Does it matter if global warming is a fraud?

[BrianG]

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

 

~modest

 

When the amount of carbon dioxide in the air doubles, the temperature will increase a finite amount. I want to see that measurement verified with experimental tests.

 

The IPCC's estimates might be too high, CO₂ levels might increase and double from the preindustrial "ideal" of 280ppmv this century. I'd like to learn how that might contribute to climate change.

[modest]

I answered you here:

Re: Greenhouse Effect Experimental Designs

~modest

[BrianG]

Essay, I'm sorry for the delay, I need to be responsive to Modest's questions first. Your posts are important and I hope you find my answers adequate.

 

I asked: "Do you know of any experiments that show a larger [greenhouse] effect?

 

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

 

I don't like to leave science to intermediaries, I like to see tests.

 

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?

 

Three experiments are described in the first post here: Greenhouse Effect Experimental Designs . Basically, they measure CO2 concentrations and temperature differences in the sample. Please forgive me for not describing them in detail here, we have an entire thread dedicated to that discussion.

 

 

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...

 

I'm sorry but I don't follow how quantification can't help to aid understanding. If you will forgive a crude illustration, Svante Arrhenius originally measured the greenhouse effect by observing moonshine through different angles of atmosphere. I still don't understand how he isolated CO2's greenhouse effect from water vapor and other GHG's. I have much to learn, thank you for your post!

[Michaelangelica]

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

The suggestions you have made so far are laughable; and again just display your ignorance.

Wherever possible you weave obfuscate and dissemble. The art of a expert troll.

[BrianG]

Everyone needs clean water and air, if global warming is a fraud, might it distract us from those goals?

[REASON]

Everyone needs clean water and air, if global warming is a fraud, might it distract us from those goals?

 

Not if those goals are included in our overall efforts to minimize potentialy harmful effects we have on the environment toward more sustainable practices. I don't see efforts to produce clean energy, reduce waste, recycle, produce clean water and reduce air pollution as exclusive from efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. It is simply in our best interest in the long run to learn as individuals and as a society to become more conscious of the things we can do to provide for our energy and consumption needs in a way that is not destructive to the environment we depend on to survive. It will require investment and sacrifice. To me, this is true no matter the reality of AGW.

 

Or, we could just continue funding endless imperialistic war and the gambling habits of the banksters.

[Essay]

I don't like to leave science to intermediaries, I like to see tests.

So Brian, I assume you never take any medicines without first surveying all the relevant tests...

...and you must spend a lot of time reading reports about the UL (Underwriter's Lab) approved home/office products...

 

...and I assume you've learned about nano-technology and have seen all the tests on the use of nano-products in our clothing and kitchen appliances/containers....

Do you even check with the city/state planning/permit departments before crossing bridges or entering big glass buildings?

 

Three experiments are described in the first post here: Greenhouse Effect Experimental Designs . Basically, they measure CO2 concentrations and temperature differences in the sample. Please forgive me for not describing them in detail here, we have an entire thread dedicated to that discussion.

Yes, I feel bad about posting all that stuff about experiments here -answering your question to my offhand p.s. comment- instead of posting it on the appropriate thread; but I did bring up the "theoretically derived, scaling factor" for a tabletop experiment, which I guess is called "lambda" on "Greenhouse Effect Experimental Designs." As I say, I know the theory behind... but not the particulars. I am familiar with those 3 experiments; the questions I asked were rhetorical (designed to show some of the problems/flaws with those experiments). As least the third one points out that it is cooling rate (after irradiation) that is important; but as I pointed out, that is a lot harder to "do" in an amateur experiment.

 

I'm sorry but I don't follow how quantification can't help to aid understanding. .... I have much to learn, thank you for your post!

