My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[freeztar]

I have studied enough of chaos theory, or whatever they call it this week:hyper:, to know the specific shortcomings are predicated in the general shortcomings and the general shortcomings are, well...really short.

 

Ok, but I was asking for specific examples of shortcomings in climate models.

 

It's important to note that scientists openly admit the uncertainty in climate models.

 

It is important to be aware that predictions from climate models are always subject to uncertainty because of limitations on our knowledge of how the climate system works and on the computing resources available. Different climate models can give different predictions.

Met Office: Climate change projections

 

Out of curiousity, can you point to a model that shows opposite trends from models such as the Met Office Hadley Centre computer models. Out of all the models I've looked into, I'm unaware of any that show anything but a warming trend. If such a model exists, I'd sure like to see it. If it doesn't, then we have to wonder why that is.

 

I never suggested such a thing, and you very well know my enthusiasm and ability to conduct research.

Of course Turtle. :)

[Turtle]

...Out of curiousity, can you point to a model that shows opposite trends from models such as the Met Office Hadley Centre computer models. Out of all the models I've looked into, I'm unaware of any that show anything but a warming trend. If such a model exists, I'd sure like to see it. If it doesn't, then we have to wonder why that is.

 

No, I have no such specific models, which is not to say they don't exist. Several reasons come to mind as to why none seem handy: 1) Without the input data from the things still unknown/unrecognized as significant contributors, then all models with such ommissions may make similar predictions. 2) The models are tweaked so they accurately reflect current conditions, be that warming, CO2 rise, etcetera, and once that goal is accomplished then a run is made that goes into the future. This is not speculation, but rather the real process of model making. 3) No one is currently investing in contrarian models. 4) The current warming is not contested, rather the predictions of what follows is the bugga-boo.

 

Mind you I am relying on what I know, and my own reasoning, to evaluate this business, and not following some other person's agenda or lead. Any links I find are secondary to my own conclusions and reflect my best effort to find some source with some similar reasoning. If you have a different understanding of the mathematics than I, then it is not surprising you draw different conclusions on the application of that math, and no less true for the climatologists. The game is still afoot, and it is far too early to definitively say Miss Scarlet did it in the Conservatory with the wrench.

[REASON]

My concern is that it will be too late by the time we are able to agree on who done it.

[Turtle]

My concern is that it will be too late by the time we are able to agree on who done it.

 

Too late for what? Mother Earth kills and eats all her offspring sooner or later; don't fear the Reaper. :phones:

 

You know another couple thingys not in the models? The prediction for the next supervolcano eruption that plunges Earth into cooling or large space rock impacts to similar or worse effect. Chaos theory, aka complex systems theory, is if not in its infancy, its toddler-hood, and pardoning the sexist slant of this colloquial proverb, you don't send a boy to do a man's job.

[freeztar]

Too late for what? Mother Earth kills and eats all her offspring sooner or later; don't fear the Reaper.

 

Don't be the reaper either. :phones:

(that's not meant to be directed at you Turtl)

 

You know another couple thingys not in the models? The prediction for the next supervolcano eruption that plunges Earth into cooling or large space rock impacts to similar or worse effect.

 

The reason they are not in the models is because they are not predictable. In this sense, the models do not account for divine intervention or alien encounters either. :D

 

Chaos theory, aka complex systems theory, is if not in its infancy, its toddler-hood, and pardoning the sexist slant of this colloquial proverb, you don't send a boy to do a man's job.

 

Then who do you send Turtle? What are other viable alternatives?

[Turtle]

Don't be the reaper either. :evil:

(that's not meant to be directed at you Turtl)

 

Understood, but then each of us IS the reaper, save perhaps for the very rare true frutarian. The rule is reap responsibly.

 

The reason they are not in the models is because they are not predictable. In this sense, the models do not account for divine intervention or alien encounters either. ;)

See the irony? The models' sole purpose is to make predictions, and they fulfill it. No one will make a model and then go out and say here is a false model.

 

Then who do you send Turtle? What are other viable alternatives?

 

Yes; you send Turtle. And voila! :D Here I have been. If this global warming prediction is truly a disaster, than prepare for disaster; if it's not, then prepare for disaster. :phones:

[freeztar]

Understood, but then each of us IS the reaper, save perhaps for the very rare true frutarian. The rule is reap responsibly.

 

Agreed.

 

See the irony?

 

No. What is ironic about that?

 

The models' sole purpose is to make predictions, and they fulfill it.

 

Ok, we agree there.

I'd like to add that one way the models are tested is to run simulations from the past. If the data matches up pretty well with prehistoric climate data (eg ice core samples), then the model is viewed as pretty accurate. If not, it's back to the drawing board.

No one will make a model and then go out and say here is a false model.

Nope, they would say, "Here is our model, it predicts the following...". Then someone says, well what about X? And then they say, hold on we'll be right back. :evil:

Yes; you send Turtle.

 

Which one? Leonardo? Donatello? :D

 

If this global warming prediction is truly a disaster, than prepare for disaster; if it's not, then prepare for disaster. :phones:

 

I agree.

[Turtle]

Which one? Leonardo? Donatello? :D

 

Low Shoe. :evil:

 

My latest entrance into this fray was prefaced on some remarks that Craig offered, and while he & I apparently differ in our conclusion of where lies the best value considering the probable risk, I can assure you, dear readers, that if I have mis-characterized the mathematics of complex systems analysis that a qualified correction is forthcoming. :phones:

[InfiniteNow]

My latest entrance into this fray was prefaced on some remarks that Craig offered, and while he & I apparently differ in our conclusion of where lies the best value considering the probable risk, I can assure you, dear readers, that if I have mis-characterized the mathematics of complex systems analysis that a correction is forthcoming.

 

You are a bright and gifted mathemagician, Turtle, so I sincerely doubt that you have mischaracterized the mathematics of complex systems analysis. Where your approach is abundantly lacking, however, is in the fact that you have yet to reference a specific model which exhibits faults, and you continue waving your hands about as if that action alone has some intrinsic merit.

 

I ask you... Have you even examined any specific models, or are you simply continuing to engage in tactics which parallel those of the George C. Marshal Institute on this issue?

 

 

He who does not trust enough, Will not be trusted. :phones:

[goku]

okay, so i've been trying to follow this, it's alot like a woody allen movie, forgive me if i misunderstood.

 

if UV rays hit CO2, then we shouldn't need UV protection in our sun block, sun glasses. :QuestionM

[freeztar]

okay, so i've been trying to follow this, it's alot like a woody allen movie, forgive me if i misunderstood.

 

if UV rays hit CO2, then we shouldn't need UV protection in our sun block, sun glasses. :shrug:

 

You did misunderstand. [ce]CO2[/ce] allows UV to pass through relatively easily. The "problem" with [ce]CO2[/ce] is that it permits IR from escaping the atmosphere.

 

In other words, it reacts more with IR than UV. The atmospheric chemistry behind all of this is a demon on its own (ie for another thread/day).

[REASON]

You did misunderstand. [ce]CO2[/ce] allows UV to pass through relatively easily. The "problem" with [ce]CO2[/ce] is that it permits IR from escaping the atmosphere.

 

In other words, it reacts more with IR than UV. The atmospheric chemistry behind all of this is a demon on its own (ie for another thread/day).

 

Even more simply stated:

 

Solar (Sun) radiation (light energy) can come in and warm things up making heat energy which CO2 absorbs and doesn't let back out.

 

Think of it like the inside of your car or truck getting real hot on a sunny day. It's hotter inside than outside because you left the windows shut and the heat can't get out. Adding more and more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere (air) is like rolling up the windows in your truck.

 

The reason you need UV protection is because UV (ultraviolet) light will burn your skin and eyes.

[goku]

so, CO2 is not thermal conductive? does not pass the heat on to space?

[CraigD]

if UV rays hit CO2, then we shouldn't need UV protection in our sun block, sun glasses. :shrug:

[ce]CO2[/ce] is not a very strong absorber of light in the visible ([math]4 \times 10^{-7}[/math] to [math]7 \times 10^{-7}[/math] m) or shorter band of wavelength, such as ultra-violet ([math]1 \times 10^{-8}[/math] to [math]4 \times 10^{-7}[/math] m). It absorbs most strongly in 3 narrow bands at [math]2.7 \times 10^{-6}[/math], [math]4.3 \times 10^{-6}[/math], and [math]1.5 \times 10^{-5}[/math] m wavelength, which is in the infra-red band ([math]7 \times 10^{-7}[/math] to [math]1 \times 10^{-3}[/math] m). So it isn’t any good at protecting our skin from the sun’s harmful UV rays.

 

You can see how narrow [ce]CO2[/ce] and other greenhouse gasses’ absorption bands are bands are in sources like this one.

 

[ce]CO2[/ce] isn’t actually all that good at blocking IR rays, either. It only stops a small fraction of the IR rays emitted by Earth’s surface from escaping into space. For typical atmospheric [ce]CO2[/ce] densities, this small amount of absorption results in only small increases in temperature – a change of a few degrees out of an average global temperature of nearly 300 K.

 

The reasons nearly the entire scientific and lay community is so concerned about such a small increase in temperature are several, but are basically that the best climate models, and the people who interpret them, are nearly certain that these small increases will have significant effects, such as raising various costal sea levels enough to flood low-lying inhabited land, or changing ocean and air currents to make deserts where there were none before, or cause greening of current deserts. For the majority of plants and animal species on Earth, this may not be much of a problem – just move inland or away from or toward slowly forming deserts – but we humans are less flexible. We’re also a lot more emotionally sensitive to things like food source failures causing big fractions of our population to die – well, other animals may find this emotionally distressing, too, but unlike us, there’s little they can do about it.

[REASON]

so, CO2 is not thermal conductive? does not pass the heat on to space?

 

Here is a Wiki link for CO2. This should answer all your questions about this atmospheric gas.

[Michaelangelica]

[ce]CO2[/ce] is not a very strong absorber of light in the visible ([math]4 times 10^{-7}[/math] to [math]7 times it.

CraigD,

Any idea what is happening with all the stuff spewed out by jet plane trails-including water vapour?

tar

[CraigD]

so, CO2 is not thermal conductive? does not pass the heat on to space?

Planet-warming has very little to do with conduction.

 

Heat is transferred by conduction when the motion of molecules in one object - the “warm sink” – is transferred to molecules in another – the “cold sink”. Space, however, has hardly any molecules in it. It’s a nearly perfect vacuum, thus nearly a perfect thermal insulator. So heat is transferred between planets by conduction much less well than between hot coffee and the outside of a really good vacuum thermos bottle.

 

To cool an object insulated by vacuum, you’ve got to use radiation. The reason Earth isn’t incinerated by the incoming solar radiation it receives is that it reflects some of it, and absorbs and emits some more, the total rate (power) of the two being equal to that of the incoming solar (and an insignificant amount from other sources, such as stars) radiation.

 

Note that greenhouse gases don’t cause the Earth to radiate less into space – they just alter slightly the spectrum of its radiation, allowing it to “slip out between the cracks” in the absorption spectra of the atmosphere’s gasses. The problem is, this small alteration results in a small increase in atmospheric temperature, which can lead to big troubles for us surface-dwellers.