Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wild?

This is not an everything goes forum, but rather a place to ask questions and request help for developing your ideas.

Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 22nd, 2019, 8:05 am 

The Vat,

You have brought up my profession.

As a trial lawyer, I am compelled to point out that the law regards the opinions of so-called experts as an inferior grade of evidence, for the reason that it is possible to call an expert to give almost any opinion pro or con on any relevant issue in the case.

My own experience has demonstrated the wisdom of the law on this point. I have learned that expert witnesses are much easier to cross-examine than fact witness; for with them, it is always, “it can be” or “It may be” or that certain circumstances “suggest” a certain result. Further, I have found it quite easy to find another expert to contradict the opposing party’s expert.

Such witnesses are often psychiatrists who claim that certain facts are true because of a majority vote taken at one of their conventions.

Climatologists do not necessarily take votes on anthropogenic climate change at conventions; yet some justify their opinions by saying that most other climatologists agree with them.

A scientific theory cannot, for any practical purpose, be considered a fact unless it is so well established by experimental data and accurate predictions of future events that no rational person can deny it. This is the scientific method. Thus, it was not necessary for physicists to take a vote on whether or not General Relativity is true, or even to argue that a majority of physicists believe it to be so. It is undeniable evidence that makes it true .

Therefore, I advise you and others on the forum to beware of mere opinions. Critical thinking requires no less.

As to the immediate issue at hand, I can only say that we have reached the stage where both of us are only repeating our points of view. Because further repetition will serve no useful purpose, I do not intend yet again to repeat my own argument.

However, because self-described climate scientists are now beginning to insist that hard evidence and not mere opinions be applied to the question of anthropogenic climate change, we are able to await the passage of time to reveal which of us will ultimately be vindicated.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 22nd, 2019, 8:29 am 

Serpent,

The principal way that CO2 can be dangerous to the health is by crowding out oxygen in a confined area. Since the open air is about 21% oxygen at sea level and CO2 only about .04%, it would take a monumental increase in CO2 to crowd out oxygen—an amount that all the oceans of the earth and all other sources of CO2 combined cannot possibly supply.

Plant green houses create a confined space where CO2 is well over 1000 parts per million. The plants thrive on it, with no danger to the health of the greenhouse workers.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 22nd, 2019, 9:24 am 

A scientific theory cannot, for any practical purpose, be considered a fact unless it is so well established by experimental data and accurate predictions of future events that no rational person can deny it. This is the scientific method.
- Neri

This is the basis on which climatologists form their opinions, which I have already pointed out, and then provided a half dozen reviews (which you read at the linked page, right?), each providing their own links to relevant sources. Since you have not kept with forum rules - failing to provide any peer reviewed research, failing to respond to critiques of Osborn et al, showing no learning curve on how GHGs actually function as drivers of climate change - we are done.

Climatologists do not necessarily take votes on anthropogenic climate change at conventions; yet some justify their opinions by saying that most other climatologists agree with them.


No, they back opinions with data and accurate predictions. One thing GW deniers hate to mention is that pretty much all of what we're seeing now (CO2 ppm, methane hydrates thawing, sea level rises, ice and permafrost melting, average global temp increase, more severe storms and wildfires, coral die offs, pH changes, etc) was predicted quite well starting in the late 70s. Anthropogenic GW has met the test you yourself set out, of facts established by observational and experimental data and accurate predictions. The overall trend in CO2 levels was predicted in the 1890s by Arrhenius, and more specific and accurate concentration curves were predicted by Keeling in the 1950s. Thanks for the chat.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby davidm on July 22nd, 2019, 6:20 pm 

You have brought up my profession.


Not to your credit.

As a trial lawyer, …


Which gives you expertise in these matters how, exactly?

… I am compelled to point out that …


Compelled to point by whom, or what? You are not “compelled” to “point out” anything. You are just a standard-issue espouser of ignorant nonsense.

…the law regards the opinions of so-called experts as an inferior grade of evidence, for the reason that it is possible to call an expert to give almost any opinion pro or con on any relevant issue in the case.


Correct. It’s possible to call to the stand a lying expert, or an expert liar, to deny the fact of anthropogenic global warming that threatens not just to end human civilization, but to wipe out life on earth. But the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists is that anthropogenic climate change is real. I’ll take their expertise over your lack thereof, if you don’t mind.

My own experience has demonstrated the wisdom of the law on this point. I have learned that expert witnesses are much easier to cross-examine than fact witness; for with them, it is always, “it can be” or “It may be” or that certain circumstances “suggest” a certain result. Further, I have found it quite easy to find another expert to contradict the opposing party’s expert.


Yes, because you don’t care about what is wrong or right, just about winning your case for your client. In that you are no different from DAs. They don’t care about truth or falsity, either, just about winning their case. Anyway, of course scientific findings are defeasible; that is what science is about! In your own profession, assuming you really are a trial lawyer, you must know that all judges instruct jurors about the difference between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “beyond any doubt whatever.” The former is obtainable by humans, but the latter is not. You seem to wish to hold climate scientists to the latter standard, which is a dishonest tactic, and not part of science.

Such witnesses are often psychiatrists who claim that certain facts are true because of a majority vote taken at one of their conventions.


Prove that psychiatrists do this.

Climatologists do not necessarily take votes on anthropogenic climate change at conventions; yet some justify their opinions by saying that most other climatologists agree with them.


Please prove this, if you can. Of course, you can’t. They agree with one another about anthropogenic global warming, because they are able to independently evaluate the same evidence, and come to the same rational conclusions.

A scientific theory cannot, for any practical purpose, be considered a fact …


Theories are NEVER facts. Theories are systemized DESCRIPTIONS of facts, and theories make testable predictions.

… unless it is so well established by experimental data and accurate predictions of future events that no rational person can deny it.


Yeah, and then a theory is still not a fact.

This is the scientific method.


There is no such thing as “the” scientific method. Read Feyerabend and others.

Thus, it was not necessary for physicists to take a vote on whether or not General Relativity is true, or even to argue that a majority of physicists believe it to be so. It is undeniable evidence that makes it true.


Evidence is never undeniable, theories are never undeniable, and either general relativity or quantum mechanics is at least partly wrong, since they disagree with each other.

Therefore, I advise you and others on the forum to beware of mere opinions. Critical thinking requires no less.


Thanks for your condescension. Your advice is properly directed at yourself.

As to the immediate issue at hand, I can only say that we have reached the stage where both of us are only repeating our points of view. Because further repetition will serve no useful purpose, I do not intend yet again to repeat my own argument.


Then don’t! Of course, you don’t actually have an argument, just a bunch of blather. So, don’t repeat your blather!

