Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Climate change another name for Weather

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to new
2020hindsight said:
hey Spooly ,
I'm still waiting for you to post your opinion of whether or not monitoring the climate and trying to improve the models of its behaviour should (iyo) take prioity over spending on the LH Collider. ;)

I'd also ask you whether we have to have every 't' crossed in the modelling dept before we act on this one, to reduce CO2 - assuming you don't need to be reminded of the consequences of failure. :2twocents
Click to expand...

rederob said:
The science of ozone decomposition was shown by Chapman in 1930.
There was a bit of a gap in major advancements until in 1970 Crutzen showed that the nitrogen oxides NO and NO2 reacted catalytically (without themselves being consumed) with ozone, thereby accelerating the rate of reduction of the ozone content. Molina and Rowland's 1974 paper completed the basic science, but not the "modelling" needed to determine actual CFC impacts.
DuPont rallied its industry colleagues into a defence of CFC use because the science was dodgy, and they could prove it; which they tried vigilantly until the Montreal Protocol. Curiously they quickly changed tack, and DuPont have been strong supporters of the Montreal Protocol.
It gets less curious when you realise that while the CFC debate was raging, DuPont were scrambling for replacements they could manufacture, and steal a march on their competitors.
Click to expand...

spooly74 said:
The LHC has all the funding it needs from Governments so it's a mute point. Particle physics has reached a point where only experiment can show the way forward. This is a stunning reality that climate scientists can only dream of.
Perhaps climate modelers could take advantage of 'The Grid', a technology developed for the LHC to correlate their data and computing power but the IPCC seem to have it all sussed and refused that idea too (can't find the link atm).

As for every 't' crossed before we act ....... didn't we just act? 5% by 2020. Not enough? Too little to late?

Observed warming is at most 1.5C per doubling CO2, not 3C! I'm sure the models can/will improve. This missing heat is supposedly being absorbed by the oceans, which is hard to prove or disprove, given our limited understanding of the deep ocean currents and temperatures.

All scientific models have restricted applicability, they should be thought of as representations of reality and not reality itself!
Click to expand...

explod said:
I think temperature is a very difficult area. Higher temperature causes moisture to rise which in turn increases cloud cover which then decreases temperature. Climite change is the thread topic and seems with my limited knowledge best means to observe. No doubt as data collection time and quality improves a wider spread of effects will show the way more clearly.
Click to expand...

rederob said:
I did ask for a specific aspect of your choice.

In its absence, an overview:
Monckton makes a case that climate sensitivity, the amount that the global average temperature increases if CO2 doubles is much less than the IPCC estimate of 3 °C. Monckton reckons sensitivity is just 0.58K.
How does he come up with such a number?
He starts with an equation for forcing...so far so good.
Then he claims that the supposedly missing hotspot means that forcing has to be reduced by a factor of three. In doing this he misunderstands Lindzen (2007), But Lindzen (2007) does not say that CO2 radiative forcing is too high, "we can reasonably bound the anthropogenic contributions to surface warming since 1979 to a third of the observed warming, leading to a climate sensitivity too small to offer any significant measure of alarm".
Note that this is a statement about sensitivity not CO2 forcing.
Next Monckton turns his attention to sensitivity and argues it's too high as well.
Monckton proceeds to "prove" that sensitivity will be less than the value implicit in IPCC (2007).
In his "proof" he assumes there is no delay in warming (unlikely!) and McKitrick's data is correct (although he confused degrees with radians and his paper is totally unreliable), to arrive at his low value of sensitivity.
If we also assume that the IPCC forcing and feedback values are correct, then their value of sensitivity must be too high; Monckton comes up with a number 20% less. But in a previous section Monckton argued that the IPCC forcing value was too high by a factor of three. Yet if we we use Monckton's number, the IPCC value of sensitivity is too low.

Put simply, Monckton's paper arrives at conclusions that are not supported by its own maths.
Click to expand...


I am not a scientist, merely an ordinary person trying to make sense of the millions of words written daily on weather and warming.

Sometimes when one gets a headache from reading the arguments it is useful to pull back the ottoman and have a smoke. I find this solves many problems as smoke rings rising are finite.

This argument is similar to the ones the godbotherers of old had about how many angels would fit on the head of a needle.

Millions of words, valid arguments and all for nought.

Use reason not empirical arguments.

