Page 9 of 43 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181934 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 856

Thread: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

  1. #161
    Stario's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oh - ooooh! totus floreo
    Posts
    1,628

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava
    At least you are admitting by ignoring my question that you posted statements without any scientific basis. But it doesn't seem to have hurt your oversized ego. You keep ignoring my message that this lag is normally expected by any scientist and that CO2 feedback is still a major explanation for previous temperature change.

    FIGURE 2


    Climate sensitivity is the effect on global temperature of a change in forcing, in this case, the forcing is a increase in CO2. You can read the IPCC definition here. This accepts the assumption that as CO2 increases the temperature also increases. The Andrews et al., albeit done using a model, shows that when the authors used empirical data the CO2 increase was "substantially lower."

    Don’t forget, this is for just two variables, sea-ice and Sea Surface Temperatures (SST). Is it possible that with many more empirical values the climate sensitivity would go to zero? That is the empirical evidence based on studies & decrease in sensitivity over the last few years (Figure2).

    The worrying trend is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero is being ignored.

    I am not proposing there is no greenhouse effect. What I am saying is that the empirical evidence shows that an increase in CO2 DOES NOT cause an increase in temperature. It also appears that the entire greenhouse can be explained by water vapor. Again, it's worth noting that variation in water vapor is JUST ONE VARIABLE in a complex array of variables that cause climate change; which can result in both global warming or global cooling.

  2. #162
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,161

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Hard to tell but you seem to tracking back to Dr Ball a man deemed by law to non credible to force a scientific libel suit

    https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/1...take-seriously

    unsurprisingly the man does like to burnish is nominal creditably

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ball
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  3. #163
    Stario's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oh - ooooh! totus floreo
    Posts
    1,628

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    He is clearly a heretic for not listening to the church of global warming. ༼ つ ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° ༽つ

  4. #164
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,161

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Or rather as typical his statistical rigor is less than credible
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  5. #165
    B. W.'s Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    2,672

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Al Gore said that this would not happen:

    https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/04/...ent-of-normal/

  6. #166
    conon394's Avatar hoi polloi
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Colfax WA, neat I have a barn and 49 acres - I have 2 horses, 15 chickens - but no more pigs
    Posts
    13,161

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    No he did not likely. Any one data point is weather not climate. Show me a paper that puts a one year event in the context of the long term drought and low snow pack.
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB Dromikaites

    'One day when I fly with my hands - up down the sky, like a bird'

    But if the cause be not good, the king himself hath a heavy reckoning to make, when all those legs and arms and heads, chopped off in battle, shall join together at the latter day and cry all 'We died at such a place; some swearing, some crying for surgeon, some upon their wives left poor behind them, some upon the debts they owe, some upon their children rawly left.

    Hyperides of Athens: We know, replied he, that Antipater is good, but we (the Demos of Athens) have no need of a master at present, even a good one.

  7. #167
    Genava's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    791

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stario View Post

    FIGURE 2


    Climate sensitivity is the effect on global temperature of a change in forcing, in this case, the forcing is a increase in CO2. You can read the IPCC definition here. This accepts the assumption that as CO2 increases the temperature also increases. The Andrews et al., albeit done using a model, shows that when the authors used empirical data the CO2 increase was "substantially lower."

    Don’t forget, this is for just two variables, sea-ice and Sea Surface Temperatures (SST). Is it possible that with many more empirical values the climate sensitivity would go to zero? That is the empirical evidence based on studies & decrease in sensitivity over the last few years (Figure2).

    The worrying trend is that the growing level of empirical evidence that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero is being ignored.

    I am not proposing there is no greenhouse effect. What I am saying is that the empirical evidence shows that an increase in CO2 DOES NOT cause an increase in temperature. It also appears that the entire greenhouse can be explained by water vapor. Again, it's worth noting that variation in water vapor is JUST ONE VARIABLE in a complex array of variables that cause climate change; which can result in both global warming or global cooling.
    This figure comes from Nicola Scafetta, a denier that tried multiple times to mislead his public with data manipulation. He simply cherry-picked from the very high numbers of publications and cherry-picked the values in the range suggested by the publications to create this trend artificially. If you have no critical thinking and laziness to check, you can fell to this kind of easy lie. Thankfully, some people have other motivations in their life than politics and ideological war, I will show another source to prove the cherry-picking.