However, because self-described climate scientists …


Self-described? So climate scientists who study this stuff are not REALLY climate scientists, according to you? What are they, then? Self-described trial lawyers, like you?

… are now beginning to insist that hard evidence and not mere opinions be applied to the question of anthropogenic climate change …


Are now beginning to insist on hard evidence? Hard evidence goes all the way back to the 1890s, when the first, and accurate, prediction of worldwide human-caused global warming was made. President Lyndon Johnson, informed by scientists, talked about the peril of global warming in 1965. Anthropogenic climate change is not new. Any idiot can run a high-school experiment to show that carbon dioxide traps heat, but that, unlike water vapor, it does not rain out of the air. Instead, it stays for thousand of years.

Also, who are these made-up people who are “now beginning to insist” on what you claim they are beginning to insist upon? You have no answer. It’s just a typical BS lie.

… we are able to await the passage of time to reveal which of us will ultimately be vindicated.


The world is rapidly melting before our eyes. Did you fail to notice this?
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 551
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby bangstrom on July 22nd, 2019, 11:31 pm 

Neri » July 22nd, 2019, 7:29 am wrote:
The principal way that CO2 can be dangerous to the health is by crowding out oxygen in a confined area. Since the open air is about 21% oxygen at sea level and CO2 only about .04%, it would take a monumental increase in CO2 to crowd out oxygen—an amount that all the oceans of the earth and all other sources of CO2 combined cannot possibly supply.

Plant green houses create a confined space where CO2 is well over 1000 parts per million. The plants thrive on it, with no danger to the health of the greenhouse workers.

The danger of a rise in CO2 is overheating the atmosphere by means of the green house effect. A child left in a sealed car on a hot, sunny day dies of heat long before they run out of oxygen. CO2 and methane are a danger because they reduce the atmosphere’s ability radiate heat from the sun back into space just as glass traps heat from the sun in a greenhouse or a hot car.

CO2 and methane have positive feedback effects where every minute rise in their concentration raises the global temperature which reduces the ability of the soil and oceans to absorb CO2 and methane. The greatest concern about climate change is that green house gases can rise to a tipping point where the soil and oceans begin to release more stored CO2 and methane than they absorb triggering a run away effect that can’t be stopped or reversed.

CO2 is good for plants and breathing water is good for fish but this doesn’t mean the same is good for humans.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 659
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Serpent on July 23rd, 2019, 12:55 am 

I have a greenhouse.
It's a peculiar sort of environment - not one I'd like to live in all the time. And mine is a very casual, amateurish greenhouse, with open doors at both ends and four-month-old kale in the hydroponic trays still growing new leaves. When they get a little droopy on hot days, I give them a cold shower.
Things are quite different in a well-run commercial greenhouse. It's a closed system, with airlocks and temperature/humidity controls. Extra CO2 is pumped in to overdose the plants - to get higher yields of salad greens or tomatoes. Those crops are meant to be short-lived: Once the desired part is harvested, the welfare of the plant is of no consequence.
That's quite different from how a healthy forest works.

Just as the closed and limited environment of a scientific experiment is different from how a healthy planet works. A planet is a closed system, only with no temperature or humidity controls; no way to regulate how much extra CO2 goes in, no way to keep unwanted gases out; no place to vent excess gas or heat.

Experiments are good for providing a certain kind of information, but that information must then be compared to the results of other experiments, and placed into the appropriate context. Each experiment sheds some light on a specific small segment of the big picture. No single experiment - even if it has a solid scientific foundation - can invalidate all of the other observations, measurements and results. But it can reveal a weakness in some aspect of a calculation, add a depth to a dimensionof a model, correct an imprecision, complete a projection... They're all useful - even the very flawed ones - in compiling a preponderance of evidence. That's what determines the outcome of a trial.
(And some of our forensic experts are pretty damn good witnesses!)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3674
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby doogles on July 23rd, 2019, 9:52 pm 

I did not realise before that we had such a 'closed-minded' mob of people in this forum.

Neri presented the findings and opinions of two separate research groups who suggested that clouds themselves may be having more of an effect on the Average Global Near Surface Temperatures (AGNST) than carbon dioxide. I felt that his contribution was useful for two reasons. It refreshingly provided an alternative to a belief system that is not showing any encouraging results to date (after 23 years), and it is an avenue of inquiry that will be based on practical experimentation and not just theory and mathematical models.

What makes the attacks on Neri worse, is that not one of the attacks has contained an argument against the cloud theory or cosmic rays.

The comments against Neri virtually say that because a consensus of climate scientists believe that carbon dioxide is THE culprit in AGNST increments, it is heresy to dare to throw any other possibilities into the ring. The comments also virtually say that a lawyer has no right to even announce the findings of research groups that go against the modern carbon dioxide religion.

I feel as if I'm living in the days when Bruno and Galileo were announcing their theories and observations respectively that the sun did not circle the Earth.

Don't forget that the entire discipline of microbiology was founded on the observations and basic experimentation of a chemist (not a doctor or a biologist); there is even evidence that he plagiarised a useful idea for his Anthrax vaccine from a country veterinarian. And also remember that the very first vaccination was administered by a farmer named Jesty, to his daughters. His local GP, Jenner, of course adopted the procedure and virtually marketed it. During my 25 years as a country veterinary practitioner, I never hesitated to discuss problem veterinary situations with farmers and was often rewarded by useful ideas -- either directly useful or good enough to trigger a new line of thought in myself. Qualifications in any particular field can sometimes be a handicap to open thinking.

I'm also surprised that members are clinging so strongly to the carbon dioxide belief system when Hansen himself claims that he cannot explain why the AGNST decreased by 0.5 degrees C between 1940 and 1970 when the CO2 increased significantly. Has anyone had thoughts about that? Doesn't anyone feel that there just may be, could be, perhaps a flaw in the theory? -- Not even a teeny weeny twinge of a doubt???

The diagram below comes from the IPCC. It shows the cooling period mentioned above. The volcanos appeared to have something to do with the cooling, but the extra CO2 certainly didn't counteract that cooling. Obviously there was a partial barrier to solar radiation similar to that of cloud in affected areas The red arrows are my additions.
POSSIBLE EFFECT OF CLEAN AIR.jpg


There is one possibility, but the ideas are hard to prove. In fact, they involve cloud, aerosol and nidus (or nucleus) formation for water droplets.

Apparently water droplets will not form from water vapour unless they have a nidus on which to coalesce. In fact, one experiment has demonstrated that in conditions of absolute maximum humidity, droplets will not form if particles of any kind are removed from the containers (http://meteorologytraining.tpub.com/142 ... 269_43.htm). In real cloud formation, apparently salt air is the main nidus, but in the old industrial areas, there was plenty of sulphur dioxide and nitric oxide that did the job.

