My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Flying Binghi]

Due Diligence

 

The march 8, 2009 International Conference on climate change is shaping up to be a fairly important event. I wonder if Due Diligence in climate science gets covered ?

 

 

Stephen McIntyre, primary author of the influential Climate Audit blog, has some strong views on the mater -

 

(extract) ...IPCC proponents place great emphasis on the merit of articles that have been "peer reviewed"�? by a journal. However, as a form of due diligence, journal peer review in the multiproxy climate field is remarkably cursory, as compared with the due diligence of business processes. Peer review for climate publications, even by eminent journals like Nature or Science, is typically a quick unpaid read by two (or sometimes three) knowledgeable persons, usually close colleagues of the author. It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations.

http://www.climateaudit.org/index.php?p=66

 

Probably shake the AGW belief of a few more people...

[Eclipse Now]

Oh right, and how does he verify this? You're just going to take his word for it? No, sorry, hasn't shaken my understanding of the situation at all.

 

Human nature and pride over professional reputations can occasionally get in the way of the scientific enterprise, yes. That is, there are some genuine questions about how human nature interacts with the peer review process, but it tends to be in fields that are SO vast (like medicine) that the tiny little "specialist" fields almost anything can be published.

 

However, climate science is a global study and enterprise being evaluated by so many different institutions that if there were genuine questions about the basics, it really WOULD make it into the peer reviewed literature.

 

As to the silly accusations above about the peer review process, just look at the measures required just to publish articles in Science and Nature magazines. I'm sure they've published stuff on global warming! :phones:

 

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Very general journals such as Science and Nature have extremely stringent standards for publication, and will reject papers that report good quality scientific work if editors feel the work is not a breakthrough in the field. Such journals generally have a two-tier reviewing system. In the first stage, members of the editorial board verify that the paper's findings — if correct — would be ground-breaking enough to warrant publication in Science or Nature. Most papers are rejected at this stage. Papers that do pass this 'pre-reviewing' are sent out for in-depth review to outside referees. Even after all reviewers recommend publication and all reviewer criticisms/suggestions for changes have been met, papers may still be returned to the authors for shortening to meet the journal's length limits. With the advent of electronic journal editions, overflow material may be stored in the journal's online Electronic Supporting Information archive.

 

See FB, have you really dealt with 2 basic concepts yet?

1. how do we know what Co2, or even methane for that matter, does with various spectra of energy?

2. How do we know what percentage of these gases in the atmosphere will do exactly what?

 

What's it all based on? If, as Al Gore appeared to present this, we believe all this stuff based on the history of ice ages and Co2, then global warming is categorically wrong and the sceptics win. (Because as the sceptics always point out, the temperature changes BEFORE the Co2 changes.) But the climatologists also know this basic fact, and yet are not swayed. So what's going on here FB? Can you do your 1's and 2's without making a mess?

[engineerdude]

This is shaping up to be an interesting conference -

 

...an invitation to register for the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change, which convenes on March 8 in New York City.

 

Among the "climate deniers" lined up to speak are Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT; the University of Alabama's Roy W. Spencer, a pioneer in the monitoring of global temperatures by satellite; Stephen McIntyre, primary author of the influential Climate Audit blog; and meteorologist John Coleman, who founded the Weather Channel in 1982.

Skepticism on climate change - The Boston Globe

 

This must be a typo - according to proponents of AGW all non-crackpot scientists believe in Al-Gore-Global-Warming 100%. These sound like "real" scientists, so this is probably a fake press release put out by the oil companies.

[REASON]

This must be a typo - according to proponents of AGW all non-crackpot scientists believe in Al-Gore-Global-Warming 100%. These sound like "real" scientists, so this is probably a fake press release put out by the oil companies.

 

Well, at least now we know the source of your bias. You're an anti-Al Gore, anti-liberal ideologue who thinks this whole issue is just a political one, and thus you judge whether science is "real" or not by how well it aligns with your party line. I wouldn't be surprised if you are being influenced by the climate geniuses of conservative talk radio.

 

I guess there's no convincing you even if the evidence were blatent and conclusive that AGW is occurring. It is very difficult for people to be objective when they are driven by ideology.

[Eclipse Now]

Engineerdude, that's just funny!

 

Did you even look at some of their wiki's?

 

Check out Richard Lindzen for example... yeah, he's a real scientist all right. ;);):D;);):evil::evil::doh:

Bought and owned exclusively by "big oil" and "King coal". Scientific opinion for sale, no unreasonable request for fudged evidence denied.

