patrick.net

This is a damning multi-sub foldered link...

Let's go back to basics:

The greenhouse effect is the reflection of infrared radiant heat by the atmosphere back down to earth. CO2 reflects infrared heat more efficiently than O2 does. Increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases the reflection, and therefore changes the equilibrium temperature of the earth. This means that the average temperature (across time and space) of the atmosphere and earth surface (water, land) MUST increase when CO2 concentration increases. This conclusion is just basic thermodynamics: If a certain amount of heat flows into a system, and less heat flows out, the internal energy (and therefore the temperature) of the system will increase. It is as simple as that.

Great. Then how come the models are always off substantially?

Reason: Climate is not so simple. There is Cloud Cover, Ocean Currents, the impact of other gasses like Methane (definitely more important than CO2 and can really only be remedied by de-population as it's largely biological. That is to say, farting), Sunspots, and the corresponding growth of plant life in the face of rising temperatures and CO2 levels, etc.

There are at least a dozen major climate drivers, it is not merely CO2 and Temperature. This is why the models are always off when it comes to accurate predictions.

As a kid, all these UN and Enviro Agencies and Pressure groups in the 80s and early 90s were predicting the West Side Highway would be underwater, that there would be Palm Trees taking over New York State, that whole countries (presumably in Polynesia) would be under water - all by the end of the Century. Based on "real data" and "Climate models" which were "Indisputable" (and everybody had better take it seriously). Didn't happen.

PS. Other predictions I remember: The Great Plains becoming a desert, crop yields dropping worldwide (opposite is happening), rainforests gone, Madagascar under water. When? By 2000. Not irreversible after 2000, but by 2000. These were all very serious articles and documentaries with a very pedantic overtone: "I tell you if you touch the stove, you'll burn yourself"

The predictive track record is really, really, really, bad.

justme says

and less heat flows out

That's the assumption!

Sprites eject huge amounts of BTU's out of the atmosphere.
Remember Air conditioning, doesn't cool the room down, it removes heat.

Co2 accumulates in the Mesosphere where it is burned and ejected as Earth displaces heat via Sprites that resides in the Ionosphere.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Great. Then how come the models are always off substantially?

If nobody can find a valid argument against the very simple model that I described, I would say the model is right. The statement "the models are always off substantially" is plain falsehood, and in particular does nothing to disprove my very fundamental model. That is the bottom line.

justme says

If nobody can find a valid argument against the very simple model that I described, I would say the model is right. The statement "the models are always off substantially" is plain falsehood, and in particular does nothing to disprove my very fundamental model. That is the bottom line.

Sorry, it's not a falsehood. First of all IPCC does not use CO2 only modelling, which they themselves know is too simplistic to seriously contemplate.
Second, show me a climate model from the 80s or 90s that came close to reality in average sea levels, average temperatures, etc. That being defined as less than 10% off from today.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Great. Then how come the models are always off substantially?

There's a low signal to noise ratio. It's hard to get year by year results in the short term when that is the case. It is easier to pick up the long term trend.

If you have a coin that comes up heads 55% of the time, it takes a while of experimenting to figure out that it is a biased coin. The more accurately you want to know the bias, the more you have to flip it. Once you know that the coin is a 55% coin, it is still hard to predict how many heads you will get over the next 20 flips. But, it is easy to predict the percentage of 100,000 flips. When you have a high noise ratio, you just need to collect more data to accurately observe the signal.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Second, show me a climate model from the 80s or 90s that came close to reality in average sea levels, average temperatures, etc. That being defined as less than 10% off from today.

The 1990 IPCC prediction for sea level rise was 8 to 29cm increase by 2030 for business as usual emissions. The best guess was an 18cm rise, which was spread out over 40 years. It has risen about 3.5 inches in the 25 years after 1990 according to this: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level. So, they said that they expected a rise of 0.45 cm/yr, and they gave a range of 0.23 to 0.74 cm/yr. The observed sea level rise was 0.35 cm/yr. Considering that they didn't know what the global economy would do, what new technologies would be developed, that's pretty fucking good if you ask me, especially given how difficult it is to even measure the global average sea level in the first place.

YesYNot says

The 1990 IPCC prediction for sea level rise was 8 to 29cm increase by 2030 for business as usual emissions. The best guess was an 18cm rise, which was spread out over 40 years. It has risen about 3.5 inches in the 25 years after 1990 according to this: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-level. So, they said that they expected a rise of 0.45 cm/yr, and they gave a range of 0.23 to 0.74 cm/yr. The observed sea level rise was 0.35 cm/yr. Considering that they didn't know what the global economy would do, what new technologies would be developed, that's pretty fucking good if you ask me, especially given how difficult it is to even measure the global average sea level in the first place.