In the late 1960s and 70s, Environmental Protection Agencies sprung up all over the world and the belching chimney stacks disappeared. So did the suphur dioxide and nitric acid and the smog.

Theoretically, so did much cloud -- but that's another story. I spent quite a lot of time searching the literature for workable data on cloud, but the literature on clouds is as elusive as clouds themselves. There are figures for rainfall, but they are so irregular that it's hard to get parametric statistics.

I remember all the factory chimneys belching out black smoke during my childhood in Melbourne, but since the 1970s, the measurable visibility data have shown that the air is much cleaner. I looked at the 'clean air' data for many major cities and all showed cleaner air. Therefore more infrared radiation reaches the surface of the planet (insolation). Could this possibly be an explanation for the cooling between the 1940s and 1970s and the slight increases in AGNST since then? Has anyone out there still got a little aperture open into their minds?

MELB VISIBILITY.gif

LONDON SO2 & SMOKE.gif


One would expect to find an increase in skin cancers if this were so. See Leiter et al (2014; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25207363).

Another way has become available since 1990. Satellites now record the degree of insolation reaching the surface of the planet daily. About nine years ago, I obtained figures from about a dozen sites in Australia showing significant increases in monthly average insolation in most areas. These monthly increases were also significantly correlated with significantly increasing monthly average maximum temperatures. In view of the fact that solar cycles are not generally regarded as having any significant role in 'climate change', then I concluded that more sunlight was reaching the surface of our planet. It had to be due to less particulate matter or cloud obstruction. My only problem now is that when I went back to check the figures available from our Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), I found that they had downgraded the figures from many of the sites, and also that the figures from others were no longer available. I was able to copy and paste hundreds of figures at a time, so there were no transcription errors. The responses to my queries were totally unsatisfactory.

I'll leave it at that for the moment, but I have more work by others that I would like to draw to your attention. I might be some days, but I would prefer to be slow and constructive rather than to present ad hominem, negative comments to those of you who are trying to be helpful and constructive.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby bangstrom on July 24th, 2019, 3:22 am 

doogles » July 23rd, 2019, 8:52 pm wrote:I did not realise before that we had such a 'closed-minded' mob of people in this forum.

You should visit any of the other science fora if you want to see bad.

doogles » July 23rd, 2019, 8:52 pm wrote:Neri presented the findings and opinions of two separate research groups who suggested that clouds themselves may be having more of an effect on the Average Global Near Surface Temperatures (AGNST) than carbon dioxide. I felt that his contribution was useful for two reasons. It refreshingly provided an alternative to a belief system that is not showing any encouraging results to date (after 23 years), and it is an avenue of inquiry that will be based on practical experimentation and not just theory and mathematical models.

What makes the attacks on Neri worse, is that not one of the attacks has contained an argument against the cloud theory or cosmic rays.


Water vapor may be a greenhouse gas but it is of little concern because humidity has a negative feedback. Rising temperatures evaporate more water into the air which encourages more cloud formation and clouds reflect the sunlight cooling the atmosphere.

Cosmic rays can initiate cloud formation but clouds only persist where the atmospherics allow them to persist. Many other variables can initiate cloud formation, volcanic eruptions, dust storms, airplane contrails, forest fires, etc. so there is always something to initiate cloud formation if any one factor is lacking.
Rain making by seeding the clouds with iodine crystals was largely abandoned because it had so little effect.

doogles » July 23rd, 2019, 8:52 pm wrote:Don't forget that the entire discipline of microbiology was founded on the observations and basic experimentation of a chemist (not a doctor or a biologist); there is even evidence that he plagiarised a useful idea for his Anthrax vaccine from a country veterinarian. And also remember that the very first vaccination was administered by a farmer named Jesty, to his daughters. His local GP, Jenner, of course adopted the procedure and virtually marketed it. During my 25 years as a country veterinary practitioner, I never hesitated to discuss problem veterinary situations with farmers and was often rewarded by useful ideas -- either directly useful or good enough to trigger a new line of thought in myself.


There were no microbiologists in the time of Pasteur and Koch so all microbiologists came from other disciplines.

doogles » July 23rd, 2019, 8:52 pm wrote:Qualifications in any particular field can sometimes be a handicap to open thinking.


There is something to be said for the benefits of diversity when creative thinking and invention are involved. I have no doubt that herd mentality is detrimental to science and politics. Perhaps there should be more lawyers in science and certainly more scientists in law.

doogles » July 23rd, 2019, 8:52 pm wrote:
I'm also surprised that members are clinging so strongly to the carbon dioxide belief system when Hansen himself claims that he cannot explain why the AGNST decreased by 0.5 degrees C between 1940 and 1970 when the CO2 increased significantly. Has anyone had thoughts about that? Doesn't anyone feel that there just may be, could be, perhaps a flaw in the theory? -- Not even a teeny weeny twinge of a doubt???


Anything as complex and new to organized science as climatology can not be understood in its entirety. All we can do is make a Pascal’s wager before all the facts are in. If the climatologists are wrong about man made climate change, it won’t amount to anything serious. But if they are right and nothing is done in time, we are in trouble. It is not worth taking a chance.
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 659
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby doogles on July 24th, 2019, 5:16 am 

Bangstrom, I'm asking you and others to broaden their outlooks and their options, seeing that carbon reduction methods have nothing but excuses to show after 23 years of Protocol, Accord and whatever Paris was.

Do you object to that?

And how do you, or anyone else for that matter, explain how reducing carbon dioxide will reduce temperature increases when increasing carbon dioxide failed to prevent cooling between 1940 and 1970?

Doesn't it suggest that we should be vigorously looking for other factors.

The cloud experiments mentioned by Neri make sense to me.

Water vapour was shown by Tindall 160 years ago to be a greenhouse gas in his primitive experiments. Clouds are a different matter. I will provide some more references to clouds in my next post. I'm disappointed that no one appears to have studied the absorption and radiation properties of CO2 since Tyndall 160 years ago.

I haven't researched cosmic rays myself so cannot comment, but the cloud studies may be enough in their own right.

Is your mind still open or are you stuck on the CO2 thing?

You are correct about microbiologists in Pasteur's time. He was the first. But there were medical practitioners and veterinarians and vintners and silkworm farmers, none of whom made anything like the discoveries in their own fields that a trained chemist did. My point was that I don't believe in knocking the opinions of anybody who is not a so-called expert in any particular field. Neri was also speaking with authority from his own field of feet-on-the-ground experience as a lawyer when he said that he could always find an expert in any given field to counteract the opinion of any so-called expert in the same field.

