Global Warming

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Pooeypants Mr Vicchio, are you aware that your second source is 10 years old? Now, we are talking about computers aren't we? The internet barely existed back then...

Some of them are, I tried finding anything newer on say successful historical models that matched the real world... couldn't find them. Found a few GCM runs that were tweaked to match what was and is to the model, but that's not what we are looking for.

I bring this point up because in my last duty station, in 2005, this was something discussed at a forecasters training on why the models can only be trusted to a point, and the longer out they go the more unstable and inaccurate they are.

[WindWip]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio This is precisely why global climate model runs fail when using a start date of 1900 and the KNOWN conditions and run to today with all the variables we know put in. The models always over estimate the temperature, always.

You stated this point earlier, yet you didn't even have a model to reference... How can you claim that models always over-estimate the temperature when you don't have any models?

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: WindWip You stated this point earlier, yet you didn't even have a model to reference... How can you claim that models always over-estimate the temperature when you don't have any models?

First off, because I've heard this first hand from the pro's. Secondly, if they WERE successful,wouldn't that be a selling point?


Yeah, I thought so too.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio First off, because I've heard this first hand from the pro's. Secondly, if they WERE successful,wouldn't that be a selling point?

Sorry Mr Vicchio, but stating first hand accounts doesn't win points in this debate, not without documented evidence. You're going to have to do better than that.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Quote by: Pooeypants Sorry Mr Vicchio, but stating first hand accounts doesn't win points in this debate, not without documented evidence. You're going to have to do better than that.

Pooey, I get it.

I can't provide a current "Model run failed" post so OBVIOUSLY in ten years there have been big advancements in computers so I must be wrong because you assume that to be the case. assume. You completely IGNORE the other part, about "not finding any success either".

So basically the only info out there I have so far found says that historically running the models against real known climate fails.

But that's 10 year old data, doesn't go with the "Pooey world view".

I bring up that, hey in my JOB we discussed this as a matter of professional discourse and training, thus how I even know about the issue. My mistake, gives Pooey a lame hook to hang his "That's not good enough" crud on, and ignore the caveat.

I've tried, I've posted what I have found, but you don't like what I found, so you are trying to stymie me because it makes you look the fool.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Pooey, I get it. I can't provide a current "Model run failed" post so OBVIOUSLY in ten years there have been big advancements in computers so I must be wrong because you assume that to be the case. assume. You completely IGNORE the other part, about "not finding any success either". So basically the only info out there I have so far found says that historically running the models against real known climate fails. But that's 10 year old data, doesn't go with the "Pooey world view".

Let's put this into perspective. What has changed in the computing world in the past 10 years? Well, in terms of commercial CPUs we've seen the rise of AMD, Intel has been through Pentium and is now onto Core 2 duo. We have graphics card now with more transistors than some of the processors... So do you really expect me to believe that computer models NOW are same as TEN YEARS ago?

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I bring up that, hey in my JOB we discussed this as a matter of professional discourse and training, thus how I even know about the issue. My mistake, gives Pooey a lame hook to hang his "That's not good enough" crud on, and ignore the caveat.

I talk to Professors about gene therapy and cancer treatment but I wouldn't take their words, post it online and then expect someone to believe it. If you were as expert as you claim to be, you'd have no problem bringing up the necessary articles to prove your point.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio I've tried, I've posted what I have found, but you don't like what I found, so you are trying to stymie me because it makes you look the fool.

I made a comment on the fact that one of your sources is ten years old and you get all over sensitive? Please, spare me the tears.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Spare you the tears?

You're the one making the claim that since computers have improved in ten years, then that MUST MEAN, MUST mean that climate models work on historical runs and match what was, and what is.

that I cannot FIND a success or failure on line is irrelevant to you.

It MUST be because POOEY said so. I'm not over sensitive, I just think you're amusing when you go to such lengths to defend your religion.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio Spare you the tears? You're the one making the claim that since computers have improved in ten years, then that MUST MEAN, MUST mean that climate models work on historical runs and match what was, and what is.