 

Criticism of Lindzen

 

Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."[22]

 

In Aug 2006, according to Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam, Lindzen said that he had accepted $10,000 in expenses and expert witness fees, from "fossil-fuel types" in the 1990s and had not received any money from these since. [23]

 

According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen has also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute." [22]

 

 

 

Roy Spencer is interesting as well.

 

Roy W. Spencer Ph.D. is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

 

He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. He is also a supporter of intelligent design[1] and is skeptical of the scientific consensus that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming.

Sounds like so many Creationists I know, denying evolution and global warming as both some kind of anti-bible conspiracy. No amount of science will convince someone like that! (I know plenty of Christian theistic evolutionists that see Genesis as Jewish creative narrative, and that's Christian leaders in apologetic roles not just your average joe-bloggs churchgoer).

 

Also, Spencer is not a climatologist but he does like to spit out his venom against climatologists.

 

Oh, lastly, Spencer's opinion is also for sale.

Spencer is listed as a member of the Heartland Institute and a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute[17], both of which receive funding from ExxonMobil.

 

 

Stephen McIntyre

* Not a climatologist.

Stephen seems to be the most respectable of the 4, and at least does not appear (at this stage in my knowledge) to appear to be funded by Exxon and friends.

 

He helped correct a tiny error in USA temperature variations. However, this seems to have gone to his head and he thinks it's affected more than it actually has... the correction has no impact whatsoever on the global warming trends we observe. His blog has received webbie awards for at least seeking scientific knowledge about global warming, but I can't see any substantial debunking of global warming physics or anything significantly troubling to AGW in his work.

 

 

Coleman is a retired weather man out to make a buck and get a bit of attention.

 

Views on global warming

 

In fall of 2007 Coleman described the current concern over global warming "a fictional, manufactured crisis, and a total scam." [3] His postings assessing the science behind global warming can be read at http://www.kusi.com

 

. In 2008 he gave a speech of the same tone, before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce, blaming the "global warming scam" and environmentalist lobby, for rising gas and food prices. He also declared the scam "a threat to our economy and our civilization." [4]

 

Coleman has also made appearances on Fox News Channel and on the Showtime program, Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, to share his global warming views.

 

Yeah, great peer reviewed papers there Coleman, give Engineerdude some soundbytes to quote why don't you but above all, stay away from the empirical methodology and discipline of a scientific paper! Has he published anything that even got through the Science and Nature peer reviewed process, let alone anything in climate journals? Ha!

 

So, in summary, you're "real" scientists are:

* not climatologists

* not writing in real climate journals or peer reviewed articles (except maybe McIntyre but he contributes in a technical instrument capacity)

* 2 are funded by Exxon and friends

* 1 is a total has-been, trying to relive the glory days of his television career.

 

This is a sad and motley lot to put against the repeatable, testable, verifiable physics of spectrometry and the Radiative Forcing Equation.

[Flying Binghi]

Imagine, if the Gore AGW wonder drug goes wrong........would'nt a lot of people wonder why there was no due diligence done :evil: .....snake oil salesman.

 

I still hav'nt got an exact answer to my question - If the sun was turned off/disapeared, how long would it take for the Earth to cool down to an average of zero degrees celsius. Seems an easy question of those with a complete understanding of climate :evil:

[Eclipse Now]

Imagine, if the Gore AGW wonder drug goes wrong........would'nt a lot of people wonder why there was no due diligence done :evil: .....snake oil salesman.

 

There are 4 reasons to get off the fossil fuels ASAP.

 

1. Economic security

Peak oil and gas will most probably occur within the next 10 years, and fuel prices will skyrocket as rationing is forced upon us. See the Australian Federal Senate inquiry final report here, especially Chapter 3 on "peak oil concerns".

Parliament of Australia:Senate:Committees:Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee:Australia’s future oil supply and alternative transport fuels

Catalyst covered the basics quite well here — good online viewing summarising some of the 3 basic issues with oil discovery trends over the last 40 years.

Catalyst: Real Oil Crisis - ABC TV Science

ABC science unit's movie "Crude" is free online here.

Crude - the incredible journey of oil - Broadband edition - ABC Science

Chevron basically admit peak oil and ask for help here.

File not Found

 

 

2. We are changing the climate

They know what Co2 does by measuring the way it refracts various spectra of energy in a lab, and this is repeatable, demonstrable, testable, falsifiable science — and it is confirmed all the time. They also know how much extra Co2 is storing how much extra energy in the atmosphere. (Google "Radiative Forcing Equation" for more).

