Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (21211)	6/10/2017 10:53:17 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 356230

The bigger point is we really don't have enough information to know the extent to which CO2 is affecting temperatures. We just don't. The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), Wigley and Santer 2012 (WG12, dark green), Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink), IPCC AR5 (IPCC, light green), and Ribes et al. 2016 (R16, light purple). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research. skepticalscience.com

To: combjelly who wrote (21211)	6/10/2017 3:02:19 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356230

>> This is a nonsense example. >> Is this instantaneous? It is providing a picture of the relative magnitude. If you have to strike another match every 15 minutes or so to maintain a given level or whatever it isn't material to the analogy. >> We know the CO2 concentration. We know the volume of the atmosphere. We know the albedo of the Earth. We know the diameter of the Earth. We know the insolation. The amount of energy trapped can be calculated from that information. Unless you want to claim the physics is wrong, that is. So the extent to which CO2 is affecting the total energy balance is a matter of simple calculation. Now, what can be argued is what the energy balance is. How much the oceans absorb or how much gets circulated and to where. That is what the models attempt to show and that is what Dyson is talking about. But the effect of CO2 is indisputable. And can and has been calculated. Dyson's point, which is correct, is that simplistic mathematical models cannot represent the effect of CO2 on the planet. They just cannot. And they aren't even close, as has been shown time and again -- often, unwittingly. IF you understand the interactions of thousands of variables, you still cannot adequately model these systems. He makes the rather excellent point that models are now able to provide reasonable estimations of weather (climate -- the same in this context) for five days out, maybe ten. But when you speak of decades, they are totally unreliable. Because you can't model that with today's computers. And the fact is the models don't agree with the real world, which defeats the hypothesis. They may agree on one day, but that does not mean the model "works" over time. And we have seen that they do not. You may need a refresher. Why can the endorsed set of models not produce something approaching an accurate picture of temperature when compared with observed values? This is a complicated endeavor but it is not complicated to see that these systems are not working. Now, I know you will post, if anything, the usual "climate sceptic" responses, which are wholly indadequate. It is what it is: the best temperature data we have shows the projections are wild-eyed nonsense.