Incorrect, I have made no such claim. I merely said that putative modelling will not be the same as ten years due to progression in technology. Are you challenging this particular statement?

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio that I cannot FIND a success or failure on line is irrelevant to you.

If you can find neither then your point is void. Case closed.

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio It MUST be because POOEY said so. I'm not over sensitive, I just think you're amusing when you go to such lengths to defend your religion.

This is highly amusing in itself. I have never dismissed contemporary data and reports just out of hand.

[xyzer]

Windwip..Thanks for your site which depicts the effects of solar radiation. There is only one problem with it and that is you(along with pooey) have to include greenhouse gases in your explanation? My original query was about the effect of CO2( less than 1% of atmospheric gases) having the same effect with incoming as it does with outgoing radiation, What I get out of both of you experts is that we have to explain radiation effects by suddenly including other elements? Greenhouse gases?

Lets cut to the chase and include it if you want. Obviously water vapor(cloud cover) has the greatest effect on solar radiation! Water vapor is the largest "greenhouse gas", CO2 a mere fraction of 1%.

Most of thre incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the earth. A much smaller fraction of it is reflected back up through the atmosphere.Clouds(water vapor) have a major effect on this heat transfer. Of the less than 1% CO2 some smaller fraction is created by humans and fossil fuels consumption. I'm having trouble grasping your logic that CO2 is having much of an effect either way. It appears that water vapor and methane have the major influence on solar heat and radiation?
I'm questioning your logic, not your data. How in the hell can You tell me that we are in any dire straights because of anthropogenic CO2 influences? How can reducing some .04% percent of humans contributions have any but a very, very, minor effect on climate??

http://http://www.cei.org/pdf/5892.pdf
This reference is in pdf form and I can't copy parts of it...but note that recent studies show that the suns heat has increased over the past 14 years.
e.g. The IPCC summation estimates that the sun caused less than 1% of all global warming to date? The place most of the blame on CO2. Yet not all studies/scientists agree?
A study in 2006 found a strong correlation between northern hemisphere temps and solar radiance over the past 400 years.During the most recent century there was an increase in solar heat from 1900-1950,a decrease from 1950-1970, an increase from 1970 -2000? Sound familiar? Yet the IP
CC concludes CO2 caused these changes?
Another 2007 study by Mishchenko found that the "reflectivity of atmospheric haze" decrease steadily between 1991 and 2005. Shouldn't that suggest that there are other more important factors than CO2? If you cant get into the pdf using the above URL ..try this http://http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/?p=660

[xyzer]

Mr Vicchio, If the IPCC cranks in the garbage that the sun is such a small influence that it is overcome by CO2(less than 1% of the atmosphere) you can see how flawed their conclusions are?

You're the one making the claim that since computers have improved in ten years, then that MUST MEAN, MUST mean that climate models work on historical runs and match what was, and what is.

They can iterate all the models they want but if they don't put realistic data into their computers the conclusions are flawed!

What a joke this whole buusiness is!

[WindWip]

Quote by: Mr.Vicchio First off, because I've heard this first hand from the pro's. Secondly, if they WERE successful,wouldn't that be a selling point? Yeah, I thought so too.

I've heard from many people that there have been successful models (though I don't know if I trust them, I would prefer to see firsthand), the problem is that no one trusts models to be accurate.

[WindWip]

xyzer I am very happy that you are being critical of my posts. I'm going to put quite a bit into this reply so I hope you read it.

Quote by: xyzer Windwip..Thanks for your site which depicts the effects of solar radiation. There is only one problem with it and that is you (along with pooey) have to include greenhouse gases in your explanation? My original query was about the effect of CO2 (less than 1% of atmospheric gases) having the same effect with incoming as it does with outgoing radiation, What I get out of both of you experts is that we have to explain radiation effects by suddenly including other elements? Greenhouse gases?

You're right to an extent. Our atmosphere does reflect some of the incoming radiation, about 30% of it actually. The remaining 70% is absorbed into the ground, water and atmosphere. That solar radiation, which was originally long wavelengths, is then radiated as thermal radiation, which are much shorter wavelengths.