I don't believe there is any doubt that humans are associated somehow with the increases in AGNST. But let's broaden our thinking. Let's constructively consider what we consider to be novel ideas rather knock the progenitors of them as appears to have been the case with Neri's posts. And he was just a messenger.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 24th, 2019, 10:29 am 

Doogles, i refer you to my previous posts, which dealt in fact-based analysis and critique of the Finnish paper, and to which I posted a link. That was the topic raised in the OP, and there was no ad hominem attack implied in subjecting the Finnish conjecture to scrutiny. Nor did anyone contend that CO2 is the ONLY driver of global warming. The "closed minds" remarks are ad hominem, not reflecting the truth, and I will ask that you respect our website rules and refrain.

Also, a reminder that numbers don't exist in solitary splendor. A drop in surface temps, 1940 to 1970, may be best analyzed in terms of all GW influences in that period, including solar output, vulcanism particulates, industrial sulphate aerosols, orbital factors, etc. Intellectual honesty (and that open mind you value) would compel you to look into those, and find this information to be of use:

After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.

The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.

The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. The mid-century cooling can be seen in this NASA/GISS animation, which shows temperature variation from the annual mean for the period from 1880 through 2006. The warmest temperatures are in red.




https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... z5ubbkG4Bk
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 24th, 2019, 10:45 am 

Bangs wrote...

Water vapor may be a greenhouse gas but it is of little concern because humidity has a negative feedback. Rising temperatures evaporate more water into the air which encourages more cloud formation and clouds reflect the sunlight cooling the atmosphere.


Essentially correct, though it is more accurate to say that clouds, with their high daytime albedo, have a cooling effect during the day, but a warming effect at night, as they trap heat at night (IR radiated from the ground) that would on a clear night radiate into space. This is more in the domain of immediate term effects (meteorology) than long-term effects (climatology). I also would note that humidity traps heat when in a dispersed (non cloud) form, as it raises the thermal retention of air and does not have a high albedo.

With all that in mind, it IS important to understand the role of water vapor in overall regulation of temperature, and the complexities that are there. If there is evidence that water itself is a driver of GW, then that has yet to appear here. It is clearly responsive to GW, no dispute about that.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby bangstrom on July 25th, 2019, 12:11 am 

doogles » July 24th, 2019, 4:16 am wrote:Bangstrom, I'm asking you and others to broaden their outlooks and their options, seeing that carbon reduction methods have nothing but excuses to show after 23 years of Protocol, Accord and whatever Paris was.

Do you object to that?


I don’t object to a call for open mindedness or questioning conventional opinions.

The increases in the use of fossil fuels have erased any gains that might have been made by carbon reduction so a real carbon reduction has never been tried.

doogles » July 24th, 2019, 4:16 am wrote:And how do you, or anyone else for that matter, explain how reducing carbon dioxide will reduce temperature increases when increasing carbon dioxide failed to prevent cooling between 1940 and 1970?

The period from 1940 to 1970 was a time of historically high levels of air pollution which may have had a cooling effect by blocking light from the sun especially in the northern hemisphere.

doogles » July 24th, 2019, 4:16 am wrote:

Water vapour was shown by Tindall 160 years ago to be a greenhouse gas in his primitive experiments. Clouds are a different matter. I will provide some more references to clouds in my next post. I'm disappointed that no one appears to have studied the absorption and radiation properties of CO2 since Tyndall 160 years ago.


I think you said CO2 where you meant H2O.

A rise in global atmospheric temperature can trigger an increase in any of the suspect greenhouse gases so we need to understand which of these by itself can cause an initial rise in temperature and which are increasing as an effect of heating rather than being the cause of heating.

Water vapor is not a likely suspect because it would require a physical or chemical change in either the atmosphere or the nature of water for this to be a cause rather than an effect of an increase in global warming.

Methane, sulfur, and nitrogen compounds are chemically active and are relatively short lived in the atmosphere. They come from natural as well as human sources and human sources are not great enough to raise them much above the natural levels.

Rising atmospheric CO2 levels remain as the most likely cause of global warming. Mining and drilling for coal and gas removes 300 million year old carbon from the ground to be burned and transferred to the atmosphere. CO2 is a stable chemical so increases in CO2 levels can be accumulative and difficult to reverse.

No other greenhouse gases have such an obvious source for their increase as does carbon. It is not surprising that returning long dormant carbon from the ground and releasing it into the atmosphere can return us to the atmospheric conditions and climate of 300 million years ago when the world was much warmer and land animals were beginning to evolve.

doogles » July 24th, 2019, 4:16 am wrote:Is your mind still open or are you stuck on the CO2 thing?

Do you consider this to be an Either-Or possibility?
bangstrom
Member
 
Posts: 659
Joined: 18 Sep 2014


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby doogles on July 25th, 2019, 6:05 am 

TheVat and Bangstrom, apologies for my crassness the last couple of days. I think I felt that Neri was getting too much negative criticism, particularly when he was, after all, a messenger of sorts. Anyhow that's now past history.

In response to my observation that the CO2 graphs had not registered a single blip in their curves since carbon targets were set 23 years ago, Bangstrom suggested -- "The increases in the use of fossil fuels have erased any gains that might have been made by carbon reduction so a real carbon reduction has never been tried." That's the obvious answer of course and TheVat gave the same response. It could be correct and had crossed my mind, but what are the odds against the two possible opposing situations cancelling one another out exactly?

By all means, continue with the carbon emission reductions, but let's keep our eyes and ears open for every other possibility.

I'm pleased Bangstrom that you said "The period from 1940 to 1970 was a time of historically high levels of air pollution which may have had a cooling effect by blocking light from the sun especially in the northern hemisphere." It is in accord with my thoughts as well. If you also regard this period as being one when there were also plenty of sulphur dioxide and nitric acid nuclei on which cloud could form, then you have a combination of cloud and volcanic particulate matter to block the solar radiation to Earth's surface. My query of course is why all the extra CO2 at that time (and Keeling demonstrated that CO2 virtually stays at the same molecular ratio throughout the atmosphere even at 5 km altitude) did not retain that heat. Perhaps the blanket of cloud and particulate matter reduced solar radiation to the higher concentrations of CO2 beneath the 'barrier'.

But then, wouldn't that suggest that such barriers are having more effect on Average Global Near Surface Temperatures than CO2 and other GHGs?