 

The role of Co2 is real, even if other large climate forcings also still play a role (like the incredibly powerful El Nino / La Nina cycle). Climate sceptics tend to ignore the fact that climate change is about the basic physics, and try and ignore these basic facts under a could of obfuscation.

 

3. National security

Sudden exposure to oil shocks could cause international tension. Shortages could cause profound flow on effects affecting all industries, especially mining and agriculture.

 

4. Health concerns

Fossil fuels are incredibly dirty and cause all manner of lung disease and cancer. Lung cancer rates in the beautiful Hunter valley wine district are 3 times higher than in Sydney, because of the coal powered stations up there!

 

 

I still hav'nt got an exact answer to my question - If the sun was turned off/disapeared, how long would it take for the Earth to cool down to an average of zero degrees celsius. Seems an easy question of those with a complete understanding of climate :doh:

That's because it's irrelevant to this thread, they already DID respond to this silliness pages and pages ago, you're sidetracking from the fact that you don't want to answer questions about the basic physics and Radiative Forcing Equation above, and are basically an internet troll diverting us into la la land while not engaging the actual material being presented here. :evil:

 

Other than that, have a nice day. ;)

[CraigD]

I still hav'nt got an exact answer to my question - If the sun was turned off/disapeared, how long would it take for the Earth to cool down to an average of zero degrees celsius.

I doubt you’ll ever get an exact answer to this question, because the conditions it describes are so unlikely to ever occur that it’s of little importance.

 

However, it’s not hard to arrive at a reasonable approximation. Rephrasing the question from speaking of average temperature, which is problematic to define and measure, to the temperature of a tropical island such as one of the Hawaiian islands, we can take the daytime high (about 30 C) and drop in temperature that normally occurs when the sun “turns off” there over roughly a 12 hour period each night (5 to 10 C) to reach an estimate of 72 to 36 hours (30•12÷5 to 30•12÷10). Noting that nearly all (99.978%) of the Earth’s power comes from the Sun (ie: Earth’s power budget), that there’s not much difference between 273 and 303 K, and that atmospheric heat travels much more slowly than the Earth rotates, we can reasonably ignore other sources of power, non-linear temperature effects, and day/night heat transfer for an approximation of this order. Because 30 to 0 C is within the normal range of temperatures on Earth, we can ignore the possibility of significant phase transition effects.

Seems an easy question of those with a complete understanding of climate

The question is not a climate question, because the sun being turned off or disappearing is not within the realm of reasonably likely climate-effecting occurrences. Though interesting and easy, it requires no knowledge of climate beyond the data above and assumptions above. In short, it can be answered by a simple and reasonable extension of empirical data.

[Flying Binghi]

That's because it's irrelevant to this thread, they already DID respond to this silliness pages and pages ago, you're sidetracking from the fact that you don't want to answer questions about the basic physics and Radiative Forcing Equation above, and are basically an internet troll diverting us into la la land while not engaging the actual material being presented here.

 

Eclipse Now, this is a thread about "My belief is getting shaky" in AGW :evil:

 

 

They know what Co2 does by measuring the way it refracts various spectra of energy in a lab, and this is repeatable, demonstrable, testable, falsifiable science — and it is confirmed all the time

 

Trouble is the REAL WORLD (thats where I live) is getting cooler - the temperature is not going up like the "hockey stick" graph claimed it would. I want to see some due diligence done before we go off on some economy destroying fancy.

[Moontanman]

Eclipse Now, this is a thread about "My belief is getting shaky" in AGW :evil:

 

 

 

 

Trouble is the REAL WORLD (thats where I live) is getting cooler - the temperature is not going up like the "hockey stick" graph claimed it would. I want to see some due diligence done before we go off on some economy destroying fancy.

 

I have attempted to answer this already, the question come very close to being nonsensical. if the sun were to disappear or the Earth was magically transported to interstellar space which would be the same thing, the planets temp would drop immediately 0c would be reached almost at once a few days to a couple weeks at most depending on how far from the ocean you were. Inland the temps would continue to drop and with a few weeks be way below zero like the dry valleys of Antarctica in the winter. areas near the ocean or over the ocean would drop much slower due to the energy content of the ocean but once the oceans were frozen over the temps would fall fast. with a year or two at the most after the ocean froze over O2 and N2 would rain or snow out of the atmosphere. with a few years the earth would have a thin tenuous atmosphere of helium and hydrogen.

