NOTICE!

The Weatherzone forum has now closed and is in read-only mode until the 1st of November when it will close permanently. We would like to thank everyone who has contributed over the past 18 years.

If you would like to continue the discussion you can follow us on Facebook and Twitter or participate in discussions at AusWeather or Ski.com.au forums.

Page 117 of 117 < 1 2 ... 115 116 117
Topic Options
#1134375 - 21/10/2012 09:21 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Eigerwand]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
Thing is, based on the climate data we do have, and first hand observed changes, just about every region/ecosystem in Australia and numerous others around the world appears to be changing in such a way to indicate a warming planet. Something must be driving this? Now honestly, if we all agree that CO2 absorbs infra red radiation and we are adding it to the atmosphere, what is the logical conclusion? Or to put it another way, even factoring for uncertainty in our understanding of the Earth's climate and climate drivers, based on what we do know, what is the most rational conclusion to arrive at?


” … In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

From the 3rd IPCC report, Section 14.2 “The Climate System”, page 774.
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1134377 - 21/10/2012 09:33 Re: Temperature trends [Re: snafu]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Also, your quote:
Quote:
CO2 absorbs infra red radiation and we are adding it to the atmosphere

From WUWT - source Wiki:

The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

The same logarithmic formula applies for other greenhouse gases such as methane, N2O or CFCs, with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.

--------------------------------------------------------------

This means that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on Earth.




_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1134384 - 21/10/2012 09:43 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Eigerwand]
Brett Guy Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 05/10/2010
Posts: 5159
Loc: Bently Park, Cairns
Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
Thing is, based on the climate data we do have, and first hand observed changes, just about every region/ecosystem in Australia and numerous others around the world appears to be changing in such a way to indicate a warming planet. Something must be driving this? Now honestly, if we all agree that CO2 absorbs infra red radiation and we are adding it to the atmosphere, what is the logical conclusion? Or to put it another way, even factoring for uncertainty in our understanding of the Earth's climate and climate drivers, based on what we do know, what is the most rational conclusion to arrive at?

P.S. To that ROM guy, I would really appreciate a response that didn't involve the political agenda of the far right liberal party. I couldn't care less if your old battler that remembers how tough it was in the old days. We're discussing a scientific question not the chip on your shoulder about the current government or the so called quest of environmentalists to keep the developed world in poverty.


And therein lies the biggest problem with those who believe the AGW theory. You think that because this idea is plausible then it is the obvious and only answer and that any other possibilities should be discarded as trash. and then when evidence show a potential condtradiction to to theory you will ignore it and keep plowing on despite the facts.

Top
#1134385 - 21/10/2012 09:48 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Brett Guy]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
The IPCC ranks their own Level of Scientific Understanding (LOSU) regarding radiative forcing as either “low” or “very low” in 10 of 15 categories?

Chart
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1134390 - 21/10/2012 10:13 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Eigerwand]
snafu Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/06/2012
Posts: 1437
Loc: Belmont, Lake Macquarie, NSW
Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
what is the logical conclusion? Or to put it another way, even factoring for uncertainty in our understanding of the Earth's climate and climate drivers, based on what we do know, what is the most rational conclusion to arrive at?

Perhaps Prof. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia can answer your question for you;

“We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.” - October, 2012

Don't forget, according to the climate hypochondriacs, the science is settled and there is no more debate.
_________________________
We have about five more years at the outside to do something.
Kenneth Watt, ecologist - Earth Day, 1970
43 years later...we're still here.

Top
#1134404 - 21/10/2012 10:58 Re: Temperature trends [Re: snafu]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003
Originally Posted By: snafu
Also, your quote:
Quote:
CO2 absorbs infra red radiation and we are adding it to the atmosphere

From WUWT - source Wiki:

The relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic, and thus increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect.

The same logarithmic formula applies for other greenhouse gases such as methane, N2O or CFCs, with coefficients that can be found e.g. in the IPCC reports.

