A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Amateur Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Here it is: the real impact of global warming



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 28th 18, 05:45 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Here it is: the real impact of global warming

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

So my son-in-law who is a soil scientist is ignorant, as well as his father
who taught soil science for decades. So my other son-in-law who has a
degree in agriculture is ignorant. So my cousins who are farmers and also
have degrees in agriculture are ignorant? They came to these conclusions
independently on their own. Your denigration of the people on the front
lines as opposed to those in their ivory towers is remarkable.


I started out with some people who _are_ "on the front lines".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45715550

Those unfortunate people in Bangladesh, of course, aren't qualified to say if
they're just suffering from the effects of some random bad weather or something
that is really connected with climate change.

I do not really know why people with degrees in agriculture or soil science
would be inclined to dispute the conclusions of people with degrees in climate
science about climate.

It could be they live in a part of the country where all the newspapers
reinforce a certain outlook on life, so that people of all educational levels
are dismissive of notions they associate with people living in New York or
Hollywood... never mind Boston. I live in Alberta, where selling oil is as
important to our economy as it is to that of Texas, so I can certainly
understand how that sort of thing can happen. Perceived economic self-interest
can affect objectivity.

John Savard
  #12  
Old November 28th 18, 06:13 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Chris L Peterson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,007
Default Here it is: the real impact of global warming

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 17:10:41 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 3:42:50 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

And YOU are a climate groupie who doen't understand the first thing about
the models but arrogantly denounces anyone who questions the Climate Gods
whom you worship with YOUR dogmatism.


He certainly doesn't help matters by coming across as someone who plans to line
you up against the wall when the revolution comes.


If the revolution comes, it will likely be the result of the stresses
of climate change. That's certainly the biggest threat we face.

However, by continuing to defend the false, and well-known to be false,
proposition that AGW is not based on genuine and valid science, and that
opposition to it is worth taking seriously, the only people you will manage to
impress are the ignorant.


You cannot convince his sort. He cannot reason past his ideological
dogmatism. His religion and his politics broke him.
  #13  
Old November 28th 18, 01:20 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Here it is: the real impact of global warming

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 9:37:39 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 6:58:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Modtran is a well-respected atmospheric model and
it refutes all the AGW alarmist poppycock. It is so well-respected
that it stands head-and-shoulders above the climate models and its
alarmist groupies.


First thing I did was try to find out what Modtran was:

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpre...10/25/modtran/

An amateur tried to use Modtran to check AGW, and did not get a refutation.
That, of course, doesn't prove anything.


(1) Modtran was introduced on this very thread months ago.
(2) One must have a bit of sense in order to use a model.
(3) The numbers I presented were from my own use of modtran and modtran
predicted a 1.1°C temperature rise for doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm.

Ah, here we are. Not the author of MODTRAN, but someone who wrote a web
interface to it, writes the following page:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...for-deception/

If, therefore, it is that particular fellow from Australia you're using
as a source, it shows that you're allowing yourself to be fooled.


I never heard of him. I did my own study using modtran.

Who do you want to believe: people who know what they're talking about,
and are widely recognized as such, or the people who say what you want
to hear?

John Savard


When there is a controversy I try to find out the truth for myself.
I trust modtran because it has been used by many, many professionals
who depend upon its predictions. The author agrees that:

"the energy flux scales with the logarithm of CO2. The log dependence
is why the climate sensitivity parameter is often posed as a temperature
change for doubled CO2 concentration"

So if anyone claims that a change from 400 ppm to 420 ppm is equivalent
to a change from 10 to 30 ppm, they are not telling the truth.

Those unfortunate people in Bangladesh, of course, aren't qualified to
say if they're just suffering from the effects of some random bad weather
or something that is really connected with climate change.


It wasn't the "people in Bangladesh who claimed that. Rather it was the
"scientists" who were studying the problem. Since miscarriages are usually
correlated with CHEMICAL effects, it seems to me that those "scientists"
were typical AGW koolaid drinkers and were too lazy or too incompetent to
find the REAL answers.

I do not really know why people with degrees in agriculture or soil
science would be inclined to dispute the conclusions of people with
degrees in climate science about climate.


As I said, they are REALLY on the front lines. Climate affects what they
do directly. And we're not talking about whether or not temperatures are
increasing, we're talking about whether or not CO2 is causing it. Modtran
shows that there IS a relationship, but it also shows that the wild claims
by those "with degrees in climate science" have gone off the deep end.

It could be they live in a part of the country where all the newspapers
reinforce a certain outlook on life, so that people of all educational
levels are dismissive of notions they associate with people living in
New York or Hollywood... never mind Boston.


