Global warming (split from Atmosphere Correcting Lamp)

[exchemist]

50 minutes ago, mistermack said:

You've ignored the points I made. I'll ask directly, is it honest to constantly quote temperatures from the start of the 20th century, when any GW resulting from manmade CO2 can only date from around 1950 ? ( or more likely 1970, there would surely be a delay in temps responding to a CO2 rise) And why do the GW people feel the need to mislead in that way ?

As far as the trends go, I would point out that the red arrow HAPPENED (if the graph is right). If you started measuring in 1910, and kept going to 1945, you would measure that rise of 0.6 deg in 35 years. It's not imaginary, and does resemble the latest rise, that's been attributed to CO2. You can't ignore it, by saying it was followed by a fall, or preceded by a fall. It's still a real rise that happened, and it can't have been due to CO2 levels.

I'm not claiming that it's conclusive of anything. It just weakens the case that CO2 is responsible for ALL of the rise since 1950. You might fairly claim that it's likely, but to claim near 100% certainty, as the IPCC does, is stretching the truth. 

Nobody claims the difference in temperature between the dates you mention did not happen.

Nor does anyone claim that particular difference in temperature was 100% attributable to a man-made greenhouse effect. 

Edited August 10, 2023 by exchemist

[mistermack]

55 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Nobody claims  .  .  . Nor does anyone claim   .   .   .

No, but they've done a great job of dodging it.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

No, but they've done a great job of dodging it.

OK, maybe I've got it: are you referring to the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW)? Is that what you are concerned about?

There's a paper here on it: https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.522. This seems to attribute 40-50% of the change to human-induced effects and the rest to a succession of other climatic events. But indeed it looks as if this is still not fully understood and that research on it continues.

From what I have been able to find so far, the CO2 concentration in 1950 seems to have been 311ppm, versus 300 in 1900 and 285 in 1850. I think I read somewhere that early CO2 increases may have been offset by cooling due to aerosols and soot in the early industrial revolution. So there seems to have been a slow increase going on throughout the c.19th and into the very early c.20th, but possibly with no apparent effect. What I'm unclear about at the moment is whether the greenhouse effect is expected to be linear in CO2 concentration or not.    

[KrallSpace29]

On 8/6/2023 at 1:24 PM, mistermack said:

There are lots of other factors involved. There was substantial warming from 1880s to 1950, without significant rise in CO2, so that was not likely to be greenhouse gas-caused. Then there's the Solar output, the orbit, the effect of soot on ice at the poles, especially the north, and there's clouds, their reflectiveness and insulation properties, and volcanoes. (to name a few) 

That may be a factor, and even if it is the most abundant greenhouse gas present in the atmosphere, there are still solutions to the problem. Many scientists don't even know how to even go about approaching such an issue. 

 

You have to start with your knowledge base and then begin to apply it to real world problems in realtime. Physics will be the answer, or solution whatever you may call it to climate change. It depends on who can apply the most advanced technology available (me) to any issue related to the climate. If there's a problem there's a solution, that's just how life is. Its like stropping your straight razor morning right? because everyone does that. Every action has an equal to or opposite reaction. 

[mistermack]

On 8/10/2023 at 3:45 PM, exchemist said:

There's a paper here on it: https://wires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wcc.522.

Pretty useless paper, It doesn't tell you anything, doesn't even mention CO2 in the summary, and just seems to be somebody's speculations. 

"Attribution studies estimate that about a half (40–54%; p > .8) of the global warming from 1901 to 1950 was forced by a combination of increasing greenhouse gases and natural forcing"

Sounds impressive, actually adds nothing. 

On 8/10/2023 at 3:45 PM, exchemist said:

OK, maybe I've got it: are you referring to the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW)? Is that what you are concerned about?

I thought my posts were pretty much self-explanatory. 

[John Cuthber]

On 8/12/2023 at 5:12 PM, mistermack said:

just seems to be somebody's speculations. 

It may seem that way to you.
But when I see an estimate with a range and p value like (40–54%; p > .8) , I assume it's probably calculated from data.But... I wasn't certain.
So I did something weird; I looked at the paper.
And, what do you know? I found references to actual data.


As for "It doesn't tell you anything"
I think  that, if you look carefully, it tells you that " about a half (40–54%; p > .8) of the global warming from 1901 to 1950 was forced by a combination of increasing greenhouse gases and natural forcing".

[mistermack]

On 8/13/2023 at 11:49 PM, John Cuthber said:

As for "It doesn't tell you anything"

Who said that? 