    Here the paper from Knutti et al. with the climate sensitivity from the literature: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3017

    If you do not know how to pass the paywall, carbonbrief gives you a summary here with the figure: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...te-sensitivity

    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  8. #168
    Stario's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oh - ooooh! totus floreo
    Posts
    1,628

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava
    If you do not know how to pass the paywall, carbonbrief gives you a summary here with the figure: https://www.carbonbrief.org/explaine...te-sensitivity
    This does not disprove my earlier post- that is empirical evidence suggests the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero (Figure 2; in my previous post).

    Although very pretty, your graph "Equilibrium climate sensitivity" can easily be explained by water vapour & the other variables mentioned in your link.

    As I said in my previous post, I am not proposing there is no greenhouse effect. What I am saying is that the empirical evidence, shows that an increase in CO2 DOES NOT cause an increase in temperature. It also appears that the entire greenhouse can be explained by water vapor. Again, it's worth noting that variation in water vapor is JUST ONE VARIABLE in a complex array of variables that cause climate change (the above link you post also supports this view as it mentions many other variables causing climate change); which can result in both global warming or global cooling.

  9. #169
    Genava's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    791

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stario View Post
    This does not disprove my earlier post- that is empirical evidence suggests the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero (Figure 2; in my previous post).
    Yes it is. Clearly your graph comes from a misleading denier that cherry-picked the data. This is a clear confirmation bias. I know it hurts you but this is the truth.

    Empirical evidence suggests the climate sensitivity has a far lower probability to be equal to zero.

    The whole demonstration from your figure is BS.

    Although very pretty, your graph "Equilibrium climate sensitivity" can easily be explained by water vapour & the other variables mentioned in your link.
    This is no sense. ECS is mandatory the equilibrium point after feedback processes (water vapour, ice sheet albedo, heat exchange with deep ocean etc. etc.). Water vapour content in the atmosphere depends on the temperature of the atmosphere, it doesn't change alone.

    It also appears that the entire greenhouse can be explained by water vapor. Again, it's worth noting that variation in water vapor is JUST ONE VARIABLE in a complex array of variables that cause climate change (the above link you post also supports this view as it mentions many other variables causing climate change); which can result in both global warming or global cooling.
    Actually, we see clearly the effect from CO2:

    Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

    The measured spectrum in Fig. 1a shows Planck function behaviour near the centre of the fundamental (ν2) CO2 band and exhibits a departure from a Planck curve in the P- and R-branches of this feature, indicating that the emission in these branches is sub-saturated and could increase with increasing CO2. Water-vapour features, continuum emission, and O3 emission are seen in the infrared window between 800 cm−1 and 1,200 cm−1, and lesser features from CH4 are seen around 1,300 cm−1. Calculated transmission and the change in transmission with a 22 ppm CO2 increase are also shown, indicating that weak vibration-rotation features in the far wings of the fundamental and in the infrared window dominate surface radiative forcing from rising CO2.

    We can exclude alternative explanations for the change in these measurements, such as instrument calibration or the temperature, water vapour, or condensate structure of the atmosphere because they would produce significant (P < 0.003) trends in other spectral regions outside the CO2 absorption bands—see Fig. 2b and e. Moreover, the spectral forcing from CO2 is a strong function of changes in the CO2 column concentration, and nonlinear interactions between temperature and water vapour were weak, as indicated by the lack of statistically significant differences in the seasonal and annual spectral trends in the CO2 P- and R-branches. Therefore, the atmospheric structure of temperature and water vapour does not strongly affect CO2 surface forcing, which is consistent with the findings of others.

    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240




    The CO2 effect on the radiative balance start a feedback process on the water vapour that increases the greenhouse effect. This is what all the climate scientists and physicists are saying in the literature. Here the explanation from the American Chemical Society:
    Quote Originally Posted by American Chemical Society
    It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