Link doesn't work. That's one helluva big range with the top figure being 3x the lower figure.

But yeah, they were "only" off by 30%, not 10% or less (.45cm/yr vs. .35cm/yr.)

So the IPCC's sea level prediction was 30% higher than what was observed, and if you extrapolate this over a century, you'll get some distorted results.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Sorry,

Thunderlips still has not disproven the greenhouse effect. And he never will.

justme says

Thunderlips still has not disproven the greenhouse effect. And he never will.

An X CO2 ppm increase (adjusting for a multitude of other factors) with lead to Y increase in temperature?
With multiple models and studies in the same ballpark, with no more MOE than 3-5% between them.

This is settled science so please give me an answer.

Also, what was the average sea level increase before 1850? And yes, it was rising for centuries before that.

And why did the average sea level rise during decades of Global Cooling ~1940 to ~1975?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

An X CO2 ppm increase (adjusting for a multitude of other factors) with lead to Y increase in temperature?

As I explained in the this thread, an X CO2 ppm increase will lead to a fixed increase in Y given a long enough time, but the increase in Y temperature takes time. Think of increasing the CO2 ppm as increasing the speed. It takes time for that to lead to an increased distance travelled. If you don't like the verbal analogy, just look at the math. The reason that the analogy works is that changing CO2 changes the first derivative of T with time. Changing the speed changes the first derivative of location with time.
Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

With multiple models and studies in the same ballpark, with no more MOE than 3-5% between them.

I'm not sure what you meant here, but there is much more than 3-5% difference between various climate model results. None of them claim that accuracy.
As I explained here, when there is a large noise to signal ratio, expecting accuracy of 3-5% is ridiculous, especially over short time periods.
Rejecting climate science and the results of climate models requires more than noticing that they are not perfectly accurate. Weather forecasts are not perfectly accurate, but they are useful. Financial models are not perfectly accurate, and don't have to be to be useful.
Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

And why did the average sea level rise during decades of Global Cooling ~1940 to ~1975?

Did the oceans cool during that time period? Probably not. Two things lead to sea level rises. One is that the oceans are warming, and that decreases their density, which means that a fixed mass of water increases in volume. The other thing that is happening is that ice is melting. A variety of things could lead to shifts in the ice melting pattern, and the evidence has shown it is not a nice continuous melting. The sea ice extents have been moving back and forth, but the long term trend is a decrease in the amount of ice. I haven't looked it up, but my guess is that the oceans did not cool during the global cooling period. The temperatures of land and air are linked, but I would not expect them to be in lock-step.

YesYNot says

As I explained in the this thread, an X CO2 ppm increase will lead to a fixed increase in Y given a long enough time, but the increase in Y temperature takes time. Think of increasing the CO2 ppm as increasing the speed. It takes time for that to lead to an increased distance travelled. If you don't like the verbal analogy, just look at the math. The reason that the analogy works is that changing CO2 changes the first derivative of T with time. Changing the speed changes the first derivative of location with time.

Great, so what is it? For every X CO ppm increase over Z Time then Y temperature increase. This should be a well-known formula. If it isn't, it's not settled.

YesYNot says

As I explained here, when there is a large noise to signal ratio, expecting accuracy of 3-5% is ridiculous, especially over short time periods.

Short time periods is making climate prediction claims over data only spanning decades, or even centuries.

Then it's not settled enough to risk tens of trillions of dollars. What if we spend $20T only to find out natural processes will raise the sea levels a foot every half century anyway.

Also important: what is the division between Man Made and Natural? Sea levels have risen and plummeted before - even in narrow time frames. Not by a few inches or in the teens cm, but by meters, long before humans were a thing and when their numbers and CO2 outputs were minimal, such as Stone Age Europe.

It's amazing to think there were vibrant human communities, now well below the North Sea, when the Fenlands extended well out into Dogger Bank. Not 100,000 BP, either. What caused that? Natural processes. Not enough humans to do so.

YesYNot says

The other thing that is happening is that ice is melting.

The ice is melting on land and running/falling into to the sea. So for the ocean levels to rise, there would have to be rising temperatures on land. So why were the sea levels rising 1940-1975?

Reason: It's a natural happening.

Just to be clear: My aim is not to dispute AGW, which I'm sure is a factor, maybe THE major factor, but to raise questions about "Settled Science". A settled science should know within a pretty tight margin how much sea level, average global temperature increases, etc. are due to AGW and Natural Processes. It can't be settled if it can't divide up the responsibility to a fairly accurate degree.