 

On 8/13/2023 at 11:49 PM, John Cuthber said:

I think  that, if you look carefully, it tells you that " about a half (40–54%; p > .8) of the global warming from 1901 to 1950 was forced by a combination of increasing greenhouse gases and natural forcing".

Rubbish, it doesn't tell you that. It tells you that somebody estimated that. And what does it tell you about it? A combination of . . . . blah blah  .

A combination can be any combination. For example, the air you breath is a combination of nitrogen, oxygen, Argon, water vapour and trace gases. CO2 is part of that combination, a trace gas at 0.04 percent.  That illustrates why using the word "combination" adds nothing at all. It's word salad, just there to give an impression, to make an unsupported point.

[John Cuthber]

Just now, mistermack said:

On 8/13/2023 at 11:49 PM, John Cuthber said:

As for "It doesn't tell you anything"

Who said that? 

You did

On 8/12/2023 at 5:12 PM, mistermack said:

It doesn't tell you anything

 

[mistermack]

2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

You did

On 8/12/2023 at 5:12 PM, mistermack said:

It doesn't tell you anything

Oh yeh, I missed that...  But it doesn't. As I pointed out above.

[John Cuthber]

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

And what does it tell you about it?

It tells you that an estimate has been made.
It tells you what that estimate is.
It tells you about the statistical power of that estimate.

 

4 minutes ago, mistermack said:

That illustrates why using the word "combination" adds nothing at all. It's word salad, just there to give an impression, to make an unsupported point.

If the word "combination" makes an assertion meaningless, then why did you say this?

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

For example, the air you breath is a combination of nitrogen, oxygen, Argon, water vapour and trace gases.

 

 

Just now, mistermack said:

Oh yeh, I missed that...  But it doesn't. As I pointed out above.

Once you make it that clear that you can not even follow your own argument, it's probably time to stop, isn't it?

[mistermack]

Just now, John Cuthber said:

If the word "combination" makes an assertion meaningless, then why did you say this?

To make the point that it doesn't mean anything, used in the way that they used it. Without numbers, their "combination" statement tells you nothing. It could be 99.9999 % "natural forcing" and still be correct.

12 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It tells you that an estimate has been made.

Whoopee

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

To make the point that it doesn't mean anything, used in the way that they used it. Without numbers, their "combination" statement tells you nothing. It could be 99.9999 % "natural forcing" and still be correct

No
It couldn't be more than "about half".
Granted, it could be 1% or 49%.
But it does tell you that it can't be 99%.

 

 

2 hours ago, mistermack said:

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

It tells you that an estimate has been made.

Whoope

Well... its better than having to tell you that an error has been made...

[mistermack]

11 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

No
It couldn't be more than "about half".
Granted, it could be 1% or 49%.
But it does tell you that it can't be 99%.

You need to read it again.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, mistermack said:

You need to read it again.

You need to read it. Figure 5, in particular, which has the information you claim isn’t in the paper. 

And, while Im here, I will point out that the graph you posted with the arrows is another example of bad faith arguing. You compare a rise where you have cherry-picked the endpoints(as has been noted), starting with a minimum and ending on a maximum. and comparing it to a rise where you didn’t. Had you not cherry-picked the data, you would have two distinctly different slopes. That makes for a different argument 

I know this because you’re not the first to make this kind of BS argument. The early 1900s had volcanic activity and increased sulfate levels, which cooled the planet.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Sounds like we should expect Arctic sea ice loss to accelerate - due to Arctic Dipole moving from positive to negative - (Fluctuating Atlantic inflows modulate Arctic atlantification, Polyakov et el) -

Quote

Enhanced warm, salty subarctic inflows drive high-latitude atlantification, which weakens oceanic stratification, amplifies heat fluxes, and reduces sea ice. In this work, we show that the atmospheric Arctic Dipole (AD) associated with anticyclonic winds over North America and cyclonic winds over Eurasia modulates inflows from the North Atlantic across the Nordic Seas. The alternating AD phases create a “switchgear mechanism.” From 2007 to 2021, this switchgear mechanism weakened northward inflows and enhanced sea-ice export across Fram Strait and increased inflows throughout the Barents Sea. By favoring stronger Arctic Ocean circulation, transferring freshwater into the Amerasian Basin, boosting stratification, and lowering oceanic heat fluxes there after 2007, AD+ contributed to slowing sea-ice loss. A transition to an AD− phase may accelerate the Arctic sea-ice decline, which would further change the Arctic climate system.

It isn't like it has stopped losing ice during the positive phase - arguably just lost less ice due to global warming than if it were not in a positive phase.