Here's another amusing angle -- from The New Scientist -- https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... z5ubbkG4Bk. "The sudden drop in temperatures in 1945 now appears to be an artefact of a switch from using mainly US ships to collect sea surface temperature data to using mainly UK ships. The two fleets used a different method. The temperature record is currently being updated to reflect this bias, but in essence it means that the cooling after 1940 was more gradual and less pronounced than previously thought." What next? And if this is true, what is the validity of all of the global temperature

Re the CO2 of Tyndall's, he actually used a mist of carbonic acid, his 'heat' was a tin of hot water, and his meter was a galvanometer that measured deflection of the pointer. He could virtually only record relative absorption deflections for the various substances he checked. Of note, he also recorded that the test carbonic acid radiated its heat as fast as it absorbed it. Of course he did not estimate how much of the H2O in the carbonic acid was involved in the deflection.

To the best of my searching, I've been unable to find where anybody has duplicated his crude experiments and yet the theory of the greenhouse effect was originally based on these figures. I did a screen dump of a couple of excerpts from his paper years ago. You may be amused at what the original greenhouse gas theories were based upon (and you might understand why I'd like someone to repeat and extend his experiments with modern equipment).
Attachments
TYNDALLS ABSORPTION.jpg
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby doogles on July 25th, 2019, 6:16 am 

Unfortunately, there is a peculiar overlapping of frames that prevents any more uploading of attachments.

I wanted to show an excerpt from Tyndall's paper showing his comments that the gases radiate the heat as quickly as they absorb it.

And when I get time, I will still upload some work on clouds and solar exposure.

Thank you for your comments Bangstrom.
Attachments
TYNDALLS ABSORPTION.jpg
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 25th, 2019, 10:18 am 

The link I posted answers some of this 1940-70 questions. Bangstrom replied somewhat along the line of what I did, which makes me wonder if he read the linked article from NS.


The CO2 physics has moved on a bit since Tyndall and Arrhenius. I leave the research up to you, as my urge to do the hod carrying is waning. :-)
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby doogles on July 26th, 2019, 6:48 am 

Thanks TheVat for your input and tolerance.

Would you believe I actually found a paper by Burch et al at Ohio State University (1962; https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/AD0287406) on Infrared Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapour and Minor Atmospheric Constituents -- but it was unreadable and appears to be the best available copy.

One of the reasons I was pleased to read Neri's OP was because it was the first time that I had seen a reference to the CLOUD experiment at CERN. It was my firm belief that we needed more actual experimentation and less theory and modelling in our approaches to the increasing Average Global Near Surface Temperatures (AGNST). I was surprised to read that CLOUD had been operating since 2009.

In 2016, they published an updated report in Science by Dunne et al on this site -- https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119. The latter part of the Abstract stated " ... We built a global model of aerosol formation by using extensive laboratory measurements of rates of nucleation involving sulfuric acid, ammonia, ions, and organic compounds conducted in the CERN CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) chamber. The simulations and a comparison with atmospheric observations show that nearly all nucleation throughout the present-day atmosphere involves ammonia or biogenic organic compounds, in addition to sulfuric acid. A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere."

These findings tend to rule out cosmic rays as being involved in cloud formation under present-day atmospheric conditions, which tends to also negate the claims of the initial paper in the OP. In the OP, Neri himself was not convinced by the papers he presented when he said "As for myself, I did not find that either the Finnish or the Japanese teams presented much in the way of experimental evidence to support the postulate that cloud formation is the principal engine of climate change."

However the CLOUD experiment did link nucleation with sulphates. Now that SO2 emissions are being severely reduced with cleaner fossil fuels (Thanks to World EPAs initially), one would expect that cloud formation would have progressively declined since the 1970s and that insolation would be increasing. This suggests that it may be a diminution of cloud, allowing more insolation in terms of watts/square metre that may have a role in increased AGNST. If Radiative Forcing is the difference between Insolation and Energy radiated back from Earth, then an increased insolation could explain at least some of the increase in AGNST.

I presented Visibility graphics for Melbourne and Suphur Dioxide and Smoke Particle Graphics for London in a previous Post wherein anyone can see a diminution in both in accord with increasing temperatures.

Clouds are difficult to quantify. As I've said previously, some years ago I was unable to find any parametric data of any kind for statistical analyses.

Rain data, as a possible parametric representation of clouds is also a problem. It is so irregular and unpredictable that it is almost impossible to get univariate variations about means over given time periods for statistical comparisons.

I obtained some figures in 2010 showing significant increases in solar exposure measurements at almost all Australian weather stations over the preceding decade, but the Bureau of Meteorology has since downgraded some figures and removed other data from public access.

Nevertheless here are some studies relating to clouds:

Cess et al (1995; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/267/5197/496) "collocated satellite and surface measurements of solar radiation at five geographically diverse locations and showed significant solar absorption by clouds, resulting in about 25 watts per square meter more global-mean absorption by the cloudy atmosphere than predicted by theoretical models. ... The observed cloud absorption is remarkably invariant with respect to season and location. Although its physical cause is unknown, enhanced cloud absorption substantially alters our understanding of the atmosphere's energy budget." Obviously, less cloud means more insolation.

Ramanathan et L (1995; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/267/5197/499) measured the solar radiation at the sea surface and found results suggesting that "clouds, at least over the warm pool, reduce net solar radiation at the sea surface not only by reflecting a significant amount back to space, but also by trapping a large amount in the cloudy atmosphere, an inference that is at variance with most model results. The excess cloud absorption, if confirmed, has many climatic implications, including a significant reduction in the required tropics to extra-tropics heat transport in the oceans." Once again, less cloud would mean more insolation and increased AGMST.

Pilewskie and Valero (1995; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/267/5204/1626) Abstract -- "Aircraft measurements of solar flux in the cloudy tropical atmosphere reveal that solar absorption by clouds is anomalously large when compared to theoretical estimates. The ratio of cloud forcing at an altitude of 20 kilometers to that at the surface is 1.58 rather than 1.0, as predicted by models. These results were derived from a cloud radiation experiment in which identical instrumentation was deployed on coordinated stacked aircraft. These findings indicate a significant difference between measurements and theory and imply that the interaction between clouds and solar radiation is poorly understood."

The above papers are just a few I came across incidentally while looking at other literature. I will continue to search more recent publications and see if there is any form of quantification available.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE
TheVat liked this post


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby doogles on July 26th, 2019, 4:58 pm 

I present this just as a passing comment. The Copenhagen Consensus Centre assembled an Expert Panel of five World Class economists, including three recipients of the Nobel Prize in September 2009 to deliberate and form conclusions about which solution to climate change is the most promising.