And no more bloody graphs.

gg
 
rederob said:
Snake
If you did a little bit of reading you would find numerous links to every matter I have described. I believe you know how to "google". Show how wrong I am from your searches and we can debate it.
I note that the skeptics have not at all looked at the chlorofluorocarbon science that led to a hole in the ozone layer.
That unwillingness is symptomatic of the quoted remark above.
Show that the CFC science is/was wrong, that man had no role (it's just "weather), and that CFC manufactures acted responsibly.
Click to expand...
Sorry nothing states that man has created climate change or global warming. And notheing ever will that is totally complete in both fact and reality. It is a fractal world and there are too many unknowns.
 
rederob said:
Snake
Note the above is over 9 years old: The trend has accelerated since. Garpal might note that the models indicated a trend, and it has remained as they showed it.
Unlike dyed in the wool skeptics, there are genuine scientists that have moved from their "conservative" positions on AGW to a more open view based on data and observations. You might not have an hour to spare but Mark Serreze gave a detailed presentation a year ago on Arctic sea ice. Click on http://www.agu.org/webcast/fm07/ and scroll to C24A Nye Lecture. This answers most of Snake's questions, and more. To cut the video shorter you can quickly link to the graphic which show that the pace of Arctic warming has outstripped all models.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link red and I'll have a look at it seriously and respond if I have the talent to do so.
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Sorry nothing states that man has created climate change or global warming. And notheing ever will that is totally complete in both fact and reality. It is a fractal world and there are too many unknowns.
Click to expand...

Now we are getting somewhere.

Weather is a chaotic system, not linear or graphic.

A wise observation Snake.

gg
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
It makes sense GG. Have you read Mandelbroit? Good read if you haven't. Taleb has some interesting stuff to say too.
Click to expand...

Nick and I email frequently.

I've never met Mandelbrot, but have read all his books and articles.

The best of science.

The best of reason.

It leaves these jokers with their graphs for dead.

gg
 
The dispute about global warming whether conducted here or anywhere else on the earth has very little interest in reality.

When I look around and look to history one can see how completely opposite points of view can be vehemently asserted as "right". In most cases proponents of each view have a special interest in making sure their argument wins, or is accepted or stays as the existing paradigm. Consider for example arguments abut the morality of slavery versus the rights of property owners and free enterprise. Perhaps the possibility ( probability..!) of smoking causing cancers versus the rights of individuals to do as they please and the rights of the market to freely sell their products.

Right now we have Israel launching wave after wave of attacks to protect or avenge itself against rockets fired into its territory. In Russia Stalin is being voted as one of the most important persons in their history and in fact is being rehabilitated.

So its no surprise that with one of the most critical issues that faces us and one that will require the most profound changes in behavior and consequences the desire to "win" is fierce. If we truly understand and accept that global warming is happening and in particular happening far quicker than we thought even a few years ago then the changes that need to be made are massive.

So with this in mind how realistic is it for a very human population that wants to continue in its current lifestyle to really come to terms with an upheaval that cannot be compared to anything else in living memory? It's a hard ask isn't it?

The trouble with vehement denials of global warming, ridicule of scientists, comments about other agendas of "global warmeners" is that they cannot change a physical reality that is taking place largely as a result of our actions. Reality trumps politics

My feeling is it would be far more constructive to open another conversation on how we might collectively tackle/adapt/survive what will be the biggest challenge facing our collective humanity. You don't actually have to be a "global warming believer" to have some sharp ideas on how we might reduce our impact on the planet, de carbonise the economy (if only to recognise that we will run out of fossil fuels and so on.

Obviously people who wish to continue the debate on whether GW is just weather can continue to do so here.

Any thoughts?

Cheers
_______________________________________

Global Warming and Peak oil - The right solutions, right now
 
basilio said:
The dispute about global warming whether conducted here or anywhere else on the earth has very little interest in reality.

When I look around and look to history one can see how completely opposite points of view can be vehemently asserted as "right". In most cases proponents of each view have a special interest in making sure their argument wins, or is accepted or stays as the existing paradigm. Consider for example arguments abut the morality of slavery versus the rights of property owners and free enterprise. Perhaps the possibility ( probability..!) of smoking causing cancers versus the rights of individuals to do as they please and the rights of the market to freely sell their products.

Right now we have Israel launching wave after wave of attacks to protect or avenge itself against rockets fired into its territory. In Russia Stalin is being voted as one of the most important persons in their history and in fact is being rehabilitated.

So its no surprise that with one of the most critical issues that faces us and one that will require the most profound changes in behavior and consequences the desire to "win" is fierce. If we truly understand and accept that global warming is happening and in particular happening far quicker than we thought even a few years ago then the changes that need to be made are massive.

So with this in mind how realistic is it for a very human population that wants to continue in its current lifestyle to really come to terms with an upheaval that cannot be compared to anything else in living memory? It's a hard ask isn't it?

