donald Rapp is wondering if there is anything new being said on this thread.
He has written a number of books on climate related topics.
I’m now wondering if he has anything to say that hasn’t already been said before?
I would prefer to make a positive contribution to any discussion but if I cannot, I would remain silent.
“It is a little more than an entertaining speculation – but the inability of AGW space cadet groupthink buffoons like webby to entertain the idea is both classically cognitively dissonant and a policy disaster.”
Excuse me, Chief. What again was all that stuff you reflexively copied&pasted for the umpteenth time?
Well no one has suggested this
NSFW
http://i.crackedcdn.com/phpimages/photoshop/3/8/1/108381_slide.jpg?v=1
…Nevertheless, however much models improve, there will always be an irreducible level of uncertainty—‘flap of the seagull’s wings’—because of the chaotic nature of the system. Even the climate we have observed over the past century or so is only one realization of what the real system might produce.’ http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.full
For the immediate future?
‘If as suggested here, a dynamically driven climate shift has occurred, the duration of similar shifts during the 20th century suggests the new global mean temperature trend may persist for several decades. Of course, it is purely speculative to presume that the global mean temperature will remain near current levels for such an extended period of time. Moreover, we caution that the shifts described here are presumably superimposed upon a long term warming trend due to anthropogenic forcing. However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained.’ S&T09
It is a little more than an entertaining speculation – but the inability of AGW space cadet groupthink eco-buffoons to entertain the idea is both classically cognitively dissonant and a policy disaster.
Was your verbal testimony oral or written?
“In short, the solution is not to make fossil fuels so expensive that nobody wants them – because that will never work – but to make green energy so cheap that everyone wants them.”
Yes, but it may never be possible to make green energy so cheap, But that should not stop us from trying. And new nuclear technologies are definitely a part of the green mix.
But backto the original problem. No one has given a satisfactory explanation of exactly how a rare gas (CO2) comprising less than 1% of the atmosphere can have such a profound effect on climate. Obviously we have to invoke thr properties of CO2 isotopic vibrational modes, but which modes? Until these questions are answered we are not on firm scientific ground. The explanation that water vapour (H2O) is the real culprit, somehow brought on by CO2 sounds tenuous and lacks conviivtion..
Dakota trucks got a plug.
because you believe that the CO2 and inorganic carbon that buffers it, in the oceans, is in some sort of chemical equilibrium?
However, fortunately atmospheric CO2 is not in equilibrium with the oceans, so we are OK.
“What do you mean by negative feedback? “
I don’t care for a lot of the terminology in climate sciences either, but you have to go with the flow. For example, I didn’t appreciate the use of the term “lapse rate”, thinking that it should be called a “gradient” instead. But you will get used to it as you keep studying the literature.
Some of the terminology is inherited from other physics disciplines, such as atmospheric and planetary sciences, so it is not all the climatologists’ fault either.
Is the UK pump price mostly tax, or isn’t it?
A straight yes or no will do
Stop your pathetically transparent attempts at dodging the question.
Since ya asked Donald, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind-the-warming-went-into-the-deep-end/
Let’s add this to the discussion. It appears that the climate scientist have discovered that wind pattern changes that occur with climate oscillations or shifts if you prefer, have an impact on the rate of ocean heat uptake. This is ground breaking research, happening before our very monitors.
tempterrain
Let’s leave aside your “methane from permafrost” hobgoblin and stay with CO2.
IPCC AR4 model scenarios and storylines predict it will rise to somewhere between 580 and 800 ppmv by 2100. The mean value of all 6 projections is around 680 ppmv. No “scenarios” incorporate Kyoto-type CO2 cutbacks, so they are all based on BaU.
Since 1970 population has grown at a very high exponential rate of 1.7% per year and there has been a 20% increase in per capita CO2 generation.
Human population growth is expected to slow down sharply to around one-fourth its past rate (slowdown has already started), with population leveling off at around 10.5 billion by 2100.
If we tie human CO2 emissions to expected human population growth allowing for a 30% per capita increase by 2100 (despite efforts to decarbonize), we end up with 640 ppmv by 2100.
So how much warming will this cause?
Back in 2007 (with 2005 data) IPCC models predicted a 2xCO2 ECS mean value of 3.2C.
More recent (at least partly) observation-based studies have estimated this to be around half this value or 1.6C.