They created the following prioritized list, outlining the most - and least - effective responses to global warming. See https://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/cop ... te/results . You will see that they have place Clouds and Aerosols at the top of the list and Carbon measures (apart from Storage) at the bottom

Results


“Very Good” 1 Climate Engineering Marine Cloud Whitening
2 Technology Energy R&D
3 Climate Engineering Stratospheric Aerosol Insertion
4 Technology Carbon Storage R&D
“Good” 5 Adaptation Planning for adaptation
6 Climate Engineering Air Capture R&D
“Fair” 7 Technology Transfers Technology Transfers
8 Forestry Expand and Protect Forests
9 Cut Black Carbon Stoves in Developing Nations
“Poor” 10 Cut Methane Methane Reduction Portfolio
11 Cut Black Carbon Diesel Vehicle Emissions
12 Cut Carbon $20 OECD CO2 Tax
“Very Poor” 13 Cut Carbon $0.50 Global CO2 Tax
14 Cut Carbon $3 Global CO2 Tax
15 Cut Carbon $68 Global CO2 Tax

I have no further details.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 26th, 2019, 5:30 pm 

This is a case where one applies Hitchen's Razor, I would say.

Economists aren't scientists, and their priorities can be dismissed, absent compelling evidence that carbon storage and air capture are imminently becoming a proven and viable technology. They include those forms of carbon remediation in their Good and Very Good slots, which at least indicates they've absorbed the significance of the role of carbon.

As for deliberately creating aerosols, this kind of tampering with the stratosphere in some unthinkably complex and massive tweaking kind of begs the question of "what could possibly go wrong with that?"

Also worth noting that economists generally shy from choices (however necessary they may be for our survival) that reduce material prosperity. Ask an ordinary person if they'd rather have a larger house with a giant tv, or grandchildren that don't starve or get washed away by a tsunami, and you might get a different perspective. Or at least one that connects prosperity to clean energy sources rather than fossil fuels.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 26th, 2019, 5:51 pm 

For technical reasons that I do not quite understand, I was prevented from logging onto this site and consequently could post no replies until today, when the problem was corrected.

I must say that I was very impressed with Doogles’ very scholarly approach to the issue at hand and with his well-reasoned and thoroughgoing presentations. Being only a poor lawyer, I cannot hope to improve upon the obvious depth of his understanding.

On a personal level, I thank Doogles for his kind words.

I wish only to respond to the post wherein Serpent claims that CO2 is a health hazard.

According the U.S. Government:

“CO2 is considered to be minimally toxic by inhalation. The primary health effects caused by
CO2 are the result of its behavior as a simple asphyxiant. A simple asphyxiant is a gas which
reduces or displaces the normal oxygen in breathing air.” (See cite below)

Although, OSHA requires a wide safety margin of 5,000 ppm for prolonged CO2 exposure, the actual levels known to cause ill effects are as shown in the following list:

“Carbon Dioxide
Health Hazard Information Sheet

“10,000 ppm (1.0%) Typically no effects, possible drowsiness
“15,000 ppm (1.5%) Mild respiratory stimulation for some people
“30,000 ppm (3.0%) Moderate respiratory stimulation, increased heart rate and blood
pressure,
“40,000 ppm (4.0%) Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLH)
“50,000 ppm (5.0%) Strong respiratory stimulation, dizziness, confusion, headache, shortness
of breath
“80,000 ppm (8.0%) Dimmed sight, sweating, tremor, unconsciousness, and possible death”

https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/conne ... ide.pdf?...

So that, actual ill effects do not begin until between 15,000 ppm and 30,000 ppm of CO2. Currently, the atmospheric level of that gas is 400 ppm (.04%). This means that in order to have any ill effects, the CO2 level would have to be at least 37 times greater than it is presently. Even the most fanatic climate change enthusiasts are not predicting such a monumental increase in atmospheric CO2.

NASA has reported:

“A quarter to half of vegetated lands has shown a significant greening over the last 35 years largely do to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

“The greening represents an increase in leaves of plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States”

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2- ... erfor-now/

This means more oxygen to breathe and more food to eat.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Serpent on July 26th, 2019, 5:57 pm 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/jan/23/bjorn-lomborg-climate-thinktank-close
a conference of prominent economists held every four years, where potential solutions to global issues are examined and prioritized using cost-benefit analysis.

Presumably not according to the same costs and benefits that I would consider in my calculation.
Note that the "poor" and "very poor" categories include taxation - i.e. bad for business; universally opposed, at any cost, by conservative political factions - and the only strategy that's had any effect,.

Anyway, that was ten years ago.
Apparently, they stopped thinking when the tax-money dried up.
Last edited by Serpent on July 26th, 2019, 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3674
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Serpent on July 26th, 2019, 6:22 pm 

Neri » July 26th, 2019, 4:51 pm wrote:I wish only to respond to the post wherein Serpent claims that CO2 is a health hazard.

I didn't say it was a health hazard. I merely cited an article which suggests that it's not as beneficial as you claimed, even for plants.
Plants can absorb only so much of the excess CO2 we produce. Apparently, spruce trees can also absorb some of the methane. But that's not going to do anybody any good when the forests all over the world are burning. Not plants, no oceans, nothing can absorb the airborne particulates from all the fires, and that soot and smoke is just adding more pollutants.

How much CO2 a lettuce can use to make more lettuce is completely irrelevant to the planet growing hotter, wetter, dryer, windier, dirtier and more dangerous every minute.

This means more oxygen to breathe and more food to eat.

It would, except that the glacier's all melted, the river's been dammed and channeled off for irrigation and dried up, and the temperature is 39C. The plants all die.
It would, except that a freak hail-storm https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/guadalajara-mexico-hail-1.5196344 wiped out the whole crop.
It would, except that a https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/video/heavy-rain-in-west-could-bring-the-worst-flooding-in-more-than-10-years-850622532001 mudslide buried the orchard.

Don't you get it? Isolated, controlled studies and experiments are all useful. They add to scientists' ability to calculate effects and make more accurate predictions. They don't change the big picture.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3674
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby Neri on July 26th, 2019, 9:31 pm 

Serpent,

The point I was making is that CO2 is no pollutant unless it reaches such astronomical levels that not even the maddest climate-change zealot is predicting it.

Further, the current level of CO2, far from being harmful to plant life, has caused an increase in forestation and vegetation greater than twice the area of the United States. Indeed, CO2 itself can cause no harm to plants unless it reaches the kind of extraordinarily high levels that are completely out of the question.

All of this, in turn, means the following:

(1) Greater amounts of oxygen are produced by plant life. This tends to counterbalance the increased level of CO2 produced by animal life and human activities. That is, it makes it unlikely that CO2 will displace enough oxygen to cause harm to animal life.