    The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

    If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.
    For an explanation from 1956 on why the radiative balance of the atmosphere is controlled by CO2:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilbert Norman Plass
    The fact that water vapor absorbs to some extent in the same spectral interval as carbon dioxide is the basis for the usual objection to the carbon dioxide theory. According to this argument the water vapor absorption is so large that there would be virtually no change in the outgoing radiation if the carbon dioxide concentration should change. However, this conclusion was based on early, very approximate treatments of the very complex problem of the calculation of the infrared flux in the atmosphere. Recent and more accurate calculations that take into account the detailed structure of the spectra of these two gases show that they are relatively independent of one another in their influence on the infrared absorption. There are two main reasons for this result: (1) there is no correlation between the frequencies of the spectral lines for carbon dioxide and water vapor and so the lines do not often overlap because of nearly coincident positions for the spectral lines; (2) the fractional concentration of water vapor falls off very rapidly with height whereas carbon dioxide is nearly uniformly distributed. Because of this last fact, even if the water vapor absorption were larger than that of carbon dioxide in a certain spectral interval at the surface of the Earth, at only a short distance above the ground the carbon dioxide absorption would be considerably larger than that of the water vapor. Careful estimates show that the temperature changes given above for carbon dioxide would not be reduced by more than 20 per cent because of water vapor absorption.

    One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: the atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.
    Last edited by Genava; April 06, 2019 at 03:59 AM.
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  10. #170
    Ludicus's Avatar Vicarius Provinciae
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    10,998

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Kelvin Droegemeier is Trump's new science adviser.
    A group of scientists had asked him about his stance on climate change. Here's what he told them,
    My feeling is that the planet, you can kick it in the butt really, really, hard and it will come back
    And,
    President strongly supports science
    Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
    Charles Péguy

    Socialism is the epithet they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.
    Harry Truman Oct. 10th, 1952

  11. #171
    Genava's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    791

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    President strongly supports science
    Yeaaaaah... about it:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    I would prefer him to learn modesty and not to believe he's a genius. Especially with this kind of talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU2p6YakNJg

    Edit: Again, Trump knows everything. The polymath/multiexpert.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Last edited by Genava; April 15, 2019 at 03:56 PM.
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  12. #172
    Stario's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Oh - ooooh! totus floreo
    Posts
    1,628

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava
    This is no sense. ECS is mandatory the equilibrium point after feedback processes (water vapour, ice sheet albedo, heat exchange with deep ocean etc. etc.). Water vapour content in the atmosphere depends on the temperature of the atmosphere, it doesn't change alone.
    Actually water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas, accounting for up to 90-95% of the greenhouse effect(Fig. 9.1).


    The greenhouse effect works as follows: Solar energy warms the Earth’s surface during the day. The surface radiates infrared radiation (IR) upward into the atmosphere, where it is absorbed by water, CO2, and methane This absorption then drives convection and evaporation (latent heat) to restore the lapse rate toward adiabatic stability.IR photons escape to space at higher altitudes.The lapse rate and convection stops at the tropopause. The height of the tropopause is determined by the height where the net radiation loss to space exceeds the radiation absorbed from all lower levels. The greenhouse effect stops there, and the atmosphere cools by radiation alone. Direct infrared radiation in the main CO2 bands is absorbed well below 1 km above the Earth’s surface. Increasing levels of CO2 merely cause the absorption to move closer to the surface. Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the amount of global warming. Any increase is, at most, logarithmic.

    Water vapor accounts for by far the largest greenhouse effect (Fig. 9.1). The reason for this is because water vapor emits and absorbs infrared radiation at many more wavelengths than any of the other greenhouse gases (Fig. 9.2), and there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than any of the other greenhouse gases. The atmospheric water vapor content is highly variable and not easy to measure as a single global number.The effect of water vapor on temperature is especially important because of the IPCC claim that CO2 can cause catastrophic global warming. Because CO2 is not capable of causing significant global warming by itself, their contention is that increased CO2 raises temperature slightly and that produces an increase in water vapor, which does have the capability of raising atmospheric temperature. If that is indeed the case, then as CO2 rises, we should observe a concomitant increase in water vapor. However, Figs. 9.3 and 9.4 show that water vapor (relative humidity) between 10,000 and 30,000 feet declined from 1948 to 2014.

    Water vapor accounts for up to 95% of greenhouse gases, with CO2, methane, and a few other gases making up the remaining 5%. The greenhouse effect from CO2is only about 3.6%. Most of the greenhouse warming effect takes place early (Fig. 9.7). After that, the effect decreases exponentially, so the rise in atmospheric CO2 from 0.030% to 0.038% from 1950 to 2016 could have caused warming of only about 0.01
    C. The total change in CO2 of the atmosphere amounted to an addition of only one molecule of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air.