The predictions game depends on comparing real, high tech digital measurements like Laser Altimetry, to unknown qualities (and regionally non-diverse location) of tidal records, and before 1850 it's all proxies of tree rings and shells in sediment. If the latter is off by just a little, it really skews things.

If the Enviro Groups and NGOs keep making dire predictions based on insufficient understanding, it will damage ALL science credibility very badly.

justme says

Thunderlips still has not disproven the greenhouse effect. And he never will.

The basic concept is so simple but true. The rest is a challenge of quantifying the effect, and determining what will come along with the increased temperature. The basic concept is absolutely settled, because it is basic physics.

The unfortunate aspect is that the model is an example of nonlinear dynamics, which gives rise to chaos theory. There is a lot of noise and predicting exactly where something will be at any given time is a challenge. But sometimes, patterns are persistent. The classic example would be a Lorenz cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_system).

This site usually has pretty good explanations of the science, but this write-up is not that informative: https://www.skepticalscience.com/chaos-theory-global-warming-can-climate-be-predicted-intermediate.htm

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

For every X CO ppm increase over Z Time then Y temperature increase.

I think that given enough time, all other things being constant, the answer is pretty well accepted. I could probably make a decent estimate it myself. I may do that later, and then see if it is written up anywhere. But this is not really all that interesting for two reasons (1) Even if people accepted it, it is not useful in predicting what is going to happen. The way to do that is with more detailed models that take into account expected CO2 changes over time, not see what happens after you make a sudden change and wait 50 years. (2) It is not testable.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

The ice is melting on land and running/falling into to the sea. So for the ocean levels to rise, there would have to be rising temperatures on land. So why were the sea levels rising 1940-1975?

Not true. As I said in the post that you referenced, part of the reason sea levels rise is a change in density, and accounts for about half the rise. So, if the ocean kept getting less dense, that would cause an increase in volume per unit mass. If there was more ice forming, that would decrease the mass in liquid form. The effects could cancel each other out, which is about what happened. The graph is pretty flat for sea level change in that period.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Then it's not settled enough to risk tens of trillions of dollars. What if we spend $20T only to find out natural processes will raise the sea levels a foot every half century anyway.

We need to invest a small portion of our GDP on more R&D and a small but significant portion on building out proven technologies. We also need to start accepting reality, working on efficiencies, and changing our behavior. All of life is a gamble. Doing something has risks. Doing nothing has risks too. I'd say that those risks are relatively huge. If you demanded the same certainty and predictability before investing in a house or stocks, you'd have your money stashed under a mattress.

YesYNot says

If you demanded the same certainty and predictability before investing in a house or stocks, you'd have your money stashed under a mattress.

How many financial models have been wrong? :)

An individual or entity invests a fraction of the Earth's currency into stocks; here we are talking a massive, rapid change to the entire global economy ("Shock Therapy" which almost never ends well even on the nation state level).

I'm dubious about switching to electric cars. while switching to other energy forms (with countries actually debating reducing their nuclear power instead of greatly increasing it). I say nix the car entirely by ever increasing taxes and car ownership year after year (and start banning them entirely from Manhattan, The City, Shinjuku, etc.), while switching to nuclear as a stop gap for solar and tidal.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I say nix the car entirely by ever increasing taxes and car ownership year after year

I've been advocating a large gasoline/diesel tax for decades. It's such an obvious solution to several problems, and we are the only western country that's such an idiocracy, that we cannot get there mentally. But you advocate against a large shock, and then prescribe a solution that could be a large shock. It depends on how fast you phase out cars. Remember, we have a huge suburban infrastructure, and huge capital costs would have to be mothballed if we removed cars entirely. A massive shift to light rail and bikes would be nice in my perfect world.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

The problem is whether something is a (net) feedback or a (net) forcing.

Looking back over the temperature changes over the last 400,000 years shows that the combination of CO2 and water vapor are net positive feedbacks. It is clear that CO2 is correlated well with temperature. Some people want to ask if CO2 causes temperature to increase or does temperature cause CO2 to increase. This is a false dichotomy. They both can be true as explained here: https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm . In fact, it's quite common in science for things to be both cause and effect. It is one thing that leads to an exponential response.

20 years ago, I was bothered by the fact that CO2 lagged temperature. I realized at some point that the lagging didn't mean that it was not a cause. Also, as the link above explains, the lagging is probably only true when looking at temperatures in the antarctic ice cores. A study of global temperature (at that skepticalscience link) showed no lag for CO2.