Come now, the world is not parochial anymore. Here's an interesting
fact for your perusal:

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...ts-own-weather

I live in Alberta, where selling oil is as important to our economy as
it is to that of Texas, so I can certainly understand how that sort of
thing can happen. Perceived economic self-interest can affect objectivity..


Now that's an important consideration -- for the climate scientists
themselves.

“‎When you point your finger at someone, anyone, it is often a moment of
judgement. We point our fingers when we want to scold someone, point
out what they have done wrong. But each time we point, we simultaneously
point three fingers back at ourselves.” – Christopher Pike

Peterson wrote:

You cannot convince his sort. He cannot reason past his ideological
dogmatism. His religion and his politics broke him.


It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. :-))
  #14  
Old November 28th 18, 04:04 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Here it is: the real impact of global warming

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 5:20:11 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 at 9:37:39 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...for-deception/


If, therefore, it is that particular fellow from Australia you're using
as a source, it shows that you're allowing yourself to be fooled.


I never heard of him. I did my own study using modtran.


Uh oh.

Who do you want to believe: people who know what they're talking about,
and are widely recognized as such, or the people who say what you want
to hear?


When there is a controversy I try to find out the truth for myself.
I trust modtran because it has been used by many, many professionals
who depend upon its predictions. The author agrees that:


I trust modtran too. However, I trust modtran to do what it is designed to do.
If someone in Australia can put the wrong numbers in, and get a wrong answer out
as a result... well, then, it just has the same basic limitation as most
computer codes. It calculates based on what it is given, it is a computer
program, not a person who can think for himself.

So I don't trust the answers you got from modtran not because I think it did its
arithmetic wrong, but because I really have no reason to be confident in your
work on a question like that.

John Savard
  #15  
Old November 28th 18, 11:12 PM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Here it is: the real impact of global warming

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 8:04:51 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 5:20:11 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

When there is a controversy I try to find out the truth for myself.
I trust modtran because it has been used by many, many professionals
who depend upon its predictions. The author agrees that:


I trust modtran too. However, I trust modtran to do what it is designed to
do. If someone in Australia can put the wrong numbers in, and get a
wrong answer out as a result... well, then, it just has the same basic
limitation as most computer codes. It calculates based on what it is
given, it is a computer program, not a person who can think for himself.

So I don't trust the answers you got from modtran not because I think it
did its arithmetic wrong, but because I really have no reason to be
confident in your work on a question like that.

John Savard


So do your own work! Don't criticize my work until you've done your own.
We can then discuss the results. And, BTW, modtran is NOT a climate model.
Rather it serves as a sanity check on climate models. It predicts the
effect of CO2 is enhanced by about 40% due to a standard water vapor
concentration. Present climate models use 100%, which is in the ball park,
but climate models used 600% in the past. THAT'S why they got "hockey-
stick" projections which "climate scientists" (and Al Gore) used to alarm
the populace. I guess they didn't trust modtran.
  #16  
Old November 29th 18, 03:13 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Here it is: the real impact of global warming

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:12:42 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
It predicts the
effect of CO2 is enhanced by about 40% due to a standard water vapor
concentration. Present climate models use 100%, which is in the ball park,
but climate models used 600% in the past. THAT'S why they got "hockey-
stick" projections which "climate scientists" (and Al Gore) used to alarm
the populace.


Now that's interesting.

The effects of an increase in the carbon dioxide level obviously must be
limited. Ohterwise, every time you exhale you would be at risk of causing a
runaway greenhouse effect.

So I presume that Modtran does already account for such things as the fact that
an increase in the carbon dioxide level will warm the planet, leading to an
increase in water vapor, which will warm the planet some more, leading to a
further increase in water vapor... while theoretically, in a mathematical sense,
the cycle would have an infinite number of steps, each step is smaller than the
one before.

And so I would expect Modtran, if it was any good at all - and it certainly is
that, as it's widely used and respected - to take account of that and give the
final equilibrium result of an increase in carbon dioxide levels, not just the
direct, immediate, first-generation increase in water vapor.

John Savard
  #17  
Old November 29th 18, 03:21 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Here it is: the real impact of global warming

Looking for more information on this, I found the following page:

https://www.science.org.au/curious/e...enhouse-effect

Intended as a layman's introduction to global warming, it says that only 1% of
the Earth's atmosphere consists of natural greenhouse gases.

In that case, *argon* must be a greenhouse gas, and clearly carbon dioxide
emissions aren't enough to make a difference.

So global warming supporters can at least make typos sometimes...

John Savard
  #18  
Old November 29th 18, 03:29 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Here it is: the real impact of global warming

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:13:24 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

So I presume that Modtran does already account for such things as the fact that
an increase in the carbon dioxide level will warm the planet, leading to an
increase in water vapor, which will warm the planet some more, leading to a
further increase in water vapor... while theoretically, in a mathematical sense,
the cycle would have an infinite number of steps, each step is smaller than the
one before.