    Atmospheric CO2 rose slowly from the late 1800s to 1945. Emissions began to soar abruptly in 1945 after World War II (Fig. 9.8), but global temperatures cooled for 30 years instead of rising, as would be the case if CO2 causes warming.

    How does the present level of atmospheric CO2(0.04%) compare with long/term levels? Figs. 9.9 and 9.10 show some recent examples, and Fig. 9.11 shows CO2 levels for the past 250 million years. From the mid-Jurassic Period into the early Cretaceous, atmospheric CO2 was 0.2% to 0.24%, five to eight times the present level. CO2 levels dropped steadily from the early Cretaceous to the mid-Tertiary (Fig. 9.11). For 200 million years prior to the mid-Tertiary, CO2 levels were about two to eight times present levels.

    At the abrupt 1977 “Great Climate Shift,” when the global climate shifted from cooling to warming, no significant change occurred in the rate of increase of CO2 (Fig.9.12), suggesting that CO2 had nothing to do with the shifting of the climate.

    CO2, which makes up only 0.040% of the atmosphere and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect, has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. How can such a tiny increment of CO2 cause the 10

    F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates? The obvious answer is that it can’t. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948 (Figs. 9.3 and 9.4), not increased as demanded by climate models.

    Atmospheric temperature measurements, glacier fluctuations, and oxygen isotope data from Greenland ice cores all record a cool period from about 1880 to about 1915. During this period, global temperatures were about 0.9
    C(1.6F) cooler than at present. From 1880 to 1890, temperatures dropped 0.35C (0.6F) in only 10 years. From 1890 to 1900, temperatures rose 0.25C (0.45F) in 10 years, after which temperatures dipped slightly (0.15C(0.3F) until about 1915.

    During the 1915 to 1945 warm period, temperatures rose without significant increase in CO2, showing that global warming occurs without any possibility of CO2 as a cause because it occurred before CO2 had risen significantly. CO2 began to rise sharply after the end of World War II (1945) and continued for 30 years. But instead of causing global warming, as would be the case if CO2 caused atmospheric warming, global cooling occurred for 30 years (1945
    -1977) during soaring CO2. In 1977, the northeastern Pacific switched from its cool mode (where it had been since1945) to its warm mode, and global warming occurred from 1978 to about 2000. CO2 continued to rise as it had since 1958, so the warm period corresponded to increased CO2 as a matter of coincidence (Fig. 9.13).


    For several decades, the IPCC has forcefully asserted that increased atmospheric causes global warming that will result in catastrophic consequences for the world. We can test this contention by looking at the timing of increased CO2 and global warming during alternating Ice Ages and interglaciations. At the end of each Ice Age over the past 420,000 years, the global climate warmed during the following interglaciation and CO2 rose. All we need to do is to see which came first, global warming or increased CO2. If CO2 caused the global warming, then the rise in CO2 must precede global warming. If it lags global warming, it cannot possibly be the cause of the warming. Measurements of CO2 in air bubbles in ice of the Vostock core in Antarctica have been published by Petit et al.(1999), Fischer et al. (1999), Monnin et al. (2001), Mudelsee (2001), Caillon et al. (2003). Petit at al. (1999) measured CO2 for 420,000 years of the Vostock ice core and found that as the climate cooled into an Ice Age, the decrease in atmospheric CO2 lagged temperature by several thousand years. Fischer et al. (1999) found that in going from an Ice Age into a warm interglacial, rise in CO2 lagged warming by 600-400 years. Monnin et al. (2001) showed that rise in CO2 lagged warming by 800-600 years in the Dome Concordia ice core in Antarctica. Mudelsee (2001) found that over the full 420,000 years of the Vostock core, CO2 lagged warming by 1300-1000 years. Caillon et al. (2003) analysed the Vostock core data and found that CO2 lagged warming by 800-200 years.
    All five studies of the Antarctic ice cores showed that CO2 always lagged warming and thus could not be the cause of the warming. Joanne Nova graphed the complete data set from 420,000 years to 5000 years from the original sources (Fig. 9.14). From these graphs, CO2 obviously always lags warming and thus cannot be the cause of any of the warm interglacials of the past 420,000 years. The inescapable conclusion from these data is that CO2 is not the cause of global warming. Global warming causes atmospheric CO2 to rise.


