Jump to content
Science Forums

Does it matter if global warming is a fraud?


Theory5

Recommended Posts

Say there was global warming, but instead of it being due to man, say it was because of a natural earth cycle. Would the same amount of resources, needed to attack the problem, be used differently, to take care of the same scenarios of doom and gloom? In other words, we could be putting all the eggs in the wrong basket trying to do something with little impact. When a better use of the resources, may be in another direction.

 

As an analogy, one group says the enemy will attack the left wall and the other group says, no, they will attack the right wall. If we place all the resources on the left wall and they attack the right wall, it won't take a heavy attack to breach the fort. All the resources are out of position. There is risk that nature is behind this, since she has done this many times in the past. Humans are new to forcing climate change and have no track record. Don;t bet all the money on the long shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say there was global warming, but instead of it being due to man, say it was because of a natural earth cycle. Would the same amount of resources, needed to attack the problem, be used differently, to take care of the same scenarios of doom and gloom? In other words, we could be putting all the eggs in the wrong basket trying to do something with little impact. When a better use of the resources, may be in another direction.

 

As an analogy, one group says the enemy will attack the left wall and the other group says, no, they will attack the right wall. If we place all the resources on the left wall and they attack the right wall, it won't take a heavy attack to breach the fort. All the resources are out of position. There is risk that nature is behind this, since she has done this many times in the past. Humans are new to forcing climate change and have no track record. Don;t bet all the money on the long shot.

 

If it were that simple, I'd agree.

 

Unfortunately, we've got one-shot at this. It is here and now.

The benefits of cleaning up the atmosphere surely outweighs the possibility of running amok in pollution and industrial (to borrow a popular word) entropy.

 

In other words, we can act now and look foolish later, if need be. This much we can afford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with you here. We need a paradigm shift and it will not be easy.

 

Fanciful and not easy :mornincoffee:

 

 

 

"Better science" requires "better" scrutiny. You've yet to propose a viable experiment, so I'm left giving credence to the extant experts. :mornincoffee:

 

What scrutiny do you give the state of experimental testing in climate science?

 

Experiment - The Greenhouse Effect

 

Is that the best there is?

 

My viable experiments? I'm not a scientist. I never said I was, I'm a fan of the scientific method. Extant experts? Of the theory that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming? If the emissions are big enough, why not? In the cited experiment, a 100% CO2 atmosphere is far above projected CO2 levels, is anyone looking at more realistic CO2 levels in experimental tests?

 

Is there a viable experiment? A bigger vessel, a brighter light source, a thicker CO2 control, a field test would be most realistic. A physical model that can experimentally vary CO2 levels and measure temperature change.

 

Ask Al Gore, Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers, Barbara Boxer and GE. Ask a politician to mitigate climate change, just follow the advice of extant experts, no need to bother with little things like costs. The precautionary principle, the most draconian measures are needed immediately, to protect our grandchildren's lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One special effect that is being used is connected to fear and risk. Risk correlations can be still good with 1 in 1000. But 1 in 1000 will never make a good positive correlation.

 

For example, say I was in a factory developing a new process. During my experiments, I can make one perfect part every 100 tries. This would never go anywhere. I would told to go back to the drawing board at the best. If on the other hand, I worked on an existing line and saw that the second step increases the risk of defects by 1%, this would be useful. Both have the same correlation strength, but one is given much more weight, because of irrational fear versus objective reason.

 

There is risk in all types of things, which for any level of correlation will be given more weight out of irrational fear. This is the approach used by the doom and gloom of manmade global warming. The natural global warming people aren't using the easy approach, but are trying to use a positive correlation of historical data which is harder. One in one hundred looks better with fear than for a positive correlation.

 

My suggestion is the pro-natural need to downgrade their approach and use the easier fear-risk path to level the playing field. We can show nature at her worse and calculate risk if we don't prepare for nature. Nature can be far worse than anything manmade. Our best nuke bomb is small compare to a volcano. With enough risk correlation we will need to share better, since one side will not have the fear monopoly. Sometimes one in a million is enough risk to stampede the herd with the proper media spin. So make use of it, like the other side. All is fair in politics.