Perhaps it *can* do so, but this climate skeptic web site

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/...dtran-mystery/

notes that it doesn't _have_ to; it claims that advocates of global warming as a
problem have used a higher value for instantaneous forcing than does Modtran.

If so, then they may indeed be mistaken.

But I would have thought that what _matters_, if one is concerned about the
ultimate consequence of reaching a certain carbon dioxide concentration in the
atmosphere, is the *equilibrium* forcing, not the instantaneous forcing. Which
is much higher.

John Savard
  #19  
Old November 29th 18, 03:37 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Quadibloc
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,018
Default Here it is: the real impact of global warming

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:29:11 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

But I would have thought that what _matters_, if one is concerned about the
ultimate consequence of reaching a certain carbon dioxide concentration in the
atmosphere, is the *equilibrium* forcing, not the instantaneous forcing. Which
is much higher.


In trying to find out more about this issue, most of the results I got were on the same skeptical web site. This one

https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...-the-ipcc-ar5/

has the writer admit he is a "climate heretic" - he believes there are natural
processes that cool the planet when it's too warm, and warm it when it's too
cool.

He's right!

Look at all the excess carbon dioxide that got dissolved in the ocean, and is
therefore just making it acidic and killing the Great Barrier Reef, instead of
contributing to global warming.

However, sometimes those natural processes *take a while*. Look at how long the
last ice age lasted.

Plus, when you put _human technology_ into the mix, something utterly
unprecedented in the history of life on Earth... well, you really don't want to
try to see just how far you can push those natural restorative processes until
they break.

John Savard
  #20  
Old November 29th 18, 03:44 AM posted to sci.astro.amateur
Gary Harnagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 659
Default Here it is: the real impact of global warming

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 7:13:24 PM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:

On Wednesday, November 28, 2018 at 3:12:42 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

It predicts the effect of CO2 is enhanced by about 40% due to a standard
water vapor concentration. Present climate models use 100%, which is in
the ball park, but climate models used 600% in the past. THAT'S why
they got "hockey-stick" projections which "climate scientists" (and Al
Gore) used to alarm the populace.


Now that's interesting.

The effects of an increase in the carbon dioxide level obviously must be
limited. Ohterwise, every time you exhale you would be at risk of causing a
runaway greenhouse effect.

So I presume that Modtran does already account for such things as the fact
that an increase in the carbon dioxide level will warm the planet,


No. It calculates the heat flux leaving the earth for a given ground
temperature. Increasing the CO2 level reduces the exiting heat flux.
You must (manually) increase the temperature offset to raise the heat flux
back to the same value it was before the CO2 level was increased.

leading to an increase in water vapor, which will warm the planet some
more, leading to a further increase in water vapor... while theoretically,
in a mathematical sense, the cycle would have an infinite number of steps,
each step is smaller than the one before.


That also must be entered manually. I got lucky because I increased the
H2O level too much on the first iteration and it balanced everything.

And so I would expect Modtran, if it was any good at all - and it certainly
is that, as it's widely used and respected - to take account of that and
give the final equilibrium result of an increase in carbon dioxide levels,
not just the direct, immediate, first-generation increase in water vapor.

John Savard


Modtran is NOT a climate model. I explained what it did and what must be
done manually to get a climate prediction. To get the H2O increase I
used water partial pressure vs. temperature tables and used the result to
iterate the modtran inputs.

Looking for more information on this, I found the following page:

https://www.science.org.au/curious/e...enhouse-effect

Intended as a layman's introduction to global warming, it says that only
1% of the Earth's atmosphere consists of natural greenhouse gases.

In that case, *argon* must be a greenhouse gas, and clearly carbon dioxide
emissions aren't enough to make a difference.


But water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas. The partial pressure of
H2O at 20°C is 17.5 mm Hg, which is about 2.3% of std pressure.

So global warming supporters can at least make typos sometimes...

John Savard


Apparently :-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Global Warming Live in real time Arc Michael Misc 0 October 10th 14 02:30 AM
Yet another real Scientist debunks Global Warming ... Hgar Misc 6 May 3rd 14 11:57 PM
Some real facts about Global Warming ... Hgar Misc 7 December 19th 13 10:16 PM
Major analysis confirms global warming is real Mike Collins[_4_] Amateur Astronomy 559 January 20th 12 12:45 AM
NASA to Earth: Global Warming Is for Real, Folks! Sam Wormley[_2_] Amateur Astronomy 2 February 27th 10 04:27 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.