In honor of Jeff Id closing The Air Vent, I’m going to take the day off and spend more time with my kids.
Be civil and keep the topics germane. Don’t make me come back here. – Anthony
In honor of Jeff Id closing The Air Vent, I’m going to take the day off and spend more time with my kids.
Be civil and keep the topics germane. Don’t make me come back here. – Anthony
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:40 pm:
“It is now up to those who doubt the AGW Theory to propose an alternative theory that explains the simultaneous occurrence of these effects, just as someone who doubted the Theory of Relativity would have to propose an alternative theory that explains all the effects this theory can both explain and predict.”
Ah, no. Before you can go down the Trenberth route, *you* must prove or disprove GOD. You *can not* prove a negative. The burden of *proof* is upon the plantiff.
Back to the institution that told you otherwise….
Smokey says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:20 pm
As usual, Gates wants skeptics to prove a negative. Will someone please wake me when he understands the scientific method?
—
What, you’re willing to be Rumpelstiltskin?
R. Gates, the glaring error you make is the lack of sufficient energy available in the increase in anthropogenic ppm CO2, which is a small percentage of CO2 and an even smaller percentage of all greenhouse gasses including water vapor, to affect all the systems you list. Show me the maths.
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:40 pm
“Smokey says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:20 pm
As usual, Gates wants skeptics to prove a negative. Will someone please wake me when he understands the scientific method?
_____
??? I can only laugh. I can site at least 5 simple and verifiable real-world effects that GCM’s have predicted would occur and have occurred when factoring in the increases in CO2 since the 1700′s.”
My ensemble of models predict the Steelers will win. (Note the time stamp, R. That makes it about 10:00p.m. EST.) Ask tonyb if there’s ever been a time when the Arctic was low on ice cubes. Why are we digging Viking farms out from under the ice? Ask the Magic 8-Ball models when my property will be under a kilometer or two of ice… for the umpteenth time.
800-year (lagged) correlation is not causation.
Here is an interesting question to Gates. Short term (IE 30 years or less) weather pattern variation systems have been shown to drive temperature trends. Are you saying Gates, that it is CO2 that is driving these weather pattern variations? Was it CO2 that caused the AO to trend positive and it is now CO2 that is causing it to trend negative?
Smokey says:
January 23, 2011 at 6:56 pm
I see I’m dueling with an unarmed person. It’s really not fair…
____
1. The current trajectory year to year Arctic Sea ice shows it will be ice free in the summer by 2100. The point is that GCM’s have predicted it and it is right on track to be there, if not sooner.
2. Specific Humidity levels are increasing at the surface.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2009-time-series/humidity
Though your use of relative humidity at 300-700mb is interesting, but not the effect being discussed, though they could tell us something about how much those parcels of air have warmed over that period.
You’ve apparently not got any viable rebuttal for the hydrological cycle accelerating, and I’m still waiting for your proof that CO2 absolutely cannot affect ocean cycles. You were certain that it couldn’t, and I simply made the point that it is a subject being studied, but never said it was or wasn’t. It was your certainty that it doesn’t that you seem to not be able to back up with any sort of peer-reviewed study, though I gave multiple examples of how the issue is still a matter of intense research, and thus, your certainty is quite unfounded by any science and shows the same qualities a religious faith.
Smokey,
1.) The first part of R Gates assertion has been observed – declining Arctic ice. The second part is a prediction for the future, yes.
2.) Relative humidity is partly dependent on temperature. Relative humidity drops as temperature rises, even if water content remains the same.
“If the system at State A is isobarically heated (heating with no change in system pressure) then the relative humidity of the system decreases because the saturated vapor pressure of water increases with increasing temperature. This is shown in State B.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_humidity
Thus, a decline in relative humidity does not contradict the notion that water content of the atmosphere has risen.
And there has been a measured increase in the water content in the atmosphere:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070918090803.htm
“The atmosphere’s water vapor content has increased by about 0.41 kilograms per square meter (kg/m²) per decade since 1988 …”
3.) According to the Bureau of Meterology, precipitation has increased by around 22 mm (a little over 2 per cent) in the last 110 years.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/global/timeseries.cgi?graph=global_r®ion=global&season=0112&ave_yr=T
4.) Stratospheric cooling:
http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#msu_decadal_trends
Note that for TLS, the lower stratosphere, there is a large negative trend in the temperature.
5.) Temperatures are rising as predicted by the models, which is all that can be expected. Whether or not they are within ‘historical norms’ is a matter for debate. All that can be said is that currently the models are doing fine in a predictive sense.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
Anthony, congrats on taking a day off. In a tenuous connection, I think that many people in Chico spent the day away from the computer. Aaron Rodgers, a Chico native, just led the Pack to the NFC title and a Superbowl berth.
Go Pack Go!
Pamela, the glaring error that Gates is making, is not using common sense.
The fact that they are still trying to prove it, after over 30 years.
The fact that they all want $100’s of millions more, for bigger computers so they can get it right…
…says right there that they haven’t got it right, have never gotten it right, and are admitting it
Pamela Gray says:
January 23, 2011 at 7:09 pm
R. Gates, the glaring error you make is the lack of sufficient energy available in the increase in anthropogenic ppm CO2, which is a small percentage of CO2 and an even smaller percentage of all greenhouse gasses including water vapor, to affect all the systems you list. Show me the maths.
_____
If you want to see the “maths” I would suggest you purchase a supercomputer and run CSIM 1.0 yourself. You can download it here:
http://www.cesm.ucar.edu/models/cesm1.0/
Good luck!
Caution: Don’t try to simulate the climate on your home ‘puter or you’ll be sorry!
Pamela Gray,
A very simplified bit of maths:
– 5.35 times the natural log of the current concentration of CO2 divided by the concentration in 1959 gives a result of just over 1 watts per square metre.
– If we take into account the observed warming thus far, that would suggest that the earth is currently around 0.5 watts per square metre out of equilibrium.
So, more than enough energy to account for observed changes, it would seem, with plenty of change to be come.
(The amount of energy to cause the observed ice melt would only be a small fraction of that – a few per cent at most.)
I am sure that will not satisfy you, as it is only very rough, ready and simplified. But it is a start. If you can point me to more technical stuff (calculations of the kind that you are after), then I might be able to build my understanding, which might help me answer your questions (and my own) better.
Greys bath heater
Direct hair dryer at the surface of a filled bath, set on coolest setting
Remove co2 injection system from aquarium and place so co2 goes into hairdryer flow.
Wait for bath to heat.
wait a very very long time
Tonight, the inmates over at CP are obsessing about what the President will or will not say with regard to climate in Tuesday’s State of the Union (SOTU) message. The warmists are panicked over the fear of doom-funding being cut, even a little bit. They are calling for 100,000+ true believers to mass in front of the Capitol as the SOTU is being delivered. Some reply that the number should be 350,000 in honor of McKibben’s 350.com loons. They feel the position they have staked out crumbling away and are grabbing at straws.
It’s kind of a sad sight over there. IMHO not too much removed from true psychosis.
R. Gates says:
January 23, 2011 at 7:22 pm
“I’m still waiting for your proof that CO2 absolutely cannot affect ocean cycles.”
Please rephrase in a non-negative unless you are going to prove that GOD or DOG *do not exist*.
Gates says:
“I’m still waiting for your proof that CO2 absolutely cannot affect ocean cycles.”
Still trying to get skeptics to prove a negative, eh? Study up on the scientific method. You are the one who claims that a tiny trace gas affects ocean cycles.
As if.
R. Gates says: (January 23, 2011 at 6:40 pm)
” A decline in seasonal Arctic Sea ice, leading to an ice free summer Arctic Ocean by 2100 at the latest.”
This is similar to your “40% increase in CO2” statements. When you look past the words and actually see the real world it shows something quite different. This years “decline” in arctic sea ice is almost all due to the Hudson Bay area. What Hudson Bay has to do with sea ice that is actually in the Arctic Ocean is, well, nothing; other than it is used in the total count. But that is a human decision to include it. So your declining trend line looks good for you on paper but has little to do with the real ice in the Arctic Ocean.
Schadow says:
January 23, 2011 at 7:38 pm
“Some reply that the number should be 350,000 in honor of McKibben’s 350.com loons.”
Maybe they’d be more successful just going for the 350.
David Gould,
Still fixated on that bogus “stratospheric cooling,” are we?
That was the later fall-back position of the alarmist contingent, after the “fingerprint” of tropospheric warming was debunked.
If it wasn’t for doublethink, climate alarmists couldn’t think at all.
By the way, remember that remnants of two hurricanes this year went into the Hudson Bay area, something not so usual. Perhaps that transport of tropical heat has something to do with it, and if so would have nothing to do with long term declining ice.
R. Gates, curiosity strikes me, what millibar are you at? While 300-700mb is not interesting to you, some of us has observered weather or climate happenings in these pressures regions.
At what millibar do you think CO2 releases all the energy that you are scared of into space?
Just curious…
David Gould says:
January 23, 2011 at 7:23 pm
And if you scroll down your link just a little bit, we see that that entire drop occured before 1995 and seems to be related to reestablishing a new baseline after volcanic eruptions.
Any explanation why a monotonic increase in CO2 would lead to a graph that looks like that?
For those who want a quick review of some of the latest research into what would happen if we completely took out this “minor trace gas” called CO2 from the atmosphere, here’s a link:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101014171146.htm
This ties directly to the friendly discussion Smokey and I have had related to CO2 levels, water vapor and humidity, and how this minor trace gas (because it is non-precipitating) can in fact, act as a master thermostat for the climate.
Tom in Florida: The modern measurement for Arctic Sea Ice has always included Hudson Bay, so why would you want to move the goal post?
This new song from Minnesotans for global warming is great:
Set the flamingo freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Gates
You do come prepared, but there is one glaring fact that you may have forgotten.
Air pollution, ( and all pollution in general, for that matter) has been declining for a number of years. Energy effecient applicances, automobiles, and various other forms of industry have dramtically scaled back pollution. Yet acording to your theory the 3 hottest tempatures were 1998, 2005, and 2010.
However, if pollution levels, ( and thus, man-made CO2 emissions,) have been declining, ( and, in fact, peaked long before that,I believe) then the hottest tempatures, if the AGW theory was correct, should of occured sometime around those times, not many later. ESPECAILLY if carbon emissions are having that “catastrophic” effect on the world that the proponenents of CAGW portray.
Try asking a old relative, (preferably one who lived in the UK or even LA) about the old layers of smog that are no longer there today. They’ll have quite a story.
I thought the drop of relative humidity was an outcome of the self regulating hypothesis of Miskilczi. Basically CO2 goes up then relative humidity must come down and temperatures remain the same for the same solar input etc. Its to be expected