 

Let me given an example, say we decide to lower CO2 by building nukes. We will assume the CO2 impact is manmade and this change will help the climate change. This narrow thinking may cause us to ignore the risk of this being natural. As such, we may build in high risk places, relative to natural, using the assumption this will be safe because the effect is only man-made. When the natural cows come home, the nukes are at risk, because we didn't take into consideration the risk of nature. If we include both nature and manmade risks, we may still build nukes, but restrict building to higher ground, so we are covered both ways. But there is a certain arrogance in approach, due to politics, that is ignoring natural risks, some of which have more precedent than anything manmade that has yet to occur, once. Wow, this is so much easier than positive correlation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian, in another thread you've asked a similar question regarding the possibility of a test for GW. And I have answered you. I don't think you've read my reply, so I will briefly summarize it here:

 

Go to a rural town. Make sure that you're in the middle of town, where you are surrounded by all the pavement, tarmac and buildings that trap heat, same as in the city. Measure the temperature. Now, go to the city - and repeat the experiment. In both cases you were surrounded by glass, steel, concrete and tarmac. The only difference being the atmospheric composition. Matter of fact, merely compare the city's average temperature readings with its historic record (make sure the temperature readings go back to before the sudden spread of cars, or use a relatively young city (like Johannesburg or Los Angeles). See how the temperature rose over time. And the only difference is the amount of carbon pumped into the atmosphere by industry and automobiles. This is a well-known phenomenon taught in high school geography, called the urban heat island. Global Warming is merely the heat island currently in existence around any given city, spread globally. You need no more "experiments" than that. Give it up.

 

HB, Global Warming is natural. Sure. But natural GW takes lots and lots longer than human-caused GW. We're doing in ten years what normally would have taken a thousand. Species simply can't keep up with the current fast pace of thermal change. And therein lies the problem. I fail to see how that can be so hard to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Go to a rural town. Make sure that you're in the middle of town, where you are surrounded by all the pavement, tarmac and buildings that trap heat, same as in the city. Measure the temperature. Now, go to the city - and repeat the experiment. In both cases you were surrounded by glass, steel, concrete and tarmac. The only difference being the atmospheric composition. Matter of fact, merely compare the city's average temperature readings with its historic record (make sure the temperature readings go back to before the sudden spread of cars, or use a relatively young city (like Johannesburg or Los Angeles). See how the temperature rose over time. And the only difference is the amount of carbon pumped into the atmosphere by industry and automobiles. This is a well-known phenomenon taught in high school geography, called the urban heat island. Global Warming is merely the heat island currently in existence around any given city, spread globally. You need no more "experiments" than that. Give it up.

 

How do you isolate man made CO2 greenhouse warming from the Urban Heat Island effect? Does it matter? What if we reduce CO2 emissions, only to learn climate is dominated by the Urban Heat Island effect and manmade CO2 is less significant?

 

HB, Global Warming is natural. Sure. But natural GW takes lots and lots longer than human-caused GW. We're doing in ten years what normally would have taken a thousand. Species simply can't keep up with the current fast pace of thermal change. And therein lies the problem. I fail to see how that can be so hard to understand.

 

There aren't any experimental tests on manmade CO2 emissions on climate. Are there any species that have died because of manmade global warming?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Go to a rural town. Make sure that you're in the middle of town, where you are surrounded by all the pavement, tarmac and buildings that trap heat, same as in the city. Measure the temperature. Now, go to the city - and repeat the experiment. In both cases you were surrounded by glass, steel, concrete and tarmac. The only difference being the atmospheric composition. Matter of fact, merely compare the city's average temperature readings with its historic record (make sure the temperature readings go back to before the sudden spread of cars, or use a relatively young city (like Johannesburg or Los Angeles). See how the temperature rose over time. ....

 

I think the local build-up of heat accompanying the UHI effect that you are talking about is caused by water vapor (& other factors like power useage), but not CO2 directly. I'm not trying to say that CO2 isn't also important as a global GHG, but that it doesn't affect temperature on such a local scale (as water vapor does).

 

I talked about this in post:

http://hypography.com/forums/terra-preta/14350-carbon-credits-5.html#post287392

I suppose this post should have said something about the "cold IR" being the specific wavelength of IR that CO2 absorbs, down in the sub-zero temperature range, but HB had talked about that in the quoted post.