[Moontanman]

here is my original answer to your question.

 

Earth's temp without the sun would be about 33K The Earth generates enough energy from the nuclear reactor at it's core to main tian this over millions of years. How fast it would get there is difficult to figure. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 4C would take several weeks at least then the oceans would slowly drop as the ocean radiated it's stored heat. it might take a few years for the entire surface of the planet to drop to 0C but then the temps would start to drop faster due to no more water vapor and the reflective nature of all the ice. When all the CO2 froze out the temps would start to drop even faster. N2 would rain out then O2 would go from vapor to ice like CO2. 33K might take a few years to some decades but it would happen. Venus would loose it's atmosphere somewhat slower at first but once the CO2 began to rain out the temps would drop as fast as the earths.

 

You have to understand these would be averages, extremes would exist immediately if the sun vanished, some places would be 100 below in a few days other places would drop much slower due to local conditions.

[Eclipse Now]

Eclipse Now, this is a thread about "My belief is getting shaky" in AGW :evil:

Yeah, exactly, the thread is about AGW not the sun going out! :evil:

 

It's been answered time and again, and again, and AGAIN above.

 

Trouble is the REAL WORLD (thats where I live) is getting cooler - the temperature is not going up like the "hockey stick" graph claimed it would. I want to see some due diligence done before we go off on some economy destroying fancy.

Blaaaragh! Do some reading for crying out loud, and actually ENGAGE the real world of facts and data.

 

Also FB you need to deal with spectroscopy and the Radiative Forcing Equation, and I'd also like a reply on the other reasons we need to wean off ff's.

 

1. Economic security as fossil fuels peak and then start to decline in production

2. We are changing the climate

3. National security

4. Health concerns

 

(Sorry to other forum members for losing my temper in this original post. However, I really would love it if FB were forced to answer some of our questions and acknowledge that his thing about the sun going out has been answered repeatedly.)

[Zythryn]

Trouble is the REAL WORLD (thats where I live) is getting cooler - the temperature is not going up like the "hockey stick" graph claimed it would.

 

The 'hockey stick' does not claim anything about the future, it is a measurement of the past.

We may be able to extrapolate the it will continue unless something changes. However, even in that, it is not a smooth graph. There are ups and downs throughout the past, as there is likely to be in the future.

The overall trend though is going in a concerning direction.

You are acting as if someone told you CO2 was the only thing that affects temperature. If someone did, you shouldn't believe them. Fortunately very few people (other than perhaps Rush Limbaugh) are under that impression.

Now, again, if you feel GW due to CO2 is 'bunk' then you must believe either:

A) CO2 does not absorb long wavelength radiation (heat)

:evil: CO2 doesn't absorb the amount of long wavelength radiation chemists and physisists calculate it does.

C) CO2 isn't increasing year to year

 

This really is the root foundation of GW. Knock one of those out and you debunk GW. So, which one is it? (or feel free to mention another if I missed it)

[Eclipse Now]

A) CO2 does not absorb long wavelength radiation (heat)

B) CO2 doesn't absorb the amount of long wavelength radiation chemists and physisists calculate it does.

C) CO2 isn't increasing year to year

 

This really is the root foundation of GW. Knock one of those out and you debunk GW. So, which one is it?

 

Nice summary, but don't count on any answers. I've been putting a similar question to FB for months. Let me anticipate the response.

 

FB: "But I wanted to talk about what happens when the sun goes out! You see, I want to maintain some false indignity that no one has answered my questions about the SUN GOING OUT!"

 

We then answer and remind FB of the 3 Co2 basics above, and FB replies:

 

"Look, big shiny thing over there to distract you!" or "Some patronising nasty thing about Al Gore" or "Look at my patronising annoying signature some more".

[Essay]

I'm a couple of pages behind....

 

This is a worring article.

From my reading of it seems we have bugger-all idea about CO2, how much there is , wher it goes, how it is stored etc.

Maybe I need to read it again

What do you get from a reading of it?

 

Scholars and Rogues The Weekly Carboholic: carbon dioxide lifetime 50-100x longer than generally reported

 

It's a pretty neat news article, ...if you already know what they are talking about; but if you're trying to learn something new, or when it comes to their conclusions, you need to double check with real science.

 

The thing that gets me about denialists is that whenever they learn about some new refinement in the science, or discover one themselves, it gets touted as some sort of evidence that the whole of climate science is somehow tainted, conspiratorial, or otherwise invalidated.

 

That "Scholars and Rogues" news article is a good example.

 

This "half-life" thing with CO2 may be partly the fault of the IPCC's media abilities, but it's not as if the scientist don't understand that CO2's "half-life" in the atmosphere isn't some intrinsic property of the molecule. They know CO2's half-life is a function of the planet's metabolic (and geologic) activity.

 

Tasked with determining the current value, they came up with a number that was published.

The media, and people, love to latch onto numbers.

 

That number keeps changing as we keep plowing more earth up ...and a zillion other factors; but that doesn't mean they were wrong the first time, or that the scientists don't know what is going on at all.

 

...and then after discussing the complexities of measuring the "half life," this article concludes:

"The first thing is that a short-term removal of CO2 from the air by plants and the ocean on very short time scales (5-50 years) is not the dominant factor in what controls how fast CO2 is returned to the earth from whence it came - chemical processes that operate on geologic time scales of tens to hundreds of thousands of years are the dominant factor." -S&R

 

Their conclusion is based on taking this snapshot of a description for CO2's current "half life," and assuming that is the whole story, with no past history or evolution.

Does anybody else see the logic in their conclusion?

I don't. I see a different conclusion.

"Short-term removal of CO2 ...is not the dominant factor" ANYMORE, THESE DAYS (due to human influences),

BUT it easily could be shifted to again become a dominant factor in returning CO2 "to the earth from whence it came."

===

 

Some other comments on that Scholars & Rogues article:

 

"Vegetation absorbs CO2 the fastest, but it’s also one of the least well understood." -S&R

Huh? Compared to what?

 

"...a certain percentage of the emitted CO2 will persist effectively forever." -S&R

Yes, and so... what's the point here? That's part of the definition of "half life."

Again, it's made to sound as if the scientists were wrong, or didn't know what was going on.

 

"The third thing to realize is that it may not be possible to return to pre-industrial CO2 concentrations without developing cost-effective absorption technology or radically altering land use to absorb as much CO2 from the atmosphere as possible." -S&R

This was a great sentence, and I couldn't agree more!!!

But why does this sound like the final blow in some argument that CO2 is an unfathomable, unmanageable problem?

 

Maybe the article is not as negative as it seems to sound:

It does end with the sentence,

"This conclusion reinforces the importance of CO2, and of CO2 emission reduction, with respect to climate disruption." -S&R

 

~ B)

 

p.s. ...but I'll try to catch up.

[Flying Binghi]

I have attempted to answer this already, the question come very close to being nonsensical. if the sun were to disappear or the Earth was magically transported to interstellar space which would be the same thing, the planets temp would drop immediately 0c would be reached almost at once a few days to a couple weeks at most depending on how far from the ocean you were. Inland the temps would continue to drop and with a few weeks be way below zero like the dry valleys of Antarctica in the winter

 

You have to understand these would be averages, extremes would exist immediately if the sun vanished, some places would be 100 below in a few days other places would drop much slower due to local conditions.

 

Moontanman, "0c would be reached almost at once a few days to a couple weeks at most " is a little vague......B) .......winds ?

 

 

The 'hockey stick' does not claim anything about the future, it is a measurement of the past.

We may be able to extrapolate the it will continue unless something changes. However, even in that, it is not a smooth graph. There are ups and downs throughout the past, as there is likely to be in the future.

The overall trend though is going in a concerning direction.

 

Zythryn, in the land of Oz, we are about to shoot ourselves in the foot re CO2 :doh: - thats my interest.

[Eclipse Now]

I'll just point out that I you replied pretty much exactly as I predicted in post 1017. However, you still haven't done your homework FB.

 

Now, again, if you feel GW due to CO2 is 'bunk' then you must believe either:

A) CO2 does not absorb long wavelength radiation (heat)

B) CO2 doesn't absorb the amount of long wavelength radiation chemists and physisists calculate it does.

C) CO2 isn't increasing year to year

 

This really is the root foundation of GW. Knock one of those out and you debunk GW. So, which one is it? (or feel free to mention another if I missed it)

 

I'm personally looking forward to our fine land leaving fossil fuels, especially oil, for clean, green electrons. Then we'll finally be free of our cancer causing, climate changing, economically vulnerable oil dependency and moving into the "electron transport economy" so that we'll never be impacted by oil shocks or have to "bring democracy" to another oil exporting nation ever again. :doh: