|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 16, 2023 14:01:15 GMT
I think it is a bit more than the models not working perfectly, so far they seem to predict warming at twice what is actually occurring. If they were predicting the top speed of a car you would be disappointed in the extreme, or the return on your investments, the price of a coffee in the cafe, the time it takes for a train to reach its destination, the amount of rain falling in the afternoon, the temperature at midday in your holiday destination, the number of migrants arriving in small boats. However what they are predicting is catastrophe and it is just not happening by any measure. Which model was that Sandy, must be a very old one? Was it the one where they didn't know the Atlantic escalator would draw heat down to the depths for a decade, or where they didn't know we'd have a solar maunder? I'd say we'd been dead lucky. Still you might be thinking of something entirely different. Does it matter which one. They tend to be overegging the forecasts. I keep linking to vast numbers of climate and physical scientists who disagree with the IPCC and their predictions and produce the data and results to boot, most especially those dealing with the effects of the sun but hey what do they know they are only experts in their field. The models over the last few decades have been askew as regards predictions of temperature increase and still you think that we dodged a bullet. Fair enough but what you want is to to take us all who disagree along your path by force if necessary and that is where we diverge. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jan 16, 2023 14:09:08 GMT
Interestingly, the models are reliably 'askew' in the direction most likely to result in further grants and public spending.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 16, 2023 14:17:09 GMT
Interestingly, the models are reliably 'askew' in the direction most likely to result in further grants and public spending. Bingo, I was frightened to announce thise in case Zany suffered some sort of bodily malfunction or even flounced. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 16, 2023 15:08:38 GMT
Interestingly, the models are reliably 'askew' in the direction most likely to result in further grants and public spending. Yes that's always the giveaway. The predictions are always wrong in the same direction - that of overestimating warming. I think there have been several predictions that the polar ice caps would have completely melted by the early 2000s - not usually by scientists though. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 16, 2023 16:54:46 GMT
Zanygame said: " Still waiting for you to show me figures that show the cooling effect of trees is primarily the energy they absorb compared to the Co2 they absorb". I've never seen any analysis of the cooling effect of trees/plants. To the best of my knowledge it hasn't been done. It would require a vast amount of data that we simply don't have. However the facts can be easily deduced from the fact that the temperature of wooded areas is much lower than that of urban areas. Since both areas share the same concentration of CO2 in the air (and very similar albedo - in fact the reflectivity of urban areas is slightly greater than rural) the cooling effect of the rural area's absorption of the sun's energy can be roughly measured by the difference between the temperatures of equivalent rural and urban areas (equivalent in terms of altitude and location). If we go along with your claim that most of the warming of the planet, since the pre-industrial period (1850), is caused by CO2, then that's about 1.1C. Since rural areas are up to about 10C cooler than urban areas I'd say it was "no contest". There's your issue Steppen. Your deduction forgets to allow for the amount of earth covered by forest as compared to the amount of earth covered by atmosphere. So while trees do act as a greater cooler locally, they have a far bigger effect globally by reducing Co2 concentrations. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 16, 2023 17:03:05 GMT
Which model was that Sandy, must be a very old one? Was it the one where they didn't know the Atlantic escalator would draw heat down to the depths for a decade, or where they didn't know we'd have a solar maunder? I'd say we'd been dead lucky. Still you might be thinking of something entirely different. Does it matter which one. They tend to be overegging the forecasts. I keep linking to vast numbers of climate and physical scientists who disagree with the IPCC and their predictions and produce the data and results to boot, most especially those dealing with the effects of the sun but hey what do they know they are only experts in their field. The models over the last few decades have been askew as regards predictions of temperature increase and still you think that we dodged a bullet. Fair enough but what you want is to to take us all who disagree along your path by force if necessary and that is where we diverge. Of course it matters. They calculated the warming effect of increased Co2 they did not know that would be mitigated by the effects I describe. That does not alter the calculated warming effect of Co2. We are very lucky at the moment that our sun chose now to have a solar maunder, but luck is all it is. I've clearly missed these vast numbers of climatologists who disagree with AGW so far I've seen 3 or 4. You do know there are about 18,000 of them don't you? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 16, 2023 18:53:40 GMT
Does it matter which one. They tend to be overegging the forecasts. I keep linking to vast numbers of climate and physical scientists who disagree with the IPCC and their predictions and produce the data and results to boot, most especially those dealing with the effects of the sun but hey what do they know they are only experts in their field. The models over the last few decades have been askew as regards predictions of temperature increase and still you think that we dodged a bullet. Fair enough but what you want is to to take us all who disagree along your path by force if necessary and that is where we diverge. Of course it matters. They calculated the warming effect of increased Co2 they did not know that would be mitigated by the effects I describe. That does not alter the calculated warming effect of Co2. We are very lucky at the moment that our sun chose now to have a solar maunder, but luck is all it is. I've clearly missed these vast numbers of climatologists who disagree with AGW so far I've seen 3 or 4. You do know there are about 18,000 of them don't you? Which of course is the point, that the models are wrong because they operate on incomplete information. I link again so you can consider that these are solar experts about 2 dozen of them, well worth ignoring from your point of view. wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/16/climate-scientists-accuse-the-ipcc-of-cherrypicking-datasets-which-support-their-alarmist-narrative/Some bullet points from it. "The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures." “Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion,” lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times in a video interview. “In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative,” he added." Another link as regards the number of scientists wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/fellows-of-the-royal-geological-society-pushback-over-climate-position/From which I quote "As this letter makes clear, it is not true that 97% of scientists unreservedly accept that AGW theory is fixed, or that carbon and CO2 are ‘pollutants’ and their production should be penalised; how can the primary nutrient in photosynthesis be a pollutant? We also note that 700 scientists have made submissions to the US Senate expressing dissent from the consensus and 166 climate scientists issued a challenge to Ban Ki Moon on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009 to provide proof of human induced global warming, which he did not do." This game has been ongoing a long time. … … |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 16, 2023 19:17:56 GMT
Of course it matters. They calculated the warming effect of increased Co2 they did not know that would be mitigated by the effects I describe. That does not alter the calculated warming effect of Co2. We are very lucky at the moment that our sun chose now to have a solar maunder, but luck is all it is. I've clearly missed these vast numbers of climatologists who disagree with AGW so far I've seen 3 or 4. You do know there are about 18,000 of them don't you? Which of course is the point, that the models are wrong because they operate on incomplete information. ..Seriously? You actually think climatologists should have built a solar maunder into their calculations? You are really out there. That same link which I wasted a large amount of my time investigating and debunking on the other site. The guy who claimed a climatologist who said increased Co2 was accelerating plant growth but didn't specify the increased Co2 was AGW, was a denier. No thanks not doing that again. Where's your articles written by these thousands of scientists themselves? Surely you can find some? Just a few dozen claiming that increased Co2 is not what's warming the planet. "The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades" Even this supposed quote is from a guest writer not a scientist. And its own link goes nowhere. Surely you can find one actual peer reviewed article by these solar specialists. Oh and I assume you realise guest writer Eric Worrall is also Eric Worrall owner of Wattsupwiththat? Critic and climatologist all in one. A man you makes his money from click bait. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 16, 2023 19:43:19 GMT
Which of course is the point, that the models are wrong because they operate on incomplete information. ..Seriously? You actually think climatologists should have built a solar maunder into their calculations? You are really out there. That same link which I wasted a large amount of my time investigating and debunking on the other site. The guy who claimed a climatologist who said increased Co2 was accelerating plant growth but didn't specify the increased Co2 was AGW, was a denier. No thanks not doing that again. Where's your articles written by these thousands of scientists themselves? Surely you can find some? Just a few dozen claiming that increased Co2 is not what's warming the planet. "The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades" Even this supposed quote is from a guest writer not a scientist. And its own link goes nowhere. Surely you can find one actual peer reviewed article by these solar specialists. Oh and I assume you realise guest writer Eric Worrall is also Eric Worrall owner of Wattsupwiththat? Critic and climatologist all in one. A man you makes his money from click bait. The solar scientists from the article were "Climate scientist Dr. Ronan Connolly, Dr. Willie Soon and 21 other scientists claim the conclusions of the latest “code red” IPCC climate report, and the certainty with which those conclusions are expressed, are dependent on the IPCC authors’ narrow choice of datasets.2 Stop looking at the source of the article and start looking at the information that it contains and it is a peer reviewed study. Who cares who presents it as it will not be referred to by the IPCC which seems to be your sole source. The geological society is not a guest writer all he does is introduce the information which was an open letter signed by many scientists. You have a closed mind and will only follow the narrative and that is very dangerous as you form the band of useful drones irrespective of how many scientists I can point to that disagree with the narrative. I have give you about 723 on this count and that is only two articles which straightaway, based on your figures, obliterates the 97 or 99% consensuses. There are many more. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 16, 2023 20:21:32 GMT
Send me the actual article by Dr Ronan. Why is that so hard?
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 17, 2023 7:19:36 GMT
Of course it matters. They calculated the warming effect of increased Co2 they did not know that would be mitigated by the effects I describe. That does not alter the calculated warming effect of Co2. We are very lucky at the moment that our sun chose now to have a solar maunder, but luck is all it is. I've clearly missed these vast numbers of climatologists who disagree with AGW so far I've seen 3 or 4. You do know there are about 18,000 of them don't you? Which of course is the point, that the models are wrong because they operate on incomplete information. I link again so you can consider that these are solar experts about 2 dozen of them, well worth ignoring from your point of view. wattsupwiththat.com/2021/08/16/climate-scientists-accuse-the-ipcc-of-cherrypicking-datasets-which-support-their-alarmist-narrative/Some bullet points from it. "The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures." “Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion,” lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times in a video interview. “In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative,” he added." Another link as regards the number of scientists wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/15/fellows-of-the-royal-geological-society-pushback-over-climate-position/From which I quote "As this letter makes clear, it is not true that 97% of scientists unreservedly accept that AGW theory is fixed, or that carbon and CO2 are ‘pollutants’ and their production should be penalised; how can the primary nutrient in photosynthesis be a pollutant? We also note that 700 scientists have made submissions to the US Senate expressing dissent from the consensus and 166 climate scientists issued a challenge to Ban Ki Moon on the eve of the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009 to provide proof of human induced global warming, which he did not do." This game has been ongoing a long time. … … That's a very interesting article, SP. The IPCC has been selectively using data to reach their required conclusions, which are driven by political motives. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 17, 2023 8:10:23 GMT
Zanygame said: " Still waiting for you to show me figures that show the cooling effect of trees is primarily the energy they absorb compared to the Co2 they absorb". I've never seen any analysis of the cooling effect of trees/plants. To the best of my knowledge it hasn't been done. It would require a vast amount of data that we simply don't have. However the facts can be easily deduced from the fact that the temperature of wooded areas is much lower than that of urban areas. Since both areas share the same concentration of CO2 in the air (and very similar albedo - in fact the reflectivity of urban areas is slightly greater than rural) the cooling effect of the rural area's absorption of the sun's energy can be roughly measured by the difference between the temperatures of