Let’s use both values to establish a possible range of warming.
Using the logarithmic relation we end up with warming by 2100 of 1.1C to 2.2C or 1.65C+/-0.55C.
This does not worry me very much, tempterrain – in fact, I think this much warming would almost certainly be a boon to humanity and our environment.
Max
WHT
Yeah, Webby, in THEORY you’re right.
BUT, in PRACTICE it’s working out differently.
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7225/7217254592_9a13cdbfeb_b.jpg
The amount of CO2 “remaining in the atmosphere” has gone down from 1959, when the Mauna Loa record started to today, by around one percentage point per decade, at the same time as global temperature (including SST) has risen slightly.
Could be an anomaly, BUT…
Apparently, something out there (plant photosynthesis?) is increasing as CO2 concentrations increase, offsetting any decrease in ocean absorption (or net outgassing) resulting from the slight warming.
Ain’t Nature grand, Webby?
Max
Doc – he is referring to the Steffen-Boltzmann temperature dependent radiation
Exaggerating a little webby? And even if so this differs exactly how from your tedious repetition of simplistic nonsense? I will tell you how. Because it is correct and you’re inability to see that is the problem.
Unlike El Niño and La Niña, which may occur every 3 to 7 years and last from 6 to 18 months, the PDO can remain in the same phase for 20 to 30 years. The shift in the PDO can have significant implications for global climate, affecting Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, the productivity of marine ecosystems, and global land temperature patterns. This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”
Natural, large-scale climate patterns like the PDO and El Niño-La Niña are superimposed on global warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and landscape changes like deforestation. According to Josh Willis, JPL oceanographer and climate scientist, “These natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”
‘However, the nature of these past shifts in climate state suggests the possibility of near constant temperature lasting a decade or more into the future must at least be entertained.’ S&T09
Your inability to entertain anything but simplistic and misleading space cadet memes is a result of cognitive dissonance and a policy disaster.
WHT
Here is an updated version of that CO2 curve:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8344/8200196434_ebb7559913_b.jpg
Max
Webby is so far from correct theoretically correct Max. It is such a gross simplification that it has no meaning or relevance.
one word – abiotic
k scott denison
As a chemical engineer, I have also asked myself the same question you ask yourself.
It seems pretty basic to me.
We have a IR absorption mechanism, which has been demonstrated empirically in the laboratory for CO2 H2O and other GH gases, but we have not carried this one step further, as you suggest, in order to establish empirically what the CO2 temperature impact really is.
Ironically, an alternate hypothesis ( the galactic cosmic ray cloud nucleation hypothesis of Svensmark et al, which has gotten much less ballyhoo and hype) has also just completed the first step at CERN in Geneva. The GCR cloud nucleation mechanism, itself, in the presence of naturally occurring aerosols, has been validated empirically, but the researchers caution that more work is needed to test empirically whether or not and to what extent this mechanism works in our atmosphere.
But, unlike the AGW hypothesis, it is planned to go the next step for this hypothesis, by either corroborating and quantifying or falsifying it at CERN in a controlled experiment simulating our atmosphere.
Like you, I cannot understand why something similar is not planned for the AGW hypothesis.
I have seen rationalizations or excuses saying this would be “impossible”.
Why should it be possible for one hypothesis and not for another?
And don’t tell me it is “impossible” when we are able to send a robot to Mars.
If only half of the money being spent on “climate related” research were channeled into empirically corroborating and quantifying (or falsifying) the AGW hypothesis, I’m sure we could have some real answers.
Is the “consensus” community afraid of what these experiments would show?
Would it rather continue doing all its projections based on model simulations, which are easier to control (but which provide no real empirical evidence)?
I’m skeptical.
Max
That was one long article. Notice how it all boiled down to a cut and paste spreadsheet error or he could still be tell us about our simple biases in life.
I wonder how many M&Ms were sacrificed in the pursuit of pseudo-science?
Pekka
Yes.
Indeed you did describe a logical fallacy.
I turned it around and described another logical fallacy.
It is a further logical fallacy, Pekka, to think that everyone who does not share your personal opinions is victim of a logical fallacy.
Now to the second point.
The term “rational (or scientific) skeptic” has been defined in several places.
In the scientific sense, it is simply someone who insists on “empirical evidence” before accepting the validity of a hypothesis.
Max