    Humlum et al. (2011, 2013) used data on atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures for the period of January 1980 to December 2011 to investigate leads/lags between them. They found that changes in CO2 always lag changes in temperature by 9.5
    -10 months and lag sea surface temperature by 11-12 months (Fig. 9.15).
    1.The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from (1) the ocean surface to (2) the landsurface to (3) the lower troposphere.
    2.
    Changes in global atmospheric CO2 lag about 11-12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.
    3.
    Changes in global atmospheric CO2 lag 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.
    4.
    Changes in global atmospheric CO2 lag about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature (Humlum et al., 2011, 2013).

    In general, Humlum et al. (2011, 2013) found that the CO2 lag in surface temperature changes and lower troposphere temperature changes suggest a temperature sequence of events from the surface to the lower troposphere. Because cause must always precede effect, their observations demonstrate that modern changes in temperatures are not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2, but rather, the opposite
    - changes in temperature drive changes in atmospheric CO2. Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with changes in human emissions.


    http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/pdfs/Evi..._Chap9_dje.pdf
    Last edited by Stario; April 17, 2019 at 11:43 AM.

  13. #173
    Genava's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    791

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?




    https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

    Whose lie is it anyway? Easterbrook caught red-handed
    http://hot-topic.co.nz/whose-lie-is-...ht-red-handed/

    Easterbrook’s wrong (again)
    http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

    And far more funny, the prediction from Easterbrook made in 2000:


    Actual warming:
    Last edited by Genava; April 17, 2019 at 04:55 PM.
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  14. #174
    Genava's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    791

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stario
    CO2, which makes up only 0.040% of the atmosphere and constitutes only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect, has increased only 0.008% since emissions began to soar after 1945. How can such a tiny increment of CO2 cause the 10F increase in temperature predicted by CO2 advocates? The obvious answer is that it can’t. Computer climate modelers build into their models a high water vapor component, which they claim is due to increased atmospheric water vapor caused by very small warming from CO2, and since water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect, they claim the result will be warming. The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948 (Figs. 9.3 and 9.4), not increased as demanded by climate models.

    I remember something...

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    ... my previous message!

    Here we present observationally based evidence of clear-sky CO2 surface radiative forcing that is directly attributable to the increase, between 2000 and 2010, of 22 parts per million atmospheric CO2. The time series of this forcing at the two locations—the Southern Great Plains and the North Slope of Alaska—are derived from Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer spectra together with ancillary measurements and thoroughly corroborated radiative transfer calculations. The time series both show statistically significant trends of 0.2 W m−2 per decade (with respective uncertainties of ±0.06 W m−2 per decade and ±0.07 W m−2 per decade) and have seasonal ranges of 0.1–0.2 W m−2. This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.

    The measured spectrum in Fig. 1a shows Planck function behaviour near the centre of the fundamental (ν2) CO2 band and exhibits a departure from a Planck curve in the P- and R-branches of this feature, indicating that the emission in these branches is sub-saturated and could increase with increasing CO2. Water-vapour features, continuum emission, and O3 emission are seen in the infrared window between 800 cm−1 and 1,200 cm−1, and lesser features from CH4 are seen around 1,300 cm−1. Calculated transmission and the change in transmission with a 22 ppm CO2 increase are also shown, indicating that weak vibration-rotation features in the far wings of the fundamental and in the infrared window dominate surface radiative forcing from rising CO2.

    We can exclude alternative explanations for the change in these measurements, such as instrument calibration or the temperature, water vapour, or condensate structure of the atmosphere because they would produce significant (P < 0.003) trends in other spectral regions outside the CO2 absorption bands—see Fig. 2b and e. Moreover, the spectral forcing from CO2 is a strong function of changes in the CO2 column concentration, and nonlinear interactions between temperature and water vapour were weak, as indicated by the lack of statistically significant differences in the seasonal and annual spectral trends in the CO2 P- and R-branches. Therefore, the atmospheric structure of temperature and water vapour does not strongly affect CO2 surface forcing, which is consistent with the findings of others.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240




    The CO2 effect on the radiative balance start a feedback process on the water vapour that increases the greenhouse effect. This is what all the climate scientists and physicists are saying in the literature. Here the explanation from the American Chemical Society:
    Quote Originally Posted by American Chemical Society
    It’s true that water vapor is the largest contributor to the Earth’s greenhouse effect. On average, it probably accounts for about 60% of the warming effect. However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

    The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel.