 

I also spoke about this in post:

http://hypography.com/forums/terra-preta/14350-carbon-credits-4.html#post287285

"It's not that CO2 heats up the air, but that CO2 prevents the air from as easily losing heat [in the sub-zero range, to space].

 

Since the global temperature depends on how fast we lose heat from the top of our atmosphere into deep space, the slowing -or retarding- of heat loss (by CO2) means that the whole system loses heat more slowly, and so heat builds up [in Earth's heat-loss system].

 

When heat builds up in the global system, it can melt ice or evaporate water (without changing the temperature), or it can raise the temperature of the oceans, crust, and air [incl. water vapor]."

 

Heat "build up" causes UHI's to lose heat a tiny bit more slowly, and heat "build up" also causes night-time temps to not fall as much as they used to do (as opposed to equivalently boosting daytime temperatures more than normal), but this CO2-caused "backing up" of heat in the system is most noticeable in the colder dryer areas (like the poles) where most of the planet's heat is lost to space.

===

 

Most people don't think about heat when you start talking about sub-zero temperatures, but those sub-zero temperatures are the very part of the IR spectrum where CO2 absorbs "heat" (and are also the temperatures where heat is lost to space), so that part of the heat-loss mechanism -within the total atmospheric dynamics- is where CO2 has it's main effect (not regionally or in UHI's).

[EDIT: CO2 also absorbs at "warmer" IR wavelengths, but those are swamped by water vaper and so don't affect the global heat balance very much. I don't know if "locally" (and on a shorter time scale) those warmer IR wavelengths, that CO2 also absorbs, might contribute to UHI effects or transient regional heating.]

 

When that sub-zero heat "backs up" in the atmosphere, then water vapor will lose heat less readily; and this is the warming effect that we perceive on our thermometers and skin as "global warming" ...along with melting ice and warming oceans, etc. Of course changing weather patterns will accompany the shifts in these other parameters such as ice distribution, vapor distribution, and heat distribution in the water vapor and the oceans.

===

 

btw...

Hurricanes are the largest single heat-transfer mechanism for getting heat from the tropics up to the poles, where it then can be lost more easily to space.... If hurricanes can't handle the needed heat transfer anymore, then ocean currents will reorganize... etc., until (imho) the whole atmosphere might be disrupted -say with global cloudiness- until another glaciation is precipitated.

 

Hurricane Expert Reassesses Link to Warming - Dot Earth Blog - NYTimes.com

AMS Online Journals - Hurricanes and Global Warming: Results from Downscaling IPCC AR4 Simulations

"We demonstrate that in these simulations, the change in tropical cyclone activity is greatly influenced by the increasing difference between the moist entropy of the boundary layer and that of the middle troposphere as the climate warms." -Kerry Emanual ...from Abstract-

 

ResearchChannel - The Hurricane-Climate Connection

"Description:

After Katrina, the link between global warming and a perceived increase in severe weather became a critical debate topic in the science and policy arenas. Prof. Kerry Emanuel (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), in his 2007 AMS Haurwitz Memorial Lecture, examines this question. While sea surface temperature plays a role in tropical storm intensity, it represents only part of the complex puzzle. He also details an emerging theory that suggests hurricanes and typhoons may play a major, and heretofore, unexpected role in climate dynamics."

 

The videos of the cold wake (sucked-up heat) of hurricanes is pretty amazing....

 

~ ;)

 

p.s. this "indirect" CO2 effect is why a "real world" experiment of CO2/temp. won't work....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...p.s. this "indirect" CO2 effect is why a "real world" experiment of CO2/temp. won't work....

 

Is this why do you think it's possible to do a real world experiment on man made particulates and climate but not CO2?

 

The Global Impact of Biomass Burning

 

How can we work around this limitation and show physical demonstrations that might quantify CO2's greenhouse effect? Do you think tabletop lab experiments can quantify the greenhouse effect, isolated from climate feedbacks? How large do you think the temperature increase would be, from doubling CO2?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How large do you think the temperature increase would be, from doubling CO2?

 

I think the temperature increase would be about what the scientific consensus says it would be; unless the climate system reorganizes itself, in response to the rapid change, before that temperature increase can be achieved.