--------------------------------------------------------------

This means that a runaway greenhouse effect is not possible on Earth.








That's my chart actually.

There is three important points contained in it.

First obviously, warming is logarithmic with respect to CO2 (as is all temperature and energy equations - even the Sun's surface for example). Most people don't understand this on the level which it happens at. Your backyard needs to gain four parts of energy level to increase in 1 part temperature.

Second, we are not meeting the general equations which 3.0C per doubling is based on. The satellite lower troposphere temperatures, for example, are well within the curve illustrated in the theory of the chart.

Third, as one gets closer and closer to Zero ppm CO2, we see something important about the theory. It is based on 85% control of the biggest GHG - water vapour - because as we appraoch Zero ppm CO2, we lose all of the greenhouse effect in the theory. This has been confirmed in recent papers such as Lacis, 2010. But, the empiricial data to date is not indicating anything close to this level of control of water vapour. It is just a theory after all. The pro-warming people do not understand this - that is just a theory.



Edited by Bill Illis (21/10/2012 10:59)

Top
#1134589 - 21/10/2012 23:25 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Bill Illis]
Eigerwand Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 28/05/2012
Posts: 526
Ok, Bill the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and warming is a very interesting point. I'll have to look further into this. I would like to say that I don't immediately discount information that goes against AGW it's just that through my experience I have encountered what appears to me more thorough research demonstrating the validity of AGW. I will look further into the other side of things so long as it's from respected sources (though some of you may take issue with the peer review process I can't really see what the alternative is? The Lord Mockton's of the world teaching us about climate science?) . Again I take issue with what ROM writes. To say the climate on Earth has and always will be in a state of flux (obviously, it's dynamic system) therefore we can't possibly or shouldn't even bother considering our potential impact seems to me like an extremely weak argument. Also, I'm not some radical leftist (I can't stand either end of the political spectrum) but you have made it pretty clear in your posts about where you stand politically and I find it difficult to accept that your position on this topic is purely from a scientific one hence why I made the point of it and not to satisfy some egotistical urge.

Top
#1134607 - 22/10/2012 01:01 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Eigerwand]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

I can update the Logarithmic CO2 warming chart showing where actual warming to date is occuring versus the Theory/IPCC now. Zoomed-in so it is a little clearer - natural variation from the ENSO and volcanoes etc. removed.

The satellite lower troposphere temps are well inside the theory and so is Hadcrut4 (and the data to date also points in a direction to how much the historical temps have been played with - maybe 0.3C or so).

http://s18.postimage.org/zdrhgpt21/Zoom_in_RSS_UAH_Hadcrut4_Warming_Sept_12.png



Top
#1134627 - 22/10/2012 08:03 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Bill Illis]
Anthony Violi Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 06/11/2001
Posts: 2336
Loc: Mt Barker - SA
Which in turn is where these intellectual pygmies are not getting it..

The models are wrong, and need to be reset using the data we have right now, which would mean we will see bugger all warming. They are overstating the warming to push this ridiculous agenda.

Somehow, the alarmists still come on here pretending that all the adjusted data is real data. Which only leads to one conclusion, they are trolls and probably paid to come on here and post articles to support this garbage.

What they also dont see is all the lukewarmers like Curry and others jumping off calling for a complete scrapping of the models because they are rubbish as they stand at present.

thats the inconvenient truth, and they dont like it because soon something will to give and the IPCC will be the first to buckle.
_________________________
https://avweather.net/

Top
#1134628 - 22/10/2012 08:04 Re: Temperature trends [Re: snafu]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: snafu
Originally Posted By: Eigerwand
Thing is, based on the climate data we do have, and first hand observed changes, just about every region/ecosystem in Australia and numerous others around the world appears to be changing in such a way to indicate a warming planet. Something must be driving this? Now honestly, if we all agree that CO2 absorbs infra red radiation and we are adding it to the atmosphere, what is the logical conclusion? Or to put it another way, even factoring for uncertainty in our understanding of the Earth's climate and climate drivers, based on what we do know, what is the most rational conclusion to arrive at?