    If there had been no increase in the amounts of non-condensable greenhouse gases, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere would not have changed with all other variables remaining the same. The addition of the non-condensable gases causes the temperature to increase and this leads to an increase in water vapor that further increases the temperature. This is an example of a positive feedback effect. The warming due to increasing non-condensable gases causes more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, which adds to the effect of the non-condensables.
    For an explanation from 1956 on why the radiative balance of the atmosphere is controlled by CO2:

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilbert Norman Plass
    The fact that water vapor absorbs to some extent in the same spectral interval as carbon dioxide is the basis for the usual objection to the carbon dioxide theory. According to this argument the water vapor absorption is so large that there would be virtually no change in the outgoing radiation if the carbon dioxide concentration should change. However, this conclusion was based on early, very approximate treatments of the very complex problem of the calculation of the infrared flux in the atmosphere. Recent and more accurate calculations that take into account the detailed structure of the spectra of these two gases show that they are relatively independent of one another in their influence on the infrared absorption. There are two main reasons for this result: (1) there is no correlation between the frequencies of the spectral lines for carbon dioxide and water vapor and so the lines do not often overlap because of nearly coincident positions for the spectral lines; (2) the fractional concentration of water vapor falls off very rapidly with height whereas carbon dioxide is nearly uniformly distributed. Because of this last fact, even if the water vapor absorption were larger than that of carbon dioxide in a certain spectral interval at the surface of the Earth, at only a short distance above the ground the carbon dioxide absorption would be considerably larger than that of the water vapor. Careful estimates show that the temperature changes given above for carbon dioxide would not be reduced by more than 20 per cent because of water vapor absorption.

    One further objection has been raised to the carbon dioxide theory: the atmosphere is completely opaque at the center of the carbon dioxide band and therefore there is no change in the absorption as the carbon dioxide amount varies. This is entirely true for a spectral interval about one micron wide on either side of the center of the carbon dioxide band. However, the argument neglects the hundreds of spectral lines from carbon dioxide that are outside this interval of complete absorption. The change in absorption for a given variation in carbon dioxide amount is greatest for a spectral interval that is only partially opaque; the temperature variation at the surface of the Earth is determined by the change in absorption of such intervals.


    Edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Stario
    The problem is that atmospheric water vapor has actually declined since 1948 (Figs. 9.3 and 9.4), not increased as demanded by climate models.
    New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier
    "To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above Earth's surface, Soden, UM Rosenstiel School researcher Eui-Seok Chung and colleagues measured water vapor in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites and compared them to climate model predictions of water circulation between the ocean and atmosphere to determine whether observed changes in atmospheric water vapor could be explained by natural or man-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2."
    https://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-...amplifier.html

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; April 19, 2019 at 04:41 AM. Reason: Personal.
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  15. #175

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post

    New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier
    "To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above Earth's surface, Soden, UM Rosenstiel School researcher Eui-Seok Chung and colleagues measured water vapor in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites and compared them to climate model predictions of water circulation between the ocean and atmosphere to determine whether observed changes in atmospheric water vapor could be explained by natural or man-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2."
    https://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-...amplifier.html

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Roasted...

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post

    Which is related to orbital parameters in this case right? This is not the current situation for the Earth:
    http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Milankovitch/

    Again, in this case this is due to changes in orbital parameters, which is not the current situation now. Think about the time scale and about the direction of the change.



    Interesting. Does that mean we should be cooling instead?
    Last edited by Abdülmecid I; April 19, 2019 at 04:41 AM. Reason: Continuity.

  16. #176

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey McKnightey View Post
    Read these and try not to get a heart attack, or a sinking feeling of having just been diagnosed with terminal cancer:

    https://jembendell.wordpress.com/201...jxYenHhDla3lHg

    https://www.fasterthanexpected.one/n...an-extinction/

    Apparently a growing number of academics are thinking a global societal collapse triggered by environmental disasters is imminent. "Near Term Human Extinction" is now a term you see more and more often on the forums discussing environmental destruction. Granted, Bendell is a sustainability prof. which isn't exactly a hard science, but he's not alone in his assessment, as is seen by looking at the growing attendance of his Deep Adaptation forum, or the second link I provided.

    Are we headed for extinction tier happenings within our life time, or is this overblown alarmism?



    It is such overblown exaggeration that makes skeptics even more skeptics and not trust anything the Climate Change proponents say. Society will not collapse, even if what the Climate Change proponents say is true.


    While great suffering might result, and dislocations might result, that would hardly bring an end to civilization. If climate does warm, farmers can and would adjust the types of crops they grew, and life wouldn't come to an end if Canada and Siberia became new centers of wheat production. At one time, there was no Antartic Ice Cap, yet life on Earth survive. Such hysteria only makes people more skeptical and mistrust the Climate Change Alarmist even more than they do now.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; April 20, 2019 at 06:40 AM.

  17. #177

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Genava View Post
    I remember something...

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    ... my previous message!



    https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240




    The CO2 effect on the radiative balance start a feedback process on the water vapour that increases the greenhouse effect. This is what all the climate scientists and physicists are saying in the literature. Here the explanation from the American Chemical Society:


    For an explanation from 1956 on why the radiative balance of the atmosphere is controlled by CO2:




    Edit:

    New study confirms water vapor as global warming amplifier
    "To investigate the potential causes of a 30-year moistening trend in the upper troposphere, a region 3-7 miles above Earth's surface, Soden, UM Rosenstiel School researcher Eui-Seok Chung and colleagues measured water vapor in the upper troposphere collected by NOAA satellites and compared them to climate model predictions of water circulation between the ocean and atmosphere to determine whether observed changes in atmospheric water vapor could be explained by natural or man-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2."
    https://phys.org/news/2014-07-vapor-...amplifier.html

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    The reliability of scientific data of things like climate change depend on the integrity and honesty of the scientist making the claim. There are all kinds of ways to fudge the data, you can throw out data that doesn't support your view by claiming it was unreliable, or just not reporting the data at all that didn't support your theory. Given the false claims to he scientist have made in the past, that trust is in short supply.

    Scientist did predict the Arctic Ice Cap would be gone by now in the summer, and that has simply not been the case. Rather than honestly admitting they made predictions that were not true, Climate Change proponents try to pretend those claims were never made in the first place, or it was just a few rogue scientist who made them. While graphs and charts can be manipulated, the evidence of Ozi the Iceman shows that just 5000 years the Earth was as warm or warmer in the past than it is now, his body being covered by snow and ice after he died, and it is only now that the �� h is being to become as warm as it was 5000 years ago when he died. And such temperatures were produced by CO2 levels lower than today. And the Climate Change proponents have tried to hide and minimize the fact that Greenland ice core samples show that temperatures start rising before CO2 level started to rise. While they have no choice but to admit the fact, naturally they insist that all the subsequent rise in temperature must be due to CO2, rather than admit the possibility they were wrong, and the rise in temperature was not due to CO2. Any data that doesn't fit their theory will be just explained away.
    Last edited by Common Soldier; April 20, 2019 at 05:12 PM.

  18. #178
    Daruwind's Avatar Moderator
    Citizen

    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Prague
    Posts
    2,306

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Sure, humanity will survive, question is in what state. We are children of survivors of both Bronze Age Collapse, Roman Empire Collapse and probably many others. Just one example. Bronze Age Collpaseis usually viewed as result of international trade collapse around Middle east. Due to many various factors probably. Now just look at current very globally connected situation. We are experts at agriculture for example and if the trade for fertilizers is disrupted, consequences will be much gigher than in previous ages. Simply there is more people depending on more complex food production system...Egypt population in Bronze age was hit just because their irrigation system around Nile was in disarray. Basically all you needed in those day was some food,labors and one person with knowledge to guide the rest...imagine these days when almost every product is from various distant countries... but even if we ask those people living during Bronze age or after collapse of WER...they probably had no idea they are living in dark ages. It is not like you wake up,look from window and there is big sign saying "doom is here"...

  19. #179
    Genava's Avatar Ordinarius
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Geneva
    Posts
    791

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Europa Revolta Identita View Post
    Interesting. Does that mean we should be cooling instead?
    Indeed. The global climate was slightly cooling during the past 4000 years. Adding a tiny bit of CO2 in the atmosphere is not necessarily a bad thing when it permits to delude a new glaciation. This is why a compromise around +1.5°C/+2°C is good enough (which is already a lot). The fear is more about going too far and recreating the climate of the Miocene (or even the PETM for the worst case scenario).

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    It is such overblown exaggeration that makes skeptics even more skeptics and not trust anything the Climate Change proponents say. Society will not collapse, even if what the Climate Change proponents say is true.
    Jem Bendell is not a climatologist and anything related to Earth sciences directly. He got a Bachelor in Geography and a PhD in philosophy.
    https://jembendell.wordpress.com/about/
    https://www.cumbria.ac.uk/study/acad...em-bendell.php

    As the subject is abandoned by the right-wing, it is not surprising that it is exploited by people with a lefty sensitivity.

    There are plenty of doomsayers, survivalists and similar things like that. Even on the right-wing.
    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Survivalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier View Post
    If climate does warm, farmers can and would adjust the types of crops they grew, and life wouldn't come to an end if Canada and Siberia became new centers of wheat production.
    Well, if the climate change fast enough (admitting a +3 or +4°C at the end of the century), the adaptation could be quite intensive to cope with the warming. Especially from an economical perspective, farmers are not in the best position for this kind of adaptation. Which will probably increase the participation of the governments and the increasing costs of the food. Theoretically, farmers can cope with anything but it is often cumulative effects that cause them trouble.

    Moreover, soils do not change fast enough. It will put a limit to a quick transition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Common Soldier
    ScientifThe reliability of scientific results of things like climate change depend on the integrity and honesty of the scientist making the claim. There are all kinds of ways to fudge the data, you can throw out data that doesn't support your view by claiming it was unreliable, or just not reporting the data at all that didn't support your theory. Given the false claims to he scientist have made in the past, that trust is in short supply.
    Sure. But how much do you think the scientific community is corrupted? A few scientists why not but do you know how much scientists from different fields and different countries are supporting the actual understanding of the current warming for decades?

    Physicists, chemists, geologists, climate scientists etc. etc.
    https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Take a look on these:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Stewart_Callendar
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Plass
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_David_Keeling
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Smith_Broecker

    Worldwide academical statements:
    https://scienceblogs.com/significant...ound-the-world


    Scientist did predict the Arctic Ice Cap would be gone by now in the summer, and that has simply not been the case. Rather than honestly admitting they made predictions that were not true, Climate Change proponents try to pretend those claims were never made in the first place, or it was just a few rogue scientist who made them.
    Actually there was no prediction from a scientific publication saying the Arctic Ice Cap would be gone these years. Only claims in media.

    And the Climate Change proponents have tried to hide and minimize the fact that Greenland ice core samples show that temperatures start rising before CO2 level started to rise.
    Stario tried to use this argument. See the previous pages.
    The true heroes of science are the defenders of open-access like
    Alexandra Elbakyan. Even in my country, Switzerland, we cannot afford the access to all the publishers material. Sci-hub and Library Genesis help thousands of researchers in the world. Support them.

  20. #180

    Default Re: Is it Game Over on the climate front?

    Quote Originally Posted by Daruwind View Post
    Sure, humanity will survive, question is in what state. We are children of survivors of both Bronze Age Collapse, Roman Empire Collapse and probably many others.
    The role of climate in those previous collapses is very debatable, and we have far superior technology that can offset the chages.
    Just one example. Bronze Age Collpaseis usually viewed as result of international trade collapse around Middle east. Due to many various factors probably.
    The bronze age collapse.was local, China and India were no affected. It was not a global.collapse.

    Now just look at current very globally connected situation. We are experts at agriculture for example and if the trade for fertilizers is disrupted, consequences will be much gigher than in previous ages. Simply there is more people depending on more complex food production system...Egypt population in Bronze age was hit just because their irrigation system around Nile was in disarray. Basically all you needed in those day was some food,labors and one person with knowledge to guide the rest...imagine these days when almost every product is from various distant countries... but even if we ask those people living during Bronze age or after collapse of WER...they probably had no idea they are living in dark ages. It is not like you wake up,look from window and there is big sign saying "doom is here"...[/QUOTE]

    In those days you only had local.resources to carry you through. Being globally connect will.offset the impact. A waming climate could improve agriculture in places like Canada, a longer growing season would help. To assert that growing would be adversely effected throughout every part of the world is nonsense. Farmers can and do shift the type of crops.they produce all the time, and the warming the Global. The warming Alarmist warn against isn't going to suddenly appear overnight or in a single season, and if he climate warms, FAA mers will.shift the kind of crops they will grow. The variety of crops.available the o modern farmers is far greater than to ancient farmers.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •