Global Warming

[Gelsons Dad]

I can see what you're saying but I think he's referring to the increase in climate change we're experiencing at the moment being man made. Just badly worded I would say.



I wasn't really generalising, I was using the figures Dam quoted. Going from 20,000 years to 50 years is a 400-fold increase in rate of change.

As for Evolution. It was a great film, but I wouldn't go that far.

Haha.

Anyways, do have the facts that in last 50 years, the world has increased in temperature to what "normally" takes 20 000 years? Are we certain we are not seeing just local fluctuation in the temperature and it would not stabilize in the next 100-500 years? Do we know the 'driving' factor? The local derivative might be canceled by a slower process, that we simply can't observe yet. Have we looked all the angles before we can conclude that were doomed if we do not change?

I am all of making the world a 'greener' place. Even if we are not doomed we should be striding for more efficiency, and sustainable energy sources.

I'm actually about to smack my face against a wall in frustration. This is the easiest possible way that I can explain climate science. But bear with me because it's still pretty obtuse.

Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

Let's say that there are 4 main things that contribute to global warming. These are the four factors listed above. Let's go one further and state that :

1. Solar Output.
2. Greenhouse Gases such as CO2.
3. Aerosol - both natural (volcanoes) and man made.
4. The speed of which the above composition radiates heat back into Earth.

All of the above things are variables that go between 0.50 and 1.50 as an example. So:

1.00---------------------------1.00-------------------1.00-----------------1.00----
Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

Is the scientifically perfect storm if you like. This almost never happens.

When the OZone was a problem, we had something like this:

1.00---------------------------1.00-------------------1.90-----------------1.00----
Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

As the CFCs that were fucking up the o-zone were aerosols. Thus, given all other factors in normality, an excess of Factor 3 (Aerosols) causes an imbalance in the atmosphere.

But what happens if it balances itself out?

0.50---------------------------1.00-------------------1.90-----------------1.00----
Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

As you can see here, it is possible that Factor 1 (Solar Eminence) may hide the effects of Factor 3. The poblem that we have here is that people presume that because Factor 3 is at 1.90 and Factor 1 is at 0.50 then there is no problem, then it means that the temperature hasn't risen. What do you think happens when Factor 1 goes back its normal 1.0 and Factor 3 stays at 1.9?

Let's look at a better example for CO2 (Factor 2)

1.00---------------------------3.00-------------------1.00-----------------1.00----
Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

Given the above scenario, people would do shit about it because it's perfectly clear. However, the factors are not simple systems. Let's give a more accurate, year by year model:

1.91---------------------------3.00-------------------0.12-----------------0.70----
Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

Overall, one might say that the temperate only rose a little bit, however, Factor 2 (CO2) which is the one produced by mankind is massively out of whack whereby when Factor 1, 3 and 4 normalise, shows a huge upsurge in temperature.

As temperature on the planet rises, it causes temperature on the planet to rise. We call this a logarithmic system.
Think of it this way, if somebody has drink a pint in 5 minutes, the next pint will get them more pissed than two normal pints because of the speed of the pint before. Of course, for each pint they consume, they get pissed faster than they would have done if it was spaced out. When an event makes the next event much worse than the one before, this is generally logarithmic system. Here's a shit graph that isn't great but sort of shows the trend:

The point of the above is that you have an early tolerance to events but after a while, every tiny event makes a HUGE difference.

So, we're constantly increasing factor 2 and people take a measure temperature to state that it obviously has no effect. Of course, this is mainly because factors 1, 3 and 4 are under the average and balance them out over that time period.

Thus when we say that Factor 2 is a major concern because it's 3 times the normal limit, people say that it doesn't matter because temperature hasn't risen in the exact times that Factors 1, 3 and 4 are undervalued. This is the exact problem that climate scientists face in the public perception and is also why the guys who actually have to be peer reviewed (thus take all of the factors into account) are in total agreement about what is happening.

That was quite draining. This is seriously the best that I can explain it without resorting to making shit up.

So the only source of atmospheric aerosols is volcanoes and humans? What would happen if the biggest driver of item 3 turned out to be Item 1?

 

[paphos-mcfc]

25 pages of discussion, thoughts, graphs, posted research and speculation thus achieving........



































FUCK ALL not even a ban or a warning!

 

[Damocles]

So the only source of atmospheric aerosols is volcanoes and humans? What would happen if the biggest driver of item 3 turned out to be Item 1?

That's absolutely not what I said. And you're misunderstanding. All factors affect each other, that is not in dispute. If Factor 1 affects actor 3, it does not mean that we haven't hugely increased Factor 2 so when 1/3 go back to normal, we are left with a higher temperature as all models show.

Or are you proposing that solar cycles come in 150 year cycles? Or maybe aerosols have increased for natural and not man made reasons? I don't know what point to counter because I'm not sure what you are proposing? :s

 

[pauldominic]

He probably isn't. But then again the said this to one of my replies.

I can see what you're saying but I think he's referring to the increase in climate change we're experiencing at the moment being man made. Just badly worded I would say.

I hate sweeping generalisations. Could it be 200, 3000, 400 or 100.129856732 fold?

I wasn't really generalising, I was using the figures Dam quoted. Going from 20,000 years to 50 years is a 400-fold increase in rate of change.

As for Evolution. It was a great film, but I wouldn't go that far.

Haha.

Anyways, do have the facts that in last 50 years, the world has increased in temperature to what "normally" takes 20 000 years? Are we certain we are not seeing just local fluctuation in the temperature and it would not stabilize in the next 100-500 years? Do we know the 'driving' factor? The local derivative might be canceled by a slower process, that we simply can't observe yet. Have we looked all the angles before we can conclude that were doomed if we do not change?

I am all of making the world a 'greener' place. Even if we are not doomed we should be striding for more efficiency, and sustainable energy sources.

Every wind farm I've ever seen has at least 1 or 2 broken and the red arrows have much more than 9 planes.

Maths will save this planet until we have to move to alpha centauri.

 

[Damocles]

Somebody from Hadley has just read this thread and sent me a message. One of his comments was:

"After reading their bunkum I'm thinking of McDonalds [lb] I'm obviously wasting my time. I would facepalm but I would do it so hard that I'd crack my skull"

He's a qualified climate scientist with a couple of published papers. He also told me off for using global warming in a post a few things back as he said that it was more reflected as climate change.

 

[pauldominic]

I can see what you're saying but I think he's referring to the increase in climate change we're experiencing at the moment being man made. Just badly worded I would say.



I wasn't really generalising, I was using the figures Dam quoted. Going from 20,000 years to 50 years is a 400-fold increase in rate of change.

As for Evolution. It was a great film, but I wouldn't go that far.

Haha.

Anyways, do have the facts that in last 50 years, the world has increased in temperature to what "normally" takes 20 000 years? Are we certain we are not seeing just local fluctuation in the temperature and it would not stabilize in the next 100-500 years? Do we know the 'driving' factor? The local derivative might be canceled by a slower process, that we simply can't observe yet. Have we looked all the angles before we can conclude that were doomed if we do not change?

I am all of making the world a 'greener' place. Even if we are not doomed we should be striding for more efficiency, and sustainable energy sources.

I'm actually about to smack my face against a wall in frustration. This is the easiest possible way that I can explain climate science. But bear with me because it's still pretty obtuse.

Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

Let's say that there are 4 main things that contribute to global warming. These are the four factors listed above. Let's go one further and state that :

1. Solar Output.
2. Greenhouse Gases such as CO2.
3. Aerosol - both natural (volcanoes) and man made.
4. The speed of which the above composition radiates heat back into Earth.

All of the above things are variables that go between 0.50 and 1.50 as an example. So:

1.00---------------------------1.00-------------------1.00-----------------1.00----
Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

Is the scientifically perfect storm if you like. This almost never happens.

When the OZone was a problem, we had something like this:

1.00---------------------------1.00-------------------1.90-----------------1.00----
Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

As the CFCs that were fucking up the o-zone were aerosols. Thus, given all other factors in normality, an excess of Factor 3 (Aerosols) causes an imbalance in the atmosphere.

But what happens if it balances itself out?

0.50---------------------------1.00-------------------1.90-----------------1.00----
Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

As you can see here, it is possible that Factor 1 (Solar Eminence) may hide the effects of Factor 3. The poblem that we have here is that people presume that because Factor 3 is at 1.90 and Factor 1 is at 0.50 then there is no problem, then it means that the temperature hasn't risen. What do you think happens when Factor 1 goes back its normal 1.0 and Factor 3 stays at 1.9?

Let's look at a better example for CO2 (Factor 2)

1.00---------------------------3.00-------------------1.00-----------------1.00----
Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

Given the above scenario, people would do shit about it because it's perfectly clear. However, the factors are not simple systems. Let's give a more accurate, year by year model:

1.91---------------------------3.00-------------------0.12-----------------0.70----
Factor 1---------------------Factor 2----------------Factor 3--------------Factor 4

Overall, one might say that the temperate only rose a little bit, however, Factor 2 (CO2) which is the one produced by mankind is massively out of whack whereby when Factor 1, 3 and 4 normalise, shows a huge upsurge in temperature.

As temperature on the planet rises, it causes temperature on the planet to rise. We call this a logarithmic system.
Think of it this way, if somebody has drink a pint in 5 minutes, the next pint will get them more pissed than two normal pints because of the speed of the pint before. Of course, for each pint they consume, they get pissed faster than they would have done if it was spaced out. When an event makes the next event much worse than the one before, this is generally logarithmic system. Here's a shit graph that isn't great but sort of shows the trend:

The point of the above is that you have an early tolerance to events but after a while, every tiny event makes a HUGE difference.

So, we're constantly increasing factor 2 and people take a measure temperature to state that it obviously has no effect. Of course, this is mainly because factors 1, 3 and 4 are under the average and balance them out over that time period.

Thus when we say that Factor 2 is a major concern because it's 3 times the normal limit, people say that it doesn't matter because temperature hasn't risen in the exact times that Factors 1, 3 and 4 are undervalued. This is the exact problem that climate scientists face in the public perception and is also why the guys who actually have to be peer reviewed (thus take all of the factors into account) are in total agreement about what is happening.

That was quite draining. This is seriously the best that I can explain it without resorting to making shit up.

Impressive logic, but where are your references from?

 

[TCIB]

So whats the bluemoon scientific debate's concensus ? are we all doomed in the next 50 years or what ?

 

[J3SUS]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2taViFH_6_Y[/youtube]

all the evidence i need.

 

[TCIB]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2taViFH_6_Y[/youtube]

all the evidence i need.

Listen i'm an atheist and organic chemical engineer aka an atheist who will smash you to death with data, logic and epistimological clarity and will prize you out of any allegorical positioning.

That said i subscribe to your sources of methodology and reasoning, aka a man who likes futurama is a friend of mine.

You may be intersted to know season 7 episodes 1 and 2 have just been released :)

 

[pauldominic]

So whats the bluemoon scientific debate's concensus ? are we all doomed in the next 50 years or what ?

A resounding and echoing NO and neither will our children or grandchildren.

People who live in flood plains will get flooded.
People who live in earthquake regions will get earthquakes.
Other people will get tsunamis as a result.
People who go on holiday to somewhere near the equator will get hot holidays.
People who buy houses for the best of intentions and do them up might struggle to sell.
etc etc etc