Discussion > That CO2 thing again..
Rhoda,
You asked for some evidence, ie proof, that CO2 caused the atmosphere to warm up.
All you got, as usual, were numerous theory based opinion pieces about what CO2 is theorized to do. It doesn't matter how pretentious were the the pseudonyms chosen by the various contributors, in an effort to assume an air of scientific authority, in the end all they could offer was opinion, with no evidence to prove the hypothesis underpinning the AGW argument. Which was, of course, the subject of your thread.
On another thread you touch on something that I have grown concerned about for some time now. Namely that the BH thread comments seem to have been hijacked by climate wars tin soldiers, who seem to think that some lines of discussion are not politically correct and undermine their imagined war against AGW zealots.
The general public doesn't give a hoot about the details of climate theory. They simply need to be frequently reminded about the enormous cost of subsidies they must pay because of the 'climate change' agenda, and shown the facts that temperatures only rose for just 22 years in the latter part of the last century, and have remained static for the past 18 years while, thanks to China etc, CO2 levels have continued to increase no matter how many expensive windmills we erect. Add to that the facts that polar ice is increasing, and the polar bears are doing just fine, and I think our self appointed climate warriors should have a pretty good set of weapons in their war.
The GWPF is a blog dedicated to anti CAGW arguments aimed at the general public. I always thought that BH was a general purpose talking shop without censorship of the threads. If some people believe freedom of expression on the BH threads undermines their political message, I suggest perhaps they should start up blogs of their own.
RKS
I read it differently. In writing this about SoD three days ago
I still think his blog has a strong AGW bias and perhaps as, unlike the rest of us casual contributors, he wants to be accepted as some sort of authority on matters of science, he should at least let his public know what his background and qualifications are.
I thought, as well as sly innuendo, you were revealed as the one concerned with 'airs of scientific authority' rather than evidence and arguments. On the latter nobody apart from Rob Burton and I showed an interest in the question SoD posed about why sceptics accept that the earth's rotation causes the geostrophic winds. How direct is the evidence for that assertion? Not very - and for me this goes to the heart of what kind of evidence we can expect on CO2 and warming. You're entitled to disagree and nobody on this thread asserted otherwise.
I find it strange that Rhoda could find nothing to say once SoD had arrived on the thread eleven days ago, even when Martin A asked two days later. The interaction between these two should have been a treat. But there's no statute of limitations on that.
Richard Drake
"All you got, as usual, were numerous theory based opinion pieces about what CO2 is theorized to do."
The difficulty is in working out precisely what aspect you're unsure about, and what evidence it would take to satisfy you. The mechanism is a concatenation of various well-known effects for which there *is* evidence. The effect of them all in combination follows from that. But as several people have said, you can't replicate a 10 km high stack of atmosphere in your kitchen. But various people have presented laboratory measurements and absorption spectra and in situ radiation measurements and none of that has worked. As soon as you answer one objection, people just shift slightly to raise another. People pursue abstruse points of physics in depth after being told they're irrelevant. I like discussing the physics and it's fine if people are interested, but what is the purpose? What is it you want?
"It doesn't matter how pretentious were the the pseudonyms chosen by the various contributors, in an effort to assume an air of scientific authority,"
What's that supposed to mean?
"On another thread you touch on something that I have grown concerned about for some time now. Namely that the BH thread comments seem to have been hijacked by climate wars tin soldiers, who seem to think that some lines of discussion are not politically correct and undermine their imagined war against AGW zealots."
It's not that they're "politically incorrect", it's that they're scientifically wrong.
"I always thought that BH was a general purpose talking shop without censorship of the threads. If some people believe freedom of expression on the BH threads undermines their political message, I suggest perhaps they should start up blogs of their own."
Like the Bishop himself? He's asked people a number of times not to go on about this stuff - which is why it's relegated to the discussion threads. The fact that he doesn't *tell* them shouldn't in politeness be abused.
Other people have different views over the purpose of BH. The only one that really matters is the owner's. It's private property, and we're guests.