” … In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

From the 3rd IPCC report, Section 14.2 “The Climate System”, page 774.


That's not at all an honest representation of what the IPCC actually says. Here is the full text from the relevant section:

The climate system is particularly challenging since it is known that components in the system are inherently chaotic; there are feedbacks that could potentially switch sign, and there are central processes that affect the system in a complicated, non-linear manner. These complex, chaotic, non-linear dynamics are an inherent aspect of the climate system. As the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) has previously noted, "future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve ‘surprises'. In particular, these arise from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the climate system … Progress can be made by investigating non-linear processes and sub-components of the climatic system." These thoughts are expanded upon in this report: "Reducing uncertainty in climate projections also requires a better understanding of these non-linear processes which give rise to thresholds that are present in the climate system. Observations, palaeoclimatic data, and models suggest that such thresholds exist and that transitions have occurred in the past … Comprehensive climate models in conjunction with sustained observational systems, both in situ and remote, are the only tool to decide whether the evolving climate system is approaching such thresholds. Our knowledge about the processes, and feedback mechanisms determining them, must be significantly improved in order to extract early signs of such changes from model simulations and observations."

(link)

Top
#1134634 - 22/10/2012 08:32 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Bill Illis]
Mike Hauber Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 13/07/2007
Posts: 3817
Loc: Buderim
Originally Posted By: Bill Illis

I can update the Logarithmic CO2 warming chart showing where actual warming to date is occuring versus the Theory/IPCC now. Zoomed-in so it is a little clearer - natural variation from the ENSO and volcanoes etc. removed.

The satellite lower troposphere temps are well inside the theory and so is Hadcrut4 (and the data to date also points in a direction to how much the historical temps have been played with - maybe 0.3C or so).


(image removed from quote)

IPCC already consider the logarithmic effect of Co2. The differences in your chart is nothing to do with logarithmic vs non-logarithmic, but logarithmic with 3.25 deg/doubling and logarithmic with 1 deg/doubling. The line marked 'IPCC AR5 trend line is nowhere found in the IPCC'. This is a trendline derived under the assumption that all warming due to a given increase happens instantaneously, however the IPCC allows a delay in warming due to the thermal inertia of the oceans, and it is this thermal inertia effect which accounts for the difference between the two trend lines.

Also runaway warming can certainly happen under a logarithmic forcing regime. The criteria for runaway feedback is whether the slope of a feedback response line (amount of warming due to feedback for a given amount of warming due to a forcing) is greater than 1. The slope of a line can be greater than 1 for a logarithmic function depending on paramaters(although not over the entire domain from 0 to infinity).

Finally note that the IPCC do not forecast a runaway warming effect, and most climate scientists do not expect this. A notable exception is James Hansen who is convinced that if we mine coal and tar sands that we will initiate a runaway feedback effect that will result in the oceans boiling away.

Top
#1134675 - 22/10/2012 11:44 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Mike Hauber]
Bill Illis Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 11/07/2010
Posts: 1003

Mike, I'm using the delayed response IPCC trend line in the above chart.

Top
#1135111 - 23/10/2012 15:47 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Bill Illis]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 6050
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
See you all later I'm taking a break from here, it is no use being on here anymore, the one person has wrecked it for all.
It was a pleasant place to come once
Thanks to all the nice folk here.
Cheers and blessing to you all.
I may come back some time, not sure.

Top
Page 117 of 117 < 1 2 ... 115 116 117


Moderator:  Lindsay Knowles 
Who's Online
0 registered (), 51 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
rodgerwareing
Forum Stats
29947 Members
32 Forums
24194 Topics
1529243 Posts

Max Online: 2985 @ 26/01/2019 12:05
Satellite Image