Now this is the crucial point, long wave radiation (UV rays for example) passes through CO2 very easily, but short wave radiation does not. It collides with CO2 and other greenhouse gas molecules.

This is also the reason that we have blue skies, shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.

Lets cut to the chase and include it if you want. Obviously water vapor(cloud cover) has the greatest effect on solar radiation! Water vapor is the largest "greenhouse gas", CO2 a mere fraction of 1%.

The amount of a gas is not the issue, it is the amount of effect of that gas. You are right that water vapor has the greatest effect in trapping heat (not clouds, they have the opposite effect). Estimates vary from 36-70% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. CO2 however is responsible for between 9-26%. -source

Most of thre incoming solar radiation is absorbed by the earth. A much smaller fraction of it is reflected back up through the atmosphere.Clouds(water vapor) have a major effect on this heat transfer.

A good 70% is absorbed by the earth, but that energy does not just sit there, it is radiated out. If you leave a pot of boiling water, it will eventually dissipate that heat, though CO2 works to keep heat from radiating off the Earth. Clouds do have an effect, though it is not what you think it is. They reflect heat. They prevent solar radiation from hitting the earth, it is called the albedo effect and it works to counter some of the effects of global warming.

Of the less than 1% CO2 some smaller fraction is created by humans and fossil fuels consumption. I'm having trouble grasping your logic that CO2 is having much of an effect either way. It appears that water vapor and methane have the major influence on solar heat and radiation?

CO2 levels are at about 375 PPMV right now. From prior ice age cycle data, it should be at about 275 PPMV. Look at the graph below, notice how much is has risen since the Industrial Revolution.

I'm questioning your logic, not your data. How in the hell can You tell me that we are in any dire straights because of anthropogenic CO2 influences? How can reducing some .04% percent of humans contributions have any but a very, very, minor effect on climate??

Tell you what, I'll do some research on it and let you know what I find.

[WindWip]

I did a report on the subject of sunspots earlier which is the major evidence for the sun getting hotter theory.

Quote by: xyzer http://http://www.cei.org/pdf/5892.pdf This reference is in pdf form and I can't copy parts of it...but note that recent studies show that the suns heat has increased over the past 14 years. e.g. The IPCC summation estimates that the sun caused less than 1% of all global warming to date? The place most of the blame on CO2. Yet not all studies/scientists agree? A study in 2006 found a strong correlation between northern hemisphere temps and solar radiance over the past 400 years.During the most recent century there was an increase in solar heat from 1900-1950,a decrease from 1950-1970, an increase from 1970 -2000? Sound familiar? Yet the IP CC concludes CO2 caused these changes? Another 2007 study by Mishchenko found that the "reflectivity of atmospheric haze" decrease steadily between 1991 and 2005. Shouldn't that suggest that there are other more important factors than CO2? If you cant get into the pdf using the above URL ..try this http://http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/?p=660

Solar Variation with regards to global warming is the belief that the warming of the Earth is due to a greater number of sun spots. We have rough data on the number of sun spots from the past 11,000 years gathered by using dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations (using radiocarbon concentrations from tree rings), and human observations from around the world for the current numbers.


The highlighted portion is roughly 8,000 years ago when we had similar magnitudes of sun spots. Timeline goes from 1900 AD at left, to roughly 11,000 years ago on right.


The first graph shows historical number of sunspots while the second shows current numbers of sunspots. A point in favor of this theory is that during the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715, there were less than 50 sunspots (40-50,000 were average at the time) and temperatures appeared to reflect that. This Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age (roughly 1650-1770) when Europe and much of the world had abnormally cold weather. However, the cold spell continued for at least 50 years after the Maunder Minimum ended, when the number of sun spots had normalized. This suggests that the timing had more to do with coincidence than a direct effect, especially since the additional heat from sunspots would be a nearly instantaneous affect on temperatures and would not be prolonged out 50 years.
Further evidence of the disassociation of sunspots and global warming is the impact of solar cycles on surface temperatures. Solar cycles are the eleven year cycles of sunspot activity depicted by the thin yellow line on the graph below.