equivalent rural and urban areas (equivalent in terms of altitude and location). If we go along with your claim that most of the warming of the planet, since the pre-industrial period (1850), is caused by CO2, then that's about 1.1C. Since rural areas are up to about 10C cooler than urban areas I'd say it was "no contest". There's your issue Steppen. Your deduction forgets to allow for the amount of earth covered by forest as compared to the amount of earth covered by atmosphere. So while trees do act as a greater cooler locally, they have a far bigger effect globally by reducing Co2 concentrations. No. You haven't understood what I'm doing. When there are a number of factors involved in a system you need to try to eliminate the effects of factors one by one to try to get an idea of what the contribution of each is. So: - We know the total sum of the warming since 1850 is 1.1C which you are claiming is primarily caused by CO2. So that's the contribution of CO2. - We know that the temperature of an urban area is significantly higher (up to about 10C) than that of a rural area (in an equivalent location), when both are sharing exactly the same levels of CO2. - Since urban and rural areas have very similar albedo - and you dismiss the storage heater effect of buildings etc - then this difference in temperature must be caused by the cooling effect of the absorption of the Sun's energy to produce growth. - Therefore the cooling effect of CO2 is far greater than its heating effect. The effect of all the forests in the world in reducing CO2 concentrations is roughly 1ppm of CO2 per annum - which is inconsequential (it's 410 ppm now) in reducing global temperature. The cooling effect of trees by photosynthesis is FAR greater. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 17, 2023 9:18:09 GMT
There's your issue Steppen. Your deduction forgets to allow for the amount of earth covered by forest as compared to the amount of earth covered by atmosphere. So while trees do act as a greater cooler locally, they have a far bigger effect globally by reducing Co2 concentrations. No. You haven't understood what I'm doing. When there are a number of factors involved in a system you need to try to eliminate the effects of factors one by one to try to get an idea of what the contribution of each is. So: - We know the total sum of the warming since 1850 is 1.1C which you are claiming is primarily caused by CO2. So that's the contribution of CO2. - We know that the temperature of an urban area is significantly higher (up to about 10C) than that of a rural area (in an equivalent location), when both are sharing exactly the same levels of CO2. - Since urban and rural areas have very similar albedo - and you dismiss the storage heater effect of buildings etc - then this difference in temperature must be caused by the cooling effect of the absorption of the Sun's energy to produce growth. - Therefore the cooling effect of CO2 is far greater than its heating effect. The effect of all the forests in the world in reducing CO2 concentrations is roughly 1ppm of CO2 per annum - which is inconsequential (it's 410 ppm now) in reducing global temperature. The cooling effect of trees by photosynthesis is FAR greater. Overnight it was -6C here. At the moment its bright sunshine but -4C. A 2 degree drop but the frost and ice still very visible. Quesation: How does a 1 degree fall manage to thaw the polar icecaps? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 17, 2023 9:49:53 GMT
There's your issue Steppen. Your deduction forgets to allow for the amount of earth covered by forest as compared to the amount of earth covered by atmosphere. So while trees do act as a greater cooler locally, they have a far bigger effect globally by reducing Co2 concentrations. No. You haven't understood what I'm doing. When there are a number of factors involved in a system you need to try to eliminate the effects of factors one by one to try to get an idea of what the contribution of each is. So: - We know the total sum of the warming since 1850 is 1.1C which you are claiming is primarily caused by CO2. So that's the contribution of CO2. - We know that the temperature of an urban area is significantly higher (up to about 10C) than that of a rural area (in an equivalent location), when both are sharing exactly the same levels of CO2. - Since urban and rural areas have very similar albedo - and you dismiss the storage heater effect of buildings etc - then this difference in temperature must be caused by the cooling effect of the absorption of the Sun's energy to produce growth. - Therefore the cooling effect of CO2 is far greater than its heating effect. The effect of all the forests in the world in reducing CO2 concentrations is roughly 1ppm of CO2 per annum - which is inconsequential (it's 410 ppm now) in reducing global temperature. The cooling effect of trees by photosynthesis is FAR greater. Steppen. I don't dismiss the storage effect of urban areas, nor the local cooling effect of forests, you are mistaken to think that. I am simply saying they are very small compared to the effect of increased Co2 and therefore decreasing Co2 should be our primary objective. I'll try one more time to explain this. In order to calculate the contribution to GLOBAL warming from urban heatsinks you would need to divide the increased temperatures in these areas by the surface area of the planet. Approx 0.003% of the earths surface is urbanised. The average difference annually between urban and rural areas is about 6 degrees. So contribution to increased global temperature from this source is 6 x 0.003 = 0.02 degrees Even this is an over estimate as it assumes entire urban areas are 6 degrees warmer when in fact only small fractions of them are. You would need to reduce this figure even more by taking away the existing urban areas in 1970 when global warming began to be calculated. You could do the same calculation for forests if you would like to. (Total earths surface divided by area of forested land times temperature difference) Incidentally when counting the reduction of Co2 by vegetation you should not just consider trees. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 17, 2023 14:22:03 GMT
No. You haven't understood what I'm doing. When there are a number of factors involved in a system you need to try to eliminate the effects of factors one by one to try to get an idea of what the contribution of each is. So: - We know the total sum of the warming since 1850 is 1.1C which you are claiming is primarily caused by CO2. So that's the contribution of CO2. - We know that the temperature of an urban area is significantly higher (up to about 10C) than that of a rural area (in an equivalent location), when both are sharing exactly the same levels of CO2. - Since urban and rural areas have very similar albedo - and you dismiss the storage heater effect of buildings etc - then this difference in temperature must be caused by the cooling effect of the absorption of the Sun's energy to produce growth. - Therefore the cooling effect of CO2 is far greater than its heating effect. The effect of all the forests in the world in reducing CO2 concentrations is roughly 1ppm of CO2 per annum - which is inconsequential (it's 410 ppm now) in reducing global temperature. The cooling effect of trees by photosynthesis is FAR greater. Steppen. I don't dismiss the storage effect of urban areas, nor the local cooling effect of forests, you are mistaken to think that. I am simply saying they are very small compared to the effect of increased Co2 and therefore decreasing Co2 should be our primary objective. I'll try one more time to explain this. In order to calculate the contribution to GLOBAL warming from urban heatsinks you would need to divide the increased temperatures in these areas by the surface area of the planet. Approx 0.003% of the earths surface is urbanised. The average difference annually between urban and rural areas is about 6 degrees. So contribution to increased global temperature from this source is 6 x 0.003 = 0.02 degrees Even this is an over estimate as it assumes entire urban areas are 6 degrees warmer when in fact only small fractions of them are. You would need to reduce this figure even more by taking away the existing urban areas in 1970 when global warming began to be calculated. You could do the same calculation for forests if you would like to. (Total earths surface divided by area of forested land times temperature difference) Incidentally when counting the reduction of Co2 by vegetation you should not just consider trees. All your figures are wrong - and you've missed the fundamental point I was making. For start the figure of urbanisation of land of 0.003% is completely wrong. The UK is 1.3% roads alone - and most of the land in the UK (and in many other places) has been "repurposed", which means that it's been built on or given over to crop growing or deforested. You really need to look at a map of the Earth from space from 1970 to present day. And FYI global warming is calculated from 1850, not 1970. But the main thing is that you've missed the point. It doesn't matter how much of the Earth's surface is urbanised or rural. I was simply comparing two areas - one urbanised and one rural which share the same concentration of CO2- and looking at their temperatures. You've at least understood that the urban areas are far hotter, which is a start. The question is WHY is the rural area so much cooler. And it's because the trees absorb the Sun's energy and lock it away, while the urban areas absorb the energy and release it later. The relative areas of urban and rural land are irrelevant for the calculation. This is simply a means of calculating how much cooling is caused by photosynthesis. Is that simple enough for you? This is just a basic sanity test on the CO2 warming theory - which it fails completely. And it seems that photosynthesis is cooling the area - to use your average figure - by about 6C. Yet the WHOLE effect of the rise in CO2 from about 280ppm in 1850 to about 400ppm now has accounted for only a rise of 1.1C. Is the penny dropping yet? |
|