We can only "qualify" the greenhouse effect in tabletop experiments. "Quantification" -to relate it to the global environment- requires calculating that "lambda" scaling factor, which means you're back where you started - qualifying the experiment to relate it to the real world. We can theoretically decide what quantity lambda should have, or we can observationally decide what quantity lambda should have, but there is no "physical constant" called lambda related to anything that can be "tested" in the lab, or "experimented" upon in the field.

[BrianG]

So Brian, I assume you never take any medicines without first surveying all the relevant tests...

...and you must spend a lot of time reading reports about the UL (Underwriter's Lab) approved home/office products...

 

...and I assume you've learned about nano-technology and have seen all the tests on the use of nano-products in our clothing and kitchen appliances/containers....

Do you even check with the city/state planning/permit departments before crossing bridges or entering big glass buildings?

 

Every medicine is experimentally tested, UL experimentally tests the products it reviews, manufacturers experimentally test products, even clothing, kitchen appliances and containers and bridges and buildings have a long history of real world testing. I rely on those tests, I don't look at the research, except where it influences public policy.

 

... there is no "physical constant" called lambda related to anything that can be "tested" in the lab, or "experimented" upon in the field.

 

This disturbs me, why is the global warming theory so different from all your examples above?

[Essay]

This disturbs me, why is the global warming theory so different from all your examples above?

I don't follow....

I wrote, "... there is no "physical constant" called lambda related to anything that can be "tested" in the lab, or "experimented" upon in the field."

 

That was a fairly offhand comment about "lambda" (I considered putting my usual 'or words to that effect' at the end), but I don't understand what you mean by "all your [my] examples above."

 

Do you mean why is a tabletop experiment different from the real world?

Do you mean ...well I just can't think of any other questions....

In what way do you think {whatever I said} is different from "GW Theory."

 

Thanks,

~

 

p.s. ...or do you mean why is testing GW theory so different from testing medicines, appliances, and bridges?

[BrianG]

So Brian, I assume you never take any medicines without first surveying all the relevant tests...

...and you must spend a lot of time reading reports about the UL (Underwriter's Lab) approved home/office products...

 

...and I assume you've learned about nano-technology and have seen all the tests on the use of nano-products in our clothing and kitchen appliances/containers....

Do you even check with the city/state planning/permit departments before crossing bridges or entering big glass buildings?...

 

I mean the examples above, they all have real world tests, not just a theoretical and observational basis. UL tests products, is the a UL test on climate mitigation? The FDA tests all medicines, have they tested and of the proposed climate remedies? New product technology is based on experimental testing, I'm looking for samples of climate change mitigation.

[Essay]

The FDA tests all medicines, have they tested and of the proposed climate remedies? New product technology is based on experimental testing, I'm looking for samples of climate change mitigation.

Did you see that link I posted last week about how 80-85% of medical devices are not tested (except by using them). I guess it's a bit too hard to "model" the human body on a tabletop. Try googling bi-metal stents for an example.

 

p.s. I think the FDA doesn't do the testing, but instead relies on the drug company's testing ...at least mostly. Maybe they do some testing too, but not like in the old days (pre-Reaganesque small-government days). Thank goodness we got the government out of that business (said sarcastically), eh?

 

~ :)

[BrianG]

Did you see that link I posted last week about how 80-85% of medical devices are not tested (except by using them)...

 

Yes I did, but I don't assume you agree with me on the importance of experimental tests for climate change mitigation. Am I wrong?

 

p.s. I think the FDA doesn't do the testing, but instead relies on the drug company's testing ...at least mostly...

 

I think you're right, thank you for the correction. I was wrong.

[Essay]

...but I don't assume you agree with me on the importance of experimental tests for climate change mitigation. Am I wrong?

If I understand that triple(?) negative sentence.... :)

===

 

We've fully tested global-cooling mitigation for over a century now. The results are in from many real-world tests, similar to what you've suggested. We have been successful, and can now prevent the cooling trend that would eventually lead into another glaciation. I don't know how many centuries we'll be able to keep that up, but it's certainly preferable to the previous pattern.