Notice the huge spike of sunspots in 1870, there is no increase in temperature, and the spikes in 1885, 1895, 1918, 1930 and 1950 results in decreases in temperature. From this we cannot conclude that sun spots do not have an effect on temperatures, yet we can conclude that since sun spots should have a near-immediate effect on temperature, they are not an incredibly significant factor in global warming.
More evidence is in the minute increases in solar irradiance from sunspot activity, seen below:

There is a variation from maxima to minima of only 1 watt per meter squared from an average 1366 W/m^2. That is less than a tenth of one percent change, 0.0732 percent to be precise. A fluxuation of 0.0732 percent of a temperature of 60º C (333.15 º K) would mean a fluxuation of 0.24 º C when we are currently seeing fluxuations of about 0.45 º C. This could mean that sunspots have a significant effect on temperatures if the temperature variations lined up with the sunspots cycles. They don’t. The graph above shows that we are at a low point on the sunspot cycle, yet temperature anomaly is currently about 0.45 º C higher than historical averages.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Mr Vicchio, If the IPCC cranks in the garbage that the sun is such a small influence that it is overcome by CO2(less than 1% of the atmosphere) you can see how flawed their conclusions are?

No, I can see how flawed your entire logic is. You just refuse to accept the data. No 1. Current shows that solar activity fluctuations cannot, on its own, account for the change in global temperature. No 2. CO2 may only be 380ppm but its thermal absorbance is significant in our atmosphere. I have already linked articles to support those points so I don't think I'll bother doing so again just to prove how out of line with reality you are.

Quote by: xyzer They can iterate all the models they want but if they don't put realistic data into their computers the conclusions are flawed! What a joke this whole buusiness is!

What is this unrealistic data that they input? Please elaborate in detail.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: WindWip Now this is the crucial point, long wave radiation (UV rays for example) passes through CO2 very easily, but short wave radiation does not. It collides with CO2 and other greenhouse gas molecules.

Just to clarify, do you mean that UV is short wave? Because Ultraviolent is higher frequency than Infra-red that CO2 and co absorb more readily.

Furthermore, you do realise, Xyzer, that the author of the article you've cited is not actually refuting anthropogenic global warming but just picking on certain issues?

“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,” declares the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of its forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. The SPM also states that, “Most of the observed increase in average global temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. Most climate scientists accept those conclusions, and I know of no compelling reason to dispute them.

[xyzer]

Here are a few video clips for you to watch..Pooey, in particular clip 2 seems to echo the your dogmatic views about any dissent from your alarmist theories about warming. The other clips present the "other side, and the scientific dissenters from the alarmist garbage that has been put out by the IPCC and demagogues like Al Gore!
http://http://newsbusters.org/node/12677
But even more importantly IMNSHO they stress the threats to dissenters and the absolute lack of logical analysis pertaining to some imagined alarmist scenarios reverberating periodically throughout the world press?

Yes WindWip I do realize..

Furthermore, you do realise, Xyzer, that the author of the article you've cited is not actually refuting anthropogenic global warming but just picking on certain issues?

that given! Thats why I posted it. That and the fact the author admitted to some other more vital influence. He was fair enough to cite contra evidence.

As I have repeatedly posted natural influences(primarily the suns changing intensity, water vapor and the oceans) are the major factors in change. The conclusions of recent science confirm that and yet the IPCC and the press have so presented the issue as to minimize those influences. Instead we read about CO2 control being the key to change? I'm not buying that stuff. Logic tells me that for the IPCC to admit that the sun is a major influencer and then rely of conclusions based on models that insert the suns influence as minor, is not reliable. The term likely bothers me! I would hesitate to put all my resources into something that was an undefined likely? I think acting on certainty is the more prudent course. ergo, use modern technology to develop ways to adjust to climates cyclic changes. These are slow, framed in geologic,not human, terms.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here are a few video clips for you to watch..Pooey, in particular clip 2 seems to echo the your dogmatic views about any dissent from your alarmist theories about warming. The other clips present the "other side, and the scientific dissenters from the alarmist garbage that has been put out by the IPCC and demagogues like Al Gore! http://http://newsbusters.org/node/12677 But even more importantly IMNSHO they stress the threats to dissenters and the absolute lack of logical analysis pertaining to some imagined alarmist scenarios reverberating periodically throughout the world press?