The only reason that these cycles stop instead of going out to infinity is that the radiation term is proportional to T^4, so it grows much faster than the forcing terms, which are basically proportional to T. Adding a huge fast increase in CO2 doesn't change the fact that radiation (T^4) will always win. It just means that the temperature will have to get higher for that to happen.

Libby scientists studying sprites via government grants have successfully monetized earth's natural temperature regulator.
Coupled with green fuel initiatives driven by global warming propaganda, they are filling up on both ends of the tax spigot.
What will libbys do when the day comes where money ( and taxes ) are no longer useful in a digitized world?

Tenpoundbass says

Co2 accumulates in the Mesosphere where it is burned and ejected as Earth displaces heat via Sprites that resides in the Ionosphere.

Hater says

Variables. That is why the weather is so hard to predict.

Seriously. I mean I went to Mexico last summer to escape the cold, but it turns out it was warm in DC and hotter than fuck in Mexico. Nobody knew how hard the climate was. Nobody! So many variables. The list is really Yuge.

BlueSardine says

Libby scientists studying sprites via government grants

The tendrils are a positive charge, given off by the C02 particles in the ionesphere.
The electric charge then lights the C02 particles that are so condensed they catch fire(illustrated by the Carrots) explode like a huge Silo explosion creating the Halo which sends Elves pummeling through the massive upper orange ring where the heat is is expelled taking the excess C02 with it.
And that orange thing coming up the middle is a Climate Change Troll head exploding when he reads this.

What's that picture supposed to show? Is that what science would look like if it were really faith-based and fictional like religion?

YesYNot says

What's that picture supposed to show?

Transient luminous events.
Other wise known as massive static charges and where they occur in the Earth's atmosphere.

Me:"Well how can the atmosphere trap C02 if it will just get rained back to the ground when it thunder storms."
Climate Politician:" Well that's because the C02 collects in the Ionosphere not in the troposphere. It creates a C02 lens that's heating up the atmosphere layers bellow."
Me:"Oh" because I didn't know any better.

Now we clearly see Lightening or Transient Luminous events help expel the excess C02, and is why the Earth did NOT heat up as fast as Al Gore speculated in the inconvenient Truth.
This is also why these events get more frequent where there has been lot of C02 released into the atmosphere, from clear cut logging in Brazil to deforestation in the South Asia Indonesian island chain, and coincided with the Global Real Estate market defoliating the lots in the worlds RE markets for better curb appeal.

Now they are less frequent as the storms do their thing and release the trapped C02, we will be returning to normal.

You're welcome I solved the Global Warming problem for everybody, now how about a little gratitude?

You add the tiny bits of dust trapped in the gas along with it.
And you got yourself one of these.

www.NlE9ZRNe2Z4

I didn't say C02 Burns but it's up there along with the huge dust cloud dirtying up the atmosphere. What else is igniting up there?
The blue, red and white lights are plasma and electrical charges, the orange and yellow are combustive material.

When the earth and the human race finally succumbs to man-made global warming, the right-wing ignorati (is that a word?) will use their last gasp to say that it was all the fault of the left-wing "climate-alarmist" that did not talk to the ignorati the right way, and looked at same ignorati the wrong way while speaking. Also known as the "Ma, he looked at me funny, Waaaah" defense. Apparently this is what matters to them.

The trapped greenhouse gasses is 10% Methane.

While it's not a lot of the over all volume it's still a lot of tons of Methane gas.
Mixed with tiny dust particles it's cocktail for a huge explosion which ejects a lot of the CO2 along with it.
The hole is there and the ejection is clearly visible.

Admit Duckboy you're sunk, this theory is curtains on your little charade.
There will be no more doom and gloom glacier charts, polar bear famine, and wet knickers.
Climate Change is over I saved us.

It's the same thing that happens if you make a flash fire in an empty gas can then close the lid as soon as it's out.
The can will implode. Because it expelled all of the gas that was in the can besides the petrol vapor. The Oxygen, Co2 and Nitrogen wasn't flammable in the empty gas can either.
But it was expelled by the explosion along with everything else.

Take me to the Global Warming place I'll tell them.

YesYNot says

This is of course correct, but the audience is on acid and is in the middle of a work of fiction. He needs encouragement to see where this goes.

I don't think TBP does acid any more. This sounds more like primo pot combined with a good old fashioned C2H6O bender.

Good so now you're at the ridicule stage...

Tenpoundbass says

Good so now you're at the ridicule stage.

Were you ever being serious in this thread, or were you ridiculing real scientists?

Ladies and Gentlemen exploding Cow Farts?

Tadah!!!

Spewing artificial pollutants into the air can't be good for our environment and climate since it's potentially altering the natural order of things. It's just common sense that we go green or die.