===

 

We don't need to chronically overdose on a medicine, just to be able to "test" the benefits of taking the proper dosage, do we?

 

~ :hyper:

[BrianG]

If I understand that triple(?) negative sentence.... :)

 

Two sentences:

 

"Yes I did, but I don't assume you agree with me on the importance of experimental tests for climate change mitigation."

Then:

"Am I wrong?"

 

We've fully tested global-cooling mitigation for over a century now. The results are in from many real-world tests, similar to what you've suggested...

I don't consider our fossil fuel use a test of climate change mitigation. I call our use of fossil fuel: "life". I do understand that if AGW is an a priori assumption, then we are already mitigating against catastrophic global cooling, but I don't hold that assumption.

 

We don't need to chronically overdose on a medicine, just to be able to "test" the benefits of taking the proper dosage, do we?

 

No, we don't. We do experimental tests to find correct dosages.

[Essay]

I don't consider our fossil fuel use a test of climate change mitigation. I call our use of fossil fuel: "life". I do understand that if AGW is an a priori assumption, then we are already mitigating against catastrophic global cooling, but I don't hold that assumption.

So you don't think AGW (human influence on climate via CO2) is a valid assumption?

 

No, we don't. We do experimental tests to find correct dosages.

I'm thinking of the commercial for... Abilify(?) ...that points out how 2/3's of those taking anti-depressent medications "need" some more help, as their current medication isn't working well enough. I wonder if Abilify also only works in 1/3 of the people;

but I guess they've got the proper dosage established through testing.

===

 

Does it matter if medicine is a fraud? Placebo's work close to 20% of the time.... :hyper: ...asked rhetorically.

===

 

Really though, you don't take AGW as a given; ...that CO2 is affecting global heat retention,

and the consequent effects on ice, oceans, crust & air temperatures, and weather patterns?

 

I thought it was just mitigation that you questioned.

 

~ :)

[REASON]

Yes I did, but I don't assume you agree with me on the importance of experimental tests for climate change mitigation. Am I wrong?

 

I think you're wrong.

 

I think this entire argument about "testing for climate change mitigation" is a canard. To me it's like saying we shouldn't mitigate the dumping of waste chemicals upriver until we conduct experiments which can prove that the river ecology and the downstream population will not be harmed by removing the chemicals. I mean, we need those chemicals right, and think of the cost to the company to have to find another way to dispose of their waste? And there's no way to prove that the increase in birth defects and cancer rates downriver have anything to do with those chemicals. Obvioulsy, these people just want more government control and are anti-capitalists. :)

 

One big problem I see with your argument is that you don't advocate that we discontinue burning fossil fuels based on the premise that there were no tests conducted that proved that adding significant amounts of stored CO2 gas into the atmosphere wouldn't cause undesirable climate change. At least if you did, you'd be consistent. But instead, you only advocate testing to confirm that it's okay to stop what we're doing. I think the real purpose behind this argument is to become completely entangled in a debate about whether science can actually produce an accurate test, and continue to challenge any tests that are constructed as producing unreliable results.....thus continuing the status quo.

[Eclipse Now]

If Global Warming is a fraud, then I'd be sooooo delighted because then we'd only have about 7 or 8 other serious threats to civilisation to contend with!

 

Basically, global warming seems to be the only thing forcing our governments to think about how we are going to leave fossil fuels. The limited supply of fossil fuels just doesn't seem to work, and we have to leave them before they leave us or we're in BIG trouble! Peak oil and gas are almost here, and the University of Newcastle has determined that peak coal will arrive somewhere between 2010 and 2048... such a big margin of error because coal resource reporting isn't that accurate.

 

But after peak fossil fuels it means we've used up all the easy to get to, easy to mine, cheap stuff. Then it is into the harder to get to, ever declining, ever more expensive stuff because it will never again meet demand.

...

 

Moderation note: this post and 8 responses to it have been moved to 21960, because they’re a discussion of a related but distinct subject.