017 at 8:15am:
Quote:
Figure 2: Spectrum of the greenhouse radiation measured at the surface. Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out, showing the contributions of other greenhouse gases (Evans 2006).


No mention of it increasing or causing AGW, merely that it shows all other GHG's apart from water vapour. Wink

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 21st, 2017 at 8:15am:
Lees could not answer how the absorption and re-emission of IR by CO2 (etc) heated the earth. I even gave him a clue! The IR that a molecule of GHG absorbs is headed outwards. When the IR is re-emitted it can go in any random direction so at least half will be emitted back down and that is how GHGs warm the globe. My 4yo great niece understands this.



Please show the study that says at least 50% will go back down, if it is random. Wink
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11
Send Topic Print