(2) An increase in vegetation means an increase in the vapors given off by plants that, when oxidized in the atmosphere, produce aerosols that are the seeds for cloud formation. An increase in low cloud formation has the net effect of cooling the surface of the earth and therefore putting the brakes on further global warming.

So that, something else must be at work in causing global warming. The fact is no one really knows what this is. What is needed are not more studies and more papers but more experimental data. Only then will nature give up her secrets.

I am off on a holiday weekend, but will be available for further comment on Tuesday next.
Neri
Resident Member
 
Posts: 2015
Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Location: Pennsylvania, USA


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on July 26th, 2019, 10:04 pm 

So that, something else must be at work in causing global warming. The fact is no one really knows what this is. What is needed are not more studies and more papers but more experimental data. Only then will nature give up her secrets.


The papers presented here are based on experimental data. Solid reproducible data drives the work. And, as abundant data has shown, we do have a very good idea of what is driving global warming. Aerosols slow the warming, particulates (like diesel soot) melt ice/snow fields, and methane and CO2 act as GHGs.

Your theory that more CO2 is harmless, while trivially true from a respiratory standpoint, is not true in every sense, such as the effects of ocean acidification, trapping heat (greenhouse effect), activating more intense storms, sea level rise, etc. You also ignored the role of sulphate aerosols in masking the effects of greenhouse gases 1940-1970, another link that is useful reading to keep up here and understand how climate myths are generated.


So we now revert to the website rules, as established by Biowizard. You must read research materials provided from peer reviewed reputable sources, reply to substantive critiques of a pet theory, respect evidence and reason, and show familiarity with the literature.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby zetreque on July 27th, 2019, 4:24 pm 

As someone who has gotten to know the Finnish academic system lately I would scrutinize their paper with a fine tooth comb. Some of them are living in privleged bubble worlds detached from reality and focusing on specific little areas without communicating with the bigger picture. It's partially related to being ranked "the happiest country in the world."
Someone should do a study on it. :)

Also of note, industry is tightly linked to academics there! I also never saw so much greenwashing in my life.
User avatar
zetreque
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3806
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Location: Paradise being lost to humanity
Blog: View Blog (3)


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby charon on August 2nd, 2019, 9:22 pm 

charon
Active Member
 
Posts: 1846
Joined: 02 Mar 2011


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on August 4th, 2019, 11:31 am 

This thread will continue, per SCF guidelines, to apply scientific standards of evidence and critical review. As our guidelines note, essays on how science is done and the validity of its methods go in the Philosophy of Science forum. Off topic posts may be removed at the discretion of Zetreque or other moderators.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby doogles on August 6th, 2019, 6:37 pm 

I've been spending an hour or so a day researching the possible role of clouds in 'Climate Change'. It has been difficult because of a lack of clarity and consistency in terminology, as well as the difficulty involved in the actual measurement of anything as ephemeral as clouds.

Up till my recent renewed interest in the role of clouds, I can safely say that I've never been so confused in my life as to exactly what individual researchers have been trying to say in any other area of 'science' in which I have attempted to make sense.

So please don't hesitate to notify me (gently please) if I say something that makes a complete ass of myself.

I'm going to start with the reproducton of a diagram on Greeenhouse Gas Radiative Forcing that one of our members posted recently. I want to use it to get some perspective into quantifications of energy fluxes that are bandied around in the 'Climate Crisis' and 'Climate Catastrophe' circles.

(Unfortunately, my computer refuses to upload attachments for the last couple of weeks, so you may just have to accept the following without the diagram. Actually, it has just shown up in the Preview at the bottom of the page. The non-function procedure is the 'placing in line')

Carbon dioxide is the culprit currently convicted of being the cause of the increase in Average Global Near Surface Temperature (AGNST) of approximately 1 degree C over the last century. It stands out. If you look at the scale at the bottom of the graphic, you will see that it is given the credit for maintaining circa 1.6 watts of radiative forcing per square metre of global surface (daily???).

If you put this into the context of a daily insolation of say 10 megajoules per square metre over the Mediterranean on an average day (as far as I can gather that's the equivalent of 2780 watt-hours), it is almost insignificant.

And then to put the radiative effect of clouds into this perspective, I'll cite the IPCC 2013 report by Stocker et al in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. -- " Page 580 7.2.1.2 Effects of Clouds on the Earth’s Radiation Budget -- "The effect of clouds on the Earth’s present-day top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget, or cloud radiative effect (CRE), can be inferred from satellite data by comparing upwelling radiation in cloudy and non-cloudy conditions (Ramanathan et al., 1989). By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual shortwave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less between published satellite estimates (Loeb et al., 2009). Some of the apparent LWCRE comes from the enhanced water vapour coinciding with the natural cloud fluctuations used to measure the effect, so the true cloud LWCRE is about 10% smaller (Sohn et al., 2010). The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net coolingeffect of clouds on the current climate. Owing to the large magnitudes of the SWCRE and LWCRE, clouds have the potential to cause significant climate feedback (Section 7.2.5). The sign of this feedback on climate change cannot be determined from the sign of CRE in the current climate, but depends instead on how climate-sensitive the properties are that govern the LWCRE and SWCRE."

p579 -- "Clouds cover roughly two thirds of the globe (Figure 7.5a, c), with a more precise value depending on both the optical depth threshold used to define cloud and the spatial scale of measurement (Wielicki and Parker, 1992; Stubenrauch et al., 2013). ... "

I can't help feeling that I must have made a gross error somewhere in my interpretation of what I have been reading, but with the atmosphere having a positive radiative effect of 1.6 watts/ square metre from carbon dioxide, and a net negative radiative effect from clouds (a gross generalisation by the way, considering all of the 'ifs' and 'buts' of the science), of 20 watts per square metre, and with clouds covering 60% of the globe, doesn't this suggest somewhere that the role of carbon dioxide in Average Global Near Surface Temperatures (AGNST) is quite minor, and that clouds may be the factor keeping our climate somewhat temperate.

What better explanation is there for the 1940s-70s effect than that we reduced cloud cover by cleaning up our suphurated air? There is much, much more concerning the unknown role of clouds in AGNST, and the diminution in clouds since the 70s and 80s, but I'll leave my post at this SIMPLISTIC level for now, pending comments.
Attachments
RADIATIVE FORCING 1750 TO 2005.jpg
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby doogles on August 7th, 2019, 7:19 pm 

I'm surprised that there have been no comments so far, because my 'bush arithmetic' is exactly that, 'bush arithmetic'. I'm sure I've left myself wide open to correction of some kind. The world could not possibly have it that wrong, could they? My bush arithmetic virtually says that the role of carbon dioxide in 'climate change' is insignificant compared with the role of clouds and water vapour at least.