 

I don't think there is a way of "working around this limitation" of trying to study CO2's indirect effect, or of experimenting on a large, complex system.

===

 

BrianG, [...on noting the difference between climate and temperature....]

 

You ask: "Is this why do you think it's possible to do a real world experiment on man made particulates and climate but not CO2?"

 

I'd say that you can ("experiment" or) measure the effect of particulates (from a burn) on the local and regional weather to some extent (temperature and rainfall effects), but that to then relate those results to climate would require a model of how those local and regional effects influenced overall climate.

 

Since particulates directly affect solar insolation, it's pretty easy to measure direct effects of particulates on surface temperatures in the real world (or in congruent lab experiments). Particulate effects on solar insolation occur at the beginning of the climate process - through mechanical shading effects, and reflecting/absorbing solar energy locally which prevents the entry of some heat into the climate system and contributes some local heating (depending on albedo).

 

It's easy to do a lab experiment on the effect of shading by particulates on surface temperature, but translating those results into long-term effects on the real-world climate would require modelling.

===

 

CO2 does not directly affect insolation, but contributes its effect at the end of the climate process - when heat is finally leaving the planetary system - after solar energy has been absorbed and transmuted into very low energy (long-IR) heat.

 

There is no direct effect of CO2 of surface temperature (as from shading by particles).

CO2's effect on surface temperature are caused indirectly when CO2's absorbed heat prevents surface temperatures from cooling as easily.

 

Learning the mechanics of the heat-transfer process that allow a surface to cool (and that are inhibited by CO2's absorbed heat) are complicated enough, but trying to recreate that temperature differential (between deep space and room temperature) with "an atmosphere" inbetween, as a lab experiment, would be even more complicated. Such an experiment would only verify the absorption of energy by CO2, it wouldn't give any information about how climate operates.

===

 

Even translating those particulate's direct, initial effects on temperature --much less the other effects that particulates have on atmospheric thermodynamics, cloud nucleation, and other weather-related feedbacks-- into a predictable long-term effect on climate overall is difficult. CO2's indirect effects would be that much more difficult....

Such long-term effects must be modelled; there is no tabletop climate experiment that will reproduce all of the aspects of the real-world climate (much less their interactions) that are affected by whatever you are trying to study. ...or words to that effect....

===

 

So to address your question: "Do you think tabletop lab experiments can quantify the greenhouse effect, isolated from climate feedbacks?"

 

Thanks! It certainly makes it easier if you isolate it from climate feedbacks, but....

 

It depends on what you mean by "quantify the greenhouse effect." Do you mean quantify how CO2 absorbs energy, or do you mean quantify how that absorption of energy then changes the flow of heat in a complex, solid/liquid/gaseous, heat-dissipating system? The first is easy, but the second -as I mentioned above- would require replicating the temperature differential between Earth's surface and deep space, and having a medium inbetween that allowed for flow of radiative heat (without the small-scale convective forces of a tabletop experiment) where one could vary the CO2 concentration inbetween the two temperature reservoirs as the temperature of the cooling "Earth" reservoir was monitored --to see if it cooled less easily with higher CO2 concentrations....

 

An experiment such as that would quantify CO2's "greenhouse effect" for the particular heat-dissipation system that was concocted for the experiment (whether it was liquid, gaseous, or a combination), but those results would not directly apply to the Earth's heat-dissipation system - without some (probably non-linear) theoretically derived, scaling factor. So no, I don't think we can quantify "the" greenhouse effect in a lab, but we can quantify "a" greenhouse effect in the lab, and --using observationally derived scaling factors-- get a fairly accurate idea how that effect operates in our planetary system.

===

 

In summary....

 

1. Lab experiment show that CO2 absorbs heat (energy at certain long IR wavelengths).

2. Observations show our planet loses heat mostly at these same long IR wavelengths.

 

...given our current circumstances....

3. Logic says heat will build up until the heat-dissipation system reorganizes itself, either by preventing some heat from entering into the system, and/or by allowing some heat to escape from the system through a different mechanism.

 

~ ;): 1 + 2 = 3?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

In summary....

 

1. Lab experiment show that CO2 absorbs heat (energy at certain long IR wavelengths).

2. Observations show our planet loses heat mostly at these same long IR wavelengths.

 

...given our current circumstances....