Nullius in Verba
"But as several people have said, you can't replicate a 10 km high stack of atmosphere in your kitchen. "
Could it be done in the kitchen with an ultracentrifuge?
Martin A
I sympathise with NiV, several times I've reached the end of long technical thread with someone, I've answered all of their questions, provided what best physics I could come up with for each point. At the end of such a normal conversation, the general idea is that the person is convinced by the argument - since you've managed to answer all of their points with a scientific explanation.
But what happens is the the person, having made you jump through all of the hoops to demonstrate to them that their original thinking wasn't right - suddenly simply lapses back to their original position, and won't be moved. It's not that you haven't answered adequately (though they may claim that) it's more that they are emotionally attached to their former position, and you realise the whole conversation was not really an enquiry into truth. They were never gong to be convinced by any argument.
I've reached this point with rhoda a few times, who sets up the (frankly) ludicrous position that unless science can answer every single question unequivocally, then that whole section of science can be taken as unproven. It's as if an anvil fell out of the sky and landed on her head, and unless science can tell her the exact composition of the anvil, year of manufacture, how it got up there, exact velocity as it fell. etc... then the anvil never fell on her head.
The answer is that some people do not want to be convinced. They ask the question because they believe the answer is unknown, and that allows them to claim the science is unproven. They do not want to hear that major parts of the answer is known, and even if you prove to them it is, they still lapse back their comfort zone. Even if you agree that the effect may well be irrelevant, they still want to believe it doesn't exist. The irrelevance argument is the one that lets them out of their dilemma. They don't have to doubt conventional physics and GHE might still not matter. But that's not good enough, GHE must be defeated at all costs.
As a rule of thumb, you can separate realists from wishers by the way they react to GH theory.
RKS claims the site has a strong AGW bias. He's wrong The site has a strong TRUTH bias, which reflects the Lukewarmer position of its owner. If that's not to people's tastes, then Bookmarks -> Bishophill -> Delete.
The longer people cling to an untruthful version of science, the long this stupid debate goes on. And the truth is that the GHE is real, it's based on well-understood physics, and nobody is seriously doubting it. It's fun to speculate, but if you are going to overturn 20th century physics then the amount of proof you require is far more than referencing a Tallbloke thread.
TheBigYinJames
Look, if you are tired of this discussion or consider it inappropriate for this venue or don't like the idea of taking information from pseudonymus commenters or have any other objection, it is perfectly open to you not to choose to contribute to my continuing education. I'm mulling over the info from SoD and NiV. I have quibbles about approach in both cases although obviously most of it is not really disputable. I'm trying, against human nature, not to resist out of a desire not to 'lose the argument'. I observe that we have seen a lot of people on both sides who have taken sides despite not really understanding the processes involved, having accepted the 'explanations for dummies' which both sides trot out.
I'll be back soon with a return to the technical debate. When I've dealt with the ironing and a stupid linux problem.
rhoda
As a learning tool for others, it's appropriate, but SoD does it better.
I'm glad you consider it an education, but an education involves a movement of position, from ignorance to knowledge. Have your views changed over the months and years we've been discussing this? Are you more or less sure that GH is a contributory factor in climate now after all this discussing? I'll be pleased to hear they have, but I'm not convinced.
TheBigYinJames
he wants to be accepted as some sort of authority on matters of science, [1]
he should at least let his public know what his background and qualifications are. [2]
[1] That seems to be something inferred by RKS but how he worked out what are SoD's desires is not clear.
[2] Since some of the dragonslayers have pretty well impeccable background and qualifications, it's pretty obvious that somebody's "background and qualifications" is a very poor guide as to whether what they write about radiation and atmospheric physics is correct.
Martin A
rhoda
I am a believer in Science. Science is what has made the modern world a modern world. There are things in science that are so beautiful, so elegant that it is a real joy to behold them. To me, one of those joys is to glimpse the wonder of radiative physics. It tells an incredible story. It is one of the many reasons we are here. Why, of all the planets in all the solar systems in all the galaxies, it is planet earth where intelligent life has gained a toehold. It is because planet earth is a water world and because of the truly miraculous properties of water that we can claim the title of intelligent life. Radiative physics rocks.
H2O: the miracle molecule
H2O: You almost made me well up :) The role of the Moon is also truly extraordinary. Three M's to play with there.
Richard Drake
"Not too cold. Not too hot.
But just right", said Goldilocks.
Simultaneously on 10,000 planets across the Universe.
Kepler has been chipping away at this question since the probe was launched in 2009, but a new report in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has now moved scientists a giant step closer to the ultimate answer. According to the new analysis, a whopping 22% of sunlike stars have planets more or less the size of Earth in their habitable zones. That adds up to about 20 billion Earths in our galaxy alone, says lead author Erik Petigura, of the University of California, Berkeley.
splitpin
David Waltham thinks it's almost certainly far less than 10,000. A fascinating area of debate but probably outside the scope of this thread. :)
Richard Drake
Richard Drake - don't want to derail this thread but you might be interested in 'Rare Earth' by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee which explores some of the possibly unique features of our home planet including the twin-planet aspect of our oversized moon.
splitpin I have never been impressed by the numbers particularly when applied to the intelligent life part of the equation. The probability of us existing is so remote that we probably don't.
H2O: the miracle molecule
H2O: Yes, thanks, been aware of that but not read it. Improbable us. Or, as the man said, Where is everybody?
Richard Drake
So was the summary from Sod that increased GHG gases increase the radiating height of OLR and therefore by implication by following the lapse rate increase the surface temperature? That definitely makes sense as an argument to me and as defined is a very simple explantion of GHG effect.
Rob Burton
yes that's it Rob. The explanation is given elsewhere - for example in the text by Pierrehumbert.
It's illustrated in a Met Office presentation from 2005. Thanks to SoD for clearly and patiently explaining here.
I think it's unknown to what extent the lapse rate is a function of other things - such as transport of heat as by evaporation + convection + condensation.
I felt that rhoda's original query was not answered and I think she got the impression she was being given a hard time for continuing to ask what actual *measurements* show *directly* a relation between increased atmos CO₂ and increased global temperature.
Not an unreasonable question, so far as I can see, as the discrepancy between this century's CO₂ measurements and this century's global temperature suggests that there is something missing from the theory.
Martin A
No it is not really a reasonable question. It is like asking for actual *measurements* show *directly* a relation between nuclear fusion in the Sun and melting of ice on a pond in spring. We understand in detail the mechanisms involved and can be confident that nuclear fusion in the Sun really does melt the ice, but try measuring it.
Raff
Good example.
Richard Drake
Richard, it's not a good example at all. How can you say that?
The only conceivable source of energy radiated by the Sun is fusion. The power arriving from the Sun is measurable directly and precisely. The rise in temperature that melts the ice in spring is directly measurable - and is measured every day.
We *do not* "understand in detail the mechanisms" by which increased CO₂ results in increased global temperature, if indeed it does. If we did, there would not be a wide range of results for 'climate sensitivity' estimates. You can make a whole list of effects that are involved that are not even roughly understood, let alone "understood in detail".
Martin A
Raff
What makes rhoda's question a reasonable one is that the direct correlation between CO2 and increasing temperatures is the foundation of cAGW theory, at least according to what we have been fed by the activist community for the last couple of decades.
That link has been seriously broken by the current stasis. No model and no consensus-supporter has ever until very recently suggested anything other than an unremitting increase in temperature as a direct result of the increase in CO2.
Once there was any suggestion that the two were not in lock-step (as when some naughty people pointed out the temperature fluctuations of the early/mid 20th century) a bit of hand-waving along the lines of "well we didn't exactly say they matched exactly ..." followed but the cat is out of the bag. The connection between CO2 and temperature is once again a legitimate area of debate and whatever CO2 may do under ideal conditions in a laboratory rhoda (and I and others) want some empirical evidence that it does it in the real world.
(And I'm sorry, BigYin, but talk of anvils is just another form of handwaving to my mind.)
Mike Jackson
Rob Burton,
No, that was not the explanation by SoD. His full explanation is here. See his #6;
"If we add more radiatively-active gases (like water vapor and CO2) then the atmosphere becomes more “opaque” to terrestrial radiation and the consequence is the emission to space from the atmosphere moves higher up (on average). Higher up is colder. So this reduces the intensity of emission of radiation, which reduces the outgoing radiation, which therefore adds energy into the climate system. And so the climate system warms."
Note "Higher up is colder.". This is not 'Higher up becomes warmer'. He is specifically saying that more GH gases reduce the outgoing radiation, upset the radiative balance and add energy into the system. An entirely different description to a greater height for OLR increasing surface temperature via the lapse rate.
ssat
Mike Jackson:
What makes rhoda's question a reasonable one is that the direct correlation between CO2 and increasing temperatures is the foundation of cAGW theory, at least according to what we have been fed by the activist community for the last couple of decades.
So we prefer to argue the science with activists and not someone like Science of Doom? I guess that's right, based on your and Rhoda's totally silent reaction to the arrival of SoD here. Nobody like SoD or Isaac Held is expecting direct correlation. It's one heck of a complex system. What is lacking (and I assume you and I agree on this) is firm evidence of anything alarming.
Martin: If you don't like that example I'd still like to see your response to the one SoD gave of the widely-held conviction that the earth's rotation causes geostrophic winds. We missed a real chance to advance these discussions at that point. And as NiV said
Like the Bishop himself? He's asked people a number of times not to go on about this stuff - which is why it's relegated to the discussion threads. The fact that he doesn't *tell* them shouldn't in politeness be abused.Other people have different views over the purpose of BH. The only one that really matters is the owner's. It's private property, and we're guests.
Did anyone bother to ask Andrew for his view after that?
Richard Drake
"Nobody like SoD or Isaac Held is expecting direct correlation."
Maybe they don't, but the IPCC models predicted temperature would rise in lock-step with CO₂....
"It tracks it, almost perfectly"
The devil incarnate points this out...
I don't see how anybody can compare the 21st century observed evolution of global temperature with what was confidently predicted by the GCMs in the 1990's and still say that the influence of atmospheric CO₂ on global temperature is understood at all, let alone "understood in detail". It's nonsense to claim it's understood.
Martin A
Richard
I'm happy to use the phrase "scientist-activist" if that makes it clearer to you.
But in any event I'm sure you know exactly what I was saying. The entire thrust of cAGW for decades has been that CO2 is the culprit.
"This time it's different."
"The models don't work unless we add CO2."
Any of that sound familiar to you? It should.
And why I should be expected to have a view on Science of Doom's presence I can't imagine. And why the fact that he is not expecting a perfect correlation between CO2 and temperature is relevant to anything we have been discussing I find equally hard to understand.
I repeat: the received wisdom, passed on from on high to the Great Unwashed, is that CO2 is the cause of global warming. The hypothesis is developing large holes. Give us some evidence.
[PS Andrew is extremely generous towards his guests and very tolerant of those who choose to post here. If there is one small area where I am puzzled by his intolerance (as also with Anthony Watts) it is a very deep reluctance to allow lengthy debate on radiative physics. On the other hand he is quite content that we should discuss off the main site for which I am sure we are all grateful to him.
This thread and Rhoda's "experimental demo of GHE" started in January of last year have attracted over 750 comments. Now I know that the number of comments doesn't impress you but this figure suggests to me at least that this an aspect of climate study that is either far from settled or at least far from properly and convincingly communicated by the climate "community". I for one intend to pursue it until someone does finally either provide something conclusive in the way of proof that CO2 is capable (outside the laboratory) of what it is accused of or else admits that the objective always was the "decarbonising" of the western economy with all the horrors that would inevitably flow from that.]
Mike Jackson
RKS: With full pdf from PNAS by Liu et al. Thanks for the reference. Climate models fail to explain so much. Strictly speaking that's different from 'the effect of CO2 on the REAL atmosphere is bugger all'. But it looks a very interesting paper.