Al Gore again? I think you've mistaken me to some extremist environmentalist. I have stated time after time that if you have a scientifically sound basis for your views, to prevent them. This hardly dogmatic, unlike your own rhetoric.

Quote by: xyzer I do realize.. that given! Thats why I posted it. That and the fact the author admitted to some other more vital influence. He was fair enough to cite contra evidence.

Let's put this into perspective, he works for a think tank that is sponsored by many organisations (until recently, Exxon Mobil but more on that another time). If he, a leading writer for them (note he's not actually a scientist himself) is willing to accept the IPCC report (at the lower limit of their projections), I fail to see how you can keep up your denial.

Quote by: xyzer As I have repeatedly posted natural influences(primarily the suns changing intensity, water vapor and the oceans) are the major factors in change.

Yes, that is right, the IPCC has not neglected these factors.

Quote by: xyzer The conclusions of recent science confirm that and yet the IPCC and the press have so presented the issue as to minimize those influences.

The IPCC can only tell us what the current literature has concluded. They don't do the research or collect the data, they merely collate the independent studies carried out. How many times do I have to repeat that?

Quote by: xyzer Instead we read about CO2 control being the key to change? I'm not buying that stuff. Logic tells me that for the IPCC to admit that the sun is a major influencer and then rely of conclusions based on models that insert the suns influence as minor, is not reliable. The term likely bothers me! I would hesitate to put all my resources into something that was an undefined likely? I think acting on certainty is the more prudent course. ergo, use modern technology to develop ways to adjust to climates cyclic changes. These are slow, framed in geologic,not human, terms.

Where do you get your stuff from? I'll admit, all the climate science isn't as definitive on the whole due to the large amount of variables, but somehow you've come to the conclusion that solar variations is the key cause of current global warming when the evidence evidence doesn't support that!
Please, stop inventing your own views and calling it science, it's embarrassing.

[xyzer]

pooey, I wont go into any more sites(and there are several) which present the contra arguments to the anthropogenic influences on global warming.

I think this sentence..

Yes, that is right, the IPCC has not neglected these factors

says it all! No, they haven't entirely neglected it, but the models they referred to inserted the suns influence as a constant? We know it varies, have the models provided for this?The absence of other natural factors known to affect climate(volcanic action, ocean current changes) are in effect constants for studies yet they are admittedly not predictable. Thus models iterating possibilities, which use unpredictible sources as constants(or even omit influencing factors) are at best questionable...and sure don't indicate certainty? IMNSHO they don't even fit the definition of "likely".

Your post..

I'll admit, all the climate science isn't as definitive on the whole due to the large amount of variables, but somehow you've come to the conclusion that solar variations is the key cause of current global warming when the evidence evidence does support that!

(I think you meant to say doesn't rather than does.?
Indicates you might see the light.

I think you are finally getting my questions about what is likely and what is definitive.
In any case as Windwip posted(and so have I) the sun does have a major effect on the amount of heat reaching and absorbed by the earth and its land an ocean masses. Its radiance varies and is also affected by sunspots. ergo, how do we explain estimating its variable influence on climate and plugging it in to the computer model mix as a constant? How do we then rely on the resultant predictions of what will occur 50 or so years from today? Is there some certainty here?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer pooey, I wont go into any more sites(and there are several) which present the contra arguments to the anthropogenic influences on global warming.

I have seen websites that claim to disprove the Moon landings, and your point is?

Quote by: xyzer I think this sentence.. says it all! No, they haven't entirely neglected it, but the models they referred to inserted the suns influence as a constant? We know it varies, have the models provided for this?

Which models are you referring to? Please give me a reference to look up.

Quote by: xyzer The absence of other natural factors known to affect climate(volcanic action, ocean current changes) are in effect constants for studies yet they are admittedly not predictable. Thus