One look at planet Earth from a satellite photograph should be enough to convince anyone that H2O clouds represent an outstanding feature that makes us different from the Moon, Mars or Venus.

If those three Nobel Laureates and their two economist thinkers at the Copenhagen Consensus Centre believe that research into the 'whitening' or 'brightening' of clouds should be a high priority, I believe it deserves some consideration. Sure, sodium iodide 'seeding' was tried around about the 1950s or 60s without much success, but one unsuccessful attempt does not mean that we give up. If Edison had not tried 2000 different materials to produce an incandescent filament, we may still be using candles or gaslight. Nah! But?

It's interesting that the three 1995 references I cited a couple of posts ago, collectively suggested that clouds were having a radiative effect in the region of 20 W/m2, and yet the Kyoto Protocol of 1996 targetted carbon dioxide (1.6 W/m2) and fossil fuels. Would it be ironic if it turns out that our endeavours of the last 20 or so years have actually exacerbated increases in Average Global Near Surface Temperature increases by removing the sulphur and nitric oxides that we've needed as nuclei for the water droplets of clouds? Less cloud, more solar radiation around our temperature sensors. Cleaner air! Sure, but what about less cloud?

Fortunately clouds do appear to be getting more attention, but not a great deal of supportive quantification as yet. I'll list a few studies and try to highlight the sense of importance that the various authors placed on the role of clouds.

Stocker et al (2013; https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 18GL081871) -- " ... Unfortunately, the extent to which the myriad of possible climate feedbacks influences Arctic amplification is currently plagued with uncertainty. This is especially the case for cloud feedbacks, which continue to be the leading cause of uncertainty in climate projections. "

Ying and Thompson (2019; https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/1 ... -18-0417.1) -- " ... there is still considerable uncertainty about the underlying mechanisms, whereby CRE (Cloud Radiative Effects) govern the jet response to climate change."

Nuijens and Siebesma (2019; https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 19-00126-x) -- " Clouds in nature are more complex than the idealized cloud types that have informed our understanding of the cloud feedback. Remaining major uncertainties are the coupling of clouds to large-scale circulations and to the ocean, and mesoscale aggregation of clouds."

Hentgen et al (2019; https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 18JD030150) -- " Although crucial for the Earth's climate, clouds are poorly represented in current climate models, which operate at too coarse grid resolutions and rely on convection parameterizations."

Sancho-Lorenzo et al (2019; https://www.nature.com/articles/srep41475 -- "Clouds affect the global energy balance as they reflect a large fraction of the Sun’s incoming radiation and at the same time absorb and emit longwave radiation1,2. Despite their relevance, large uncertainties remain with respect to the response and feedbacks of the clouds to anthropogenic forcing. Consequently they are considered as one of the main sources of uncertainty for climate sensitivity and future climate scenarios3,4,5."

There have been attempts to quantify clouds, but most appear to have been highly subjective.

There are also some studies on insolation.

I'll see if I can put together some coherent information on them.
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby doogles on August 7th, 2019, 7:29 pm 

Although this is slightly off the topic of CLOUDS per se, it does suggest in principle that we should use some broader thinking about what our 'climate scientists' are telling us.

The topic of 'Rising Sea Levels' keeps coming up as part of the current 'Climate Crisis or Catastrophe'. It has been mentioned in this thread. When one considers the massive changes in the coastlines of Earth land masses over the millions of years, the following objective report of the IPCC doesn't sound too bad. It seems to me that if anyone builds on a coastline and expects that coastline never to change, then our education system needs some re-vamping about the realities of living on our changing planet.

The IPCC 2013 report by Stocker et al in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also reports on rising sea levels (Page 1137 on this site -- https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... _FINAL.pdf). It states the following -- "Proxy and instrumental sea level data indicate a transition in the late 19th century to the early 20th century from relatively low mean rates of rise over the previous two millennia to higher rates of rise (high confidence). It is likely2 that the rate of global mean sea level rise has continued to increase since the early 20th century, with estimates that range from 0.000 [–0.002 to 0.002] mm yr–2 to 0.013 [0.007 to 0.019] mm yr–2. It is very likely that the global mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr–1; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1920 and 1950."

So the indications are that the sea levels have risen 200 mm (8 inches) in 110 years.

The big fear of course is that islands will be submerging into the sea.

The reason I raise this topic is because I came across this paper in my recent searches. Curiously enough, it did not seem to make it to the popular press. I present part of their Abstract without further comment.

Webb and Kentch (2010; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 8110001013) -- "Using historical aerial photography and satellite images this study presents the first quantitative analysis of physical changes in 27 atoll islands in the central Pacific over a 19 to 61 yr period. This period of analysis corresponds with instrumental records that show a rate of sea-level rise of 2.0 mm yr− 1 in the Pacific. Results show that 86% of islands remained stable (43%) or increased in area (43%) over the timeframe of analysis. Largest decadal rates of increase in island area range between 0.1 to 5.6 ha. Only 14% of study islands exhibited a net reduction in island area."
User avatar
doogles
Active Member
 
Posts: 1218
Joined: 11 Apr 2009
Location: BRISBANE


Re: Anthropogenic Climate Change: Circular Reasoning Run Wil

Postby TheVat on August 8th, 2019, 9:30 am 

A United Nations climate panel said in a report on Thursday that divesting from fossil fuels alone won't be enough to limit warming from climate change, adding that issues including deforestation and agriculture must be addressed to drive down greenhouse gas emissions.

Land-surface temperatures have increased nearly twice as much as global average temperatures, the report said, as human activities on land have released more than 20% of global emissions.

Protecting forests that absorb carbon and reforming agricultural practices could play a large role, according to the report.


https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/release ... d=64836278

Forest degradation, permafrost melt, desertified croplands - these are also factors to be considered in the overall picture. Forests absorb a lot of CO2, so their loss adversely affects the planet's ability to regulate itself. Will post the full report when I can.*

Doogles, I believe sea level rise becomes more concerning when ice melting accelerates, as has happened to Alaska and Greenland in the past couple years. And Antarctica. When ice melts, the albedo of both land and sea drops considerably, and both absorb more heat that was formerly being reflected back into space by the ice. This causes a rapid acceleration in heat retention and that hastens further the melt rate. This kind of feedback can quickly add a huge volume of freshwater.


* https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl-report-download-page/

The summary is the first pdf, at top of list.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 7258
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


PreviousNext

Return to Personal Theories

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests