I do not think it was a coincidence that one of the items that was snipped from my quote was the item of Paleo Climatology. No, Climatology is not the same as Meteorology.
Unless you can point a weatherman using things like dendrochronology you are indeed very wrong.
You can deny the 2nd law of Thermodynamics if you chose to. You can also deny that the sun warms the surface of the Earth, and that a molten core warms the subsurface of the Earth.
I said, “Global warming has been happening since the last ice age. The sun warms the planet’s surface and the molten core warms the rest.”
Yes, the current global warming is very old. It’s as old as the last ice age. It’s a naturally occurring phenomena. Man-made CO2 is a fairly recent invention.
So, as a recent “invention,” you are finally admitting that it changes the process? Or are you pretending that your own words are irrelevant to the discussion?
Completely wrong. Just stunningly wrong. To put it mildly, your little diatribe obfuscates the most basic fact that weather is dominated by completely different factors at different timescales, giving rise to entirely different scientific fields of study. The best commonplace example is the difference between the chaos of daily weather and the cyclic predictability of seasonal climate.
Clearly temperature change isn’t linear. It was cool here a few days ago, and was getting downright chilly at night. Today it’s hot and humid. Apparently the temperature is rising. But we’re approaching fall and it should be getting cooler. So why did it get hotter? It’s a mystery! But I’ll take a bet that on average it will be much cooler in November and December. So then we will conclude that the temperature is falling! Which is correct? But CO2 is supposed to cause warming so how come it will be getting colder? It’s all so confusing!
It depends on the timescale you use, because different forces are visible only at the appropriate timescales. Seasonal changes are invisible on daily weather-forecasting timescales because they’re lost in the chaos. They only manifest over timescales of months. The forcings that drive AGW start to become apparent only on decadal timescales and beyond, when their unique signature emerges from the noise of the underlying chaotic variations. And the study of those forcings has nothing to do with daily weather – it’s a vast scientific discipline with many dozens of specialties.
Global warming is a very old “invention”. Global warming existed long before man existed. Blaming man-made CO2 for global warming is relatively new.
People have been questioning the “science” and the methods of the UN/IPCC since 1988.
*A Major Deception on Global Warming Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996 -
Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth’s climate, released “The Science of Climate Change 1995,” its first new report in five years.
…But this report is not what it appears to be–it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.
…The participating scientists accepted “The Science of Climate Change” in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report–the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate–were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.
…The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes.”
“Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.*”
Not at the same rate. The warming from the last ice age was a slow process driven by the increase of CO2 from the ice age level of 180 ppm to the nominal interglacial level of 285 ppm where it had stabilized for thousands of years. Today it’s on the verge of exceeding 400 ppm, creating a net radiative forcing of 1.68 W/m2 from CO2 alone and a net of 2.29 W/m2 total anthropogenic forcing relative to the pre-industrial era.
Or do you have a better explanation for the sudden and dramatic uptick in temperature rise? You’d win the Nobel prize if you do, but unfortunately your analysis that “the sun warms the earth” doesn’t cut it.
As I pointed before to him, to no avail, it is clear that he is getting the results he wants from his math by plugging in numbers that are not based on what research has found.
Species have been going extinct since the earliest species evolved.
That, in itself, isnot an argument that humanity has not increased its rate. (Note, particularly, Figure 3.)
Arguing that just because something has existed prior to human intervention, then human intervention cannot have an affect upon it is baseless nonsense.
I’ve got the Earth atmosphere at 5 x 10[sup]15[/sup] tonnes, so 2 ppmv is 10 x 10[sup]9[/sup] tonnes … perhaps the 500-1300 gigaton number is man’s CO[sub]2[/sub] output … only 10 gigatonnes remain in the atmosphere.
I agree that day-to-day weather changes appear chaotic to the uninitiated, but these values follow very strict mathematical equations. The atmosphere behaves in a structured and ordered way. If I may offer, we can describe a 5-body gravitational system that would indeed look very chaotic, but we both know these motions follow an exact equation, eminently predictable and very ordered. The geology can introduce a little chaos, but that’s more of a climatologist’s problem than for a grunt weather forecaster.
The factors that are averaged are exactly the same as the factors being averaged.
How far distant are these observations from average, a couple of standard deviations? How is the biology reacting, because that’s the clear and convincing things I see here, the diversity of birds is noticeably increasing.
Emphases Mine
I respectfully disagree, if we’re using “force” in the classical sense, then it is equal to mass times acceleration. I’m sure you’ve seen it expressed F = m (dv/dt). So it wouldn’t be a force that only acts in ten year intervals, it would have to be something else. A force is visible at dt time intervals.
I’m not sure you’re using the word “forcings” correctly … or there’s some definition to the word that doesn’t involve force. It’s the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Law of Thermodynamics that drives AGW theory, so follow the energy …
To “act on” an object is short for to “change the velocity of” an object … like a 100 mph Randy Johnson fastball “is acted on” so that’s it’s velocity is change and it sails over the left-field fence.
Do you know what standard deviation means, and why it’s almost never included with any of these averages that are posted?
Phaw … “statistical sample” is your data set, “statistical sample size” is how many data points you have, “anomaly” is a cherry ripe for the picking [giggle], and “paradoxical” is a result that defies some standard of expectation, which would have to be explicitly defined; like “wet cement” isn’t really wet, it’s dry.
As pointed before, you are still not plugging the proper values, and so you get not explanation of things like the accelerated loss of cap ice.
[/snip]
You did not follow post #88, that it is clear.
And it is also painfully clear that you are ignoring paleoclimatology in your attempt at making climate experts and weather experts to be just the same.
So what? Are you trying to make the point that climate is the sum of all weather events over some long period of many decades? Why would anyone care about this useless truism? Here’s another equally useless one: all weather – and therefore climate – is the sum of the motion of the individual molecules of all the atmospheric gases on earth. But we don’t predict the weather by studying individual air molecules. Further, such motion ultimately derives from quantum effects, so perhaps we should consult a quantum physicist to tell us if it will be a nice day for a picnic tomorrow. Or perhaps not. These are pedantic technicalities that are NOT a useful way to study either weather OR climate.
The word “force” is only appropriate here as a loose metaphor and I only used it to parallel your own incorrect use of it in the futile hope of being able to explain the above concepts in your own terms. You use terms like “force”, “velocity”, and “acceleration” and these apply to discrete objects and have no direct meaningful connection to climate.
I am absolutely using “forcing” correctly, and it has nothing to do with force in classical physics. “Forcing” is short for “radiative forcing” (more completely: radiative climate forcing) and refers to a persistent imbalance between incoming and outgoing radiation that changes the earth’s long-term energy budget and drives climate change, typically measured as watts per square meter. This should have been obvious as the word is used constantly in climate science and has been used throughout all of these discussions in many threads, so I have to wonder about your sincerity in having a serious conversation. I mentioned some of the current values of CO2 and total anthropogenic forcings in post #90.
With that out of the way, let me say this one last time on the hopeful assumption that you’re not just trying to be deliberately obtuse. Radiative forcing is a very small number compared to, say, the solar constant, or the difference in insolation between winter and summer, or from one day to another. However, the solar constant is truly remarkably constant on average over decadal and centennial timescales, and the amount of radiative forcing is in fact very large relative to any natural forcings that the earth typically experiences. So the earth’s energy balance gets inexorably shifted by this persistent forcing – much too small to be detected on on the temporal scale of daily weather, but easily large enough to have catastrophic effects on climate over many decades and centuries. The study of these impacts, again and for the last time, has nothing to do with weather forecasting.