3. Logic says heat will build up until the heat-dissipation system reorganizes itself, either by preventing some heat from entering into the system, and/or by allowing some heat to escape from the system through a different mechanism.

 

~ ;): 1 + 2 = 3?

 

Good deal, now our task is to see a maximum effect from experiments that show CO2 absorbs heat energy, the best experiments I've found so far show a 0.545C increase when CO2 is doubled. Do you know of any experiments that show a larger effect?

 

Please note, I'm not saying doubling CO2 in our atmosphere will cause a 0.545C temperature increase, I understand our climate is a complex, chaotic system, that IR moves at the speed of light and most of the energy entering Earth is constantly balanced against most of the energy leaving Earth. My first step to understanding CO2's greenhouse effect is to find clear experimental tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HB, Global Warming is natural. Sure. But natural GW takes lots and lots longer than human-caused GW. We're doing in ten years what normally would have taken a thousand. Species simply can't keep up with the current fast pace of thermal change. And therein lies the problem. I fail to see how that can be so hard to understand.

This is a point that is not quite correct, Boer. While CO2 is increasing at rates never seen before, temperature is not. Yes, temperature is rising, but it is not rising in any way that would show as out of the ordinary on the charts.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... show a 0.545C increase when CO2 is doubled. Do you know of any experiments that show a larger effect?

 

No, I don't. I know about the theory, but leave the particulars to the working researchers.

 

What were the circumstances for that experiment you mention? Did they try to figure out a scaling factor --as described in my previous post-- to apply their results to the real world?

Edit: ...and what were they measuring the temperature of?

===

 

"My first step to understanding CO2's greenhouse effect is to find clear experimental tests." -BrianG

 

It sounds to me as if you are looking for quantification of "CO2's greenhouse effect" through experimental tests, but not "understanding" of the mechanism of CO2's greenhouse effect.

 

~ :eek_big: Happy New Year! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a point that is not quite correct, Boer. While CO2 is increasing at rates never seen before, temperature is not. Yes, temperature is rising, but it is not rising in any way that would show as out of the ordinary on the charts.

 

Bill

 

I'm sorry, Bill, I missed the charts you are referring to that show a documented *rate* of temperature increase in the past equal to what we have experienced over the last several decades. Would you point me to it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, Bill, I missed the charts you are referring to that show a documented *rate* of temperature increase in the past equal to what we have experienced over the last several decades. Would you point me to it?

I'd be glad tooooooo....

I'd be glad tooooooo....

I'd be glad tooooooo....

I'd be glad tooooooo....

But I'm drunk now....

I can barely sing....

So you'll have to wait for a dayyyyyyy.....

 

 

Hey!!! I found it even through my tequila clouded stupor. (Thanks to Pam for the inspiration :eek_big:)

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think tabletop lab experiments can quantify the greenhouse effect, isolated from climate feedbacks? How large do you think the temperature increase would be, from doubling CO2?

You have been asked on numerous occasions to suggest how you would do an experiment like this and how it would translate int a real world model

Instead you continually side-step the question; or offer suggestions that just display your profound ignorance of science and ecology

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have been asked on numerous occasions to suggest how you would do an experiment like this and how it would translate int a real world model

Instead you continually side-step the question; or offer suggestions that just display your profound ignorance of science and ecology

 

I beg your pardon, I've got a thread dedicated to answering this question. I hesitate to duplicate the discussion on this thread dedicated to the question: "Does it matter if global warming is a fraud?" By no means do I side step or ignore the question: Greenhouse Effect Experimental Designs

 

Would you mind taking a less derogatory tone when you post your replies? I'll thank you in advance, for your consideration.

 

Brian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good deal, now our task is to see a maximum effect from experiments that show CO2 absorbs heat energy...

 

The amount of energy that can be absorbed by carbon dioxide is limited by the C=O bond strength in the molecule. Being a double bond it is relatively strong. At normal earth pressure carbon dioxide decomposes at around 3,200 - 4,600 Kelvin. This energy can be attained via infrared radiation in which case the upper limit would be called multiple photon photodissociation.

 

What do you propose such an upper limit to the maximum heat absorption of carbon dioxide tell us about Earth's climate?

 

~modest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...