The trouble with vehement denials of global warming, ridicule of scientists, comments about other agendas of "global warmeners" is that they cannot change a physical reality that is taking place largely as a result of our actions. Reality trumps politics

My feeling is it would be far more constructive to open another conversation on how we might collectively tackle/adapt/survive what will be the biggest challenge facing our collective humanity. You don't actually have to be a "global warming believer" to have some sharp ideas on how we might reduce our impact on the planet, de carbonise the economy (if only to recognise that we will run out of fossil fuels and so on.

Obviously people who wish to continue the debate on whether GW is just weather can continue to do so here.

Any thoughts?

Cheers
_______________________________________

Global Warming and Peak oil - The right solutions, right now
Click to expand...

As the person who started this thread I feel it is reasonable to reply to you Basilio.

You sound like a reasonable person and your arguments are moot.

Unfortunately many folk with less knowledge than you follow a political agenda which some would describe as fascist.It is all about weather.!!

I have many friends who are farmers who look at the sky as often as at their crops.

Many posters who share your opinions live in squalid terraces in cities.

Most country folk would resent you hijacking this thread to a citified base.

gg
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Sorry nothing states that man has created climate change or global warming. And notheing ever will that is totally complete in both fact and reality. It is a fractal world and there are too many unknowns.
Click to expand...

Garpal Gumnut said:
Now we are getting somewhere.

Weather is a chaotic system, not linear or graphic.

A wise observation Snake.

gg
Click to expand...

But, but, but... our rederob claims climate is not a chaotic system. :eek::eek:

I'll take Mandelbrot over Monbiot anyday. Point well made guys.
 
It's Snake Pliskin said:
Sorry nothing states that man has created climate change or global warming. And notheing ever will that is totally complete in both fact and reality. It is a fractal world and there are too many unknowns.
Click to expand...
So man's emissions of CFCs had no impact on the ozone layer?
And the ozone layer can't impact on climate?
More to the point, man can never have an impact of climate, according to your reckoning, because we could never prove it factually or in reality. And that's because its a "fractal world" where there are too many unknowns.
Weather is complex.
It's a dynamic systems that defies statistically reliable predictability beyond about 5 days.
Does this mean we cannot predict the likely minimum and maximum temperature ranges for the weather you will experience where you live, on this day next year? For that matter, let's jump ahead 20 years: Chances are that (with or without "climate change") we wouldn't have to change those values.
 
Thanks Wayne.

The sun rose in the East today

I slept through it.

It was very hot mid 30's I'd reckon through the day.

It became very overcast just before suset.

The sun set in the west.

As I speak a soft rain is falling, giving wonderful smells to garpalhouse.

Garpaldog is chasing a possum along a fence with little hope of ever catching it.

Aint weather magnificent?

gg
 
rederob said:
So man's emissions of CFCs had no impact on the ozone layer?
And the ozone layer can't impact on climate?
More to the point, man can never have an impact of climate, according to your reckoning, because we could never prove it factually or in reality. And that's because its a "fractal world" where there are too many unknowns.
Weather is complex.
It's a dynamic systems that defies statistically reliable predictability beyond about 5 days.
Does this mean we cannot predict the likely minimum and maximum temperature ranges for the weather you will experience where you live, on this day next year? For that matter, let's jump ahead 20 years: Chances are that (with or without "climate change") we wouldn't have to change those values.
Click to expand...
Main difference with the CFC issue is the relative simplicity of implementing alternatives whereas the CO2 issue relates directly to energy and thus to everything.

To my understanding, ozone doesn't really impact climate in a big way, at least not in terms of the likely ozone levels we'd realistically be contemplating. I think there's a lot of confusion with people thinking that ozone depletion and climate change are the same thing or at least closely related - apsrt from CFC's adding to both there's not much of a link in practice.

As to weather predictability, well I think you're fairly safe predicting that it will be warm in Brisbane during January and fairly cold in Canberra during July. :)
 
rederob said:
So man's emissions of CFCs had no impact on the ozone layer?
And the ozone layer can't impact on climate?
More to the point, man can never have an impact of climate, according to your reckoning, because we could never prove it factually or in reality. And that's because its a "fractal world" where there are too many unknowns.
Weather is complex.
It's a dynamic systems that defies statistically reliable predictability beyond about 5 days.
Does this mean we cannot predict the likely minimum and maximum temperature ranges for the weather you will experience where you live, on this day next year? For that matter, let's jump ahead 20 years: Chances are that (with or without "climate change") we wouldn't have to change those values.
Click to expand...
Red thanks for your thoughts.
Aparantly the CFC's had an impact on the ozone layer. It seems we have found that in time to try to help the hole.
When it is a sunny forecast I take an umbrella.
Cheers..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top