On Mar 8, 11:25 pm, Stewart Robert Hinsley
wrote:
In message .com,
writes

Indeed very interesting. But what I don't understand is, assuming the
arguments of the program are correct, how the various computer models
have got it so very wrong. Surely they are modeling well understood
physical properties of CO2 and how they absorb long wave radiation?

There are all sorts of feedback effects involved.

Firstly increased CO2 warms the atmosphere.

A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour, which increases the
temperature further, as water vapour is also a greenhouse gas.

A warmer atmosphere leads to warmer oceans. Both warmer oceans and water
atmosphere leads to a recession of glaciers and sea-ice, which reduces
the Earth's albedo, which causes further warming.

Whether clouds produce a negative or positive feedback isn't clear.

Presumably the argument would be that unrecognised or misquantified
feedback effects conspire to reduce or eliminate the warming effect of
anthropogenic CO2 (but strangely don't have the same effect for the
proposed alternative cause of the warming trend).
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Thanks for your reply Stewart.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that the one of the guys on
the program was trying to suggest that the programmers where
artificially putting biases into the computer models whether by
increasing the amounts of CO2 added by mankind or massaging the
equations in favour of global warming.

I would have thought that modelling the physical properties of CO2
would use well understood physical properties of CO2. As for the
feedback mechanisms wouldn't there automatically be handled implicitly
by the fluid/thermo-dynamic equations in the model? I.e. the model
programmers wouldn't need to explicitly build in these feedback
mechanisms making it less likely that artificial bias could be
introduced?

In message . com,
writes

Thanks for your reply Stewart.

I guess the point I was trying to make was that the one of the guys on
the program was trying to suggest that the programmers where
artificially putting biases into the computer models whether by
increasing the amounts of CO2 added by mankind or massaging the
equations in favour of global warming.

I would have thought that modelling the physical properties of CO2
would use well understood physical properties of CO2. As for the
feedback mechanisms wouldn't there automatically be handled implicitly
by the fluid/thermo-dynamic equations in the model? I.e. the model
programmers wouldn't need to explicitly build in these feedback
mechanisms making it less likely that artificial bias could be introduced?

The direct contribution of CO2 to climate can be handled using well
understood physical properties of CO2. It's the indirect contributions
that cause the problems, and the further we go from the current climate,
the harder it is to deal with the indirect contributions.

The uncertainties make taking action more urgent, not less urgent, as
the greater the uncertainty the greater the chance that we'll end up (in
the absence of remedial steps) in a climate state with unacceptable
ecological and economic costs.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Will Hand" wrote in message
...
Well it's just finished and my first reaction -

I enjoyed it. Better than I expected. Some interesting science. Mr Corbyn,
though, added nothing and told a few porkies. As always I feel both sides
have
something to offer and I feel that the politicisation of GW is unhelpful,
particularly the involvement of the UN. I would like to see the cosmic ray
theory tested properly and rigourously in our climate models as it makes
sense
to me.

There we go! I did see Lawrence quite a bit in that film too (not
literally).

Will.
--

" I shall not commit the fashionable stupidity of regarding everything
I cannot explain as fraud. Carl Jung "

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A COL BH site in East Dartmoor at Haytor, Devon 310m asl (1017 feet).

mailto:
www:
http://www.lyneside.demon.co.uk/Hayt...antage_Pro.htm

DISCLAIMER - All views and opinions expressed by myself are personal
and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------
.............. and people say the pro-global warming programmes are biased!
Personally I'm not sure about the man-made influence on global warming and
most rational people wouldn't be. I also tended to agree with some of the
social issues. But as for any science, sorry, but when someone says "every
single global warming model always puts in 1% per annum for man made CO2
when everyone knows it's 0.42%" (not word for word but pretty damn close and
abject rubbish) I'm afraid I completely turned off.

Dave

Dave Cornwell wrote:

when everyone knows it's 0.42%" (not word for word but pretty damn close and
abject rubbish) I'm afraid I completely turned off.

Kindly illustrate your counter.

Simon

On Mar 8, 11:30 pm, Simon Wyndham wrote:
Dave Cornwell wrote:
when everyone knows it's 0.42%" (not word for word but pretty damn close and
abject rubbish) I'm afraid I completely turned off.

Kindly illustrate your counter.

Percent of what?

As far as I am aware the ratio of non Oxygen non Nitrogen gasses in
the atmosphere at sea level is hardly different from what the early
researches claimed it to be.

I can't see how simple schoolboy mechanics needs huge supercomputers
to reason on a subject. Whether the globalls conspiracy gets a yea or
nay leaves one gaping gap in the whole college of theorists. The
events that are happening are unusual.

And have a simple, direct, quantifiable cause in each case.

"Simon Wyndham" wrote in message
...
Dave Cornwell wrote:

when everyone knows it's 0.42%" (not word for word but pretty damn close
and abject rubbish) I'm afraid I completely turned off.

Kindly illustrate your counter.

Simon
--------------------
I am talking about what this particular person said. It is implausible that
of the thousands of mathematical models run looking at the atmospheric
effects of CO2 that they all would have fixed this variable. There would be
no point in having models otherwise. It would be like the GFS only entering
one value for pressure at each point, each run. I for one am not advocating
that man made CO2 is the cause of climate change or weather extremes.
However this notion of a widespread conspiracy theory by scientists is as
realistic as the programmes that prove that 9/11 was a plot by the US
government - but then people watched the "facts" on tv and believed it. Both
sides of the argument can produce spokespeople to illustrate a view at one
extreme or another. The actual thousands of non publicity seeking scientists
(the majority) are trying to unravel what is happening. Atmospheric CO2
levels are higher, burning fossil fuels produces CO2, the atmosphere is
warmer. Facts. It doesn't mean that the three are interlinked but it would
be a stupid person that didn't want to investigate.
Most of the tv programes previously on the subject fall in two categories.
The sensationalist, stating that global warming will destroy the world. Then
those looking at global warming , questioning what possible efffects might
be. As far as I can recall the intelligent people on here can see through
which type of programme is which although to agree with it one would need to
tread carefully for fear of villification. There have been few, it is true,
putting last night's viewpoint. I see with some amusement that this
programme need not be questioned and was in fact brilliant! Well I will
still ignore the media and read what I believe to be delivered in good faith
and hopefully one day know what is causing global warming, be it natural
variation or man made or a combination of the two.

Dave

On Mar 9, 10:44 am, "Dave Cornwell"
wrote:
"Simon Wyndham" wrote in message

... Dave Cornwell wrote:

when everyone knows it's 0.42%" (not word for word but pretty damn close
and abject rubbish) I'm afraid I completely turned off.

Kindly illustrate your counter.

I am talking about what this particular person said.

It is implausible that of the thousands of mathematical models looking
at the atmospheric effects of CO2, all have fixed this variable.

It would be like the GFS entering only one value for pressure
at each point, each run.

I am not advocating that man made CO2 is the cause of climate change
or weather extremes. However this notion of a widespread conspiracy
theory is as realistic as the programmes that prove that 9/11 was a plot
by the US government

Thousands of non publicity seeking scientists (the majority) are trying
to unravel what is happening. Atmospheric CO2 levels are higher,
burning fossil fuels produces CO2, the atmosphere is warmer.
Facts.

It doesn't mean that the three are interlinked but it would
be a stupid person that didn't want to investigate.

Most previous TV programmes on the subject fell into two categories:

The sensationalist, stating that global warming will destroy the world.

And those looking at global warming to question what the possible effects
might be.

As far as I can recall the intelligent people on here can see which type
is which, although to agree with it one would need to tread carefully
for fear of villification.

To agree with which?

There have been few that put last night's viewpoint.
I see with some amusement that this programme need not be questioned
and was in fact brilliant!

But I shall still ignore [mass] media and read what I believe to be delivered
in good faith and hopefully one day know what is causing global warming,
be it natural variation, man made or a combination of the two.

I was going to reply to my own post in this thread since your software
is incapable of transferring paragraph spacing to Usenet. (I believe
you'd get more success with OOo.) However a brief editing and hey
presto, it is a sensible discussion.

"We wanted to see if the amount of cirrus associated with a given unit
of cumulus varied systematically with changes in sea surface
temperature," he says. "The answer we found was, yes, the amount of
cirrus associated with a given unit of cumulus goes down significantly
with increases in sea surface temperature in a cloudy region."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/

It is a study of "the warm pool" that features prominently he
http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/data/comp/cmoll/cmoll.html as the home of all
the cyclonic activity from India to Australia and off the page to
Antarctica.

If you do read it, bear in mind that a warmer aerial pool exists over
the Sahara (among other places) that is absolutely transparent.

(The article also points out that the earth only returns 100W/sqM of
insolation directly and keeps the remaining 240 for greenhouse
heating. Failing to point out clearly, that this balance is met
evenly, eventually.)

What the research can't point out is that increased carbon dioxide
emissions might be coming from erstwhile forest now agricultural land,
that has to lose a substantial portion of its humus to erosion and
decay.

Nor that more still may be coming from the depths of the earth as a
result of cyclical solar harmonics. We now know that with a negative
anomaly in the NAO, there is an increased geothermal activity

(Well, I do that is. And that's all that counts, for now.)

In message , Dave
Cornwell writes
But as for any science, sorry, but when someone says "every single
global warming model always puts in 1% per annum for man made CO2 when
everyone knows it's 0.42%" (not word for word but pretty damn close and
abject rubbish) I'm afraid I completely turned off.

There's a number known as the climate sensitivity, which is the ratio of
the amount of warming resulting from increased CO2, after all the
feedbacks have been taken into account, to the amount of warming
directly attributable to the increased CO2. (The biggest contribution to
feedback is the increased greenhouse heating due to increased water
vapour content.)

The ratio of the two numbers you cite is in the right ballpark for
theoretical and experimental estimates of climate sensitivity. But if
that is the source of the numbers it would not be honest to present that
as a criticism of the science.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Will Hand wrote:
Well it's just finished and my first reaction -

I enjoyed it. Better than I expected. Some interesting science. Mr
Corbyn, though, added nothing and told a few porkies. As always I
feel both sides have something to offer and I feel that the
politicisation of GW is unhelpful, particularly the involvement of
the UN. I would like to see the cosmic ray theory tested properly and
rigourously in our climate models as it makes sense to me.

There we go! I did see Lawrence quite a bit in that film too (not
literally).

Will.

Unfortunately I missed the programme but it is worth pointing out that
accurate measurements of solar output have only been available since 1978.
There is quite a nice summary of the position at
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation. Overall there has been a
small increase since 1978 and it is therefore not unreasonable to assume
that this increase was occurring before the accurate measurements were
available.

However I don't see how that they can claim that solar activity matches
very precisely the plot of temperature change since there are no precise
measurements of the former before 1978.

A NASA funded study made in 2003
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/...rradiance.html
does give some support to the solar radiation theory so this idea has been
around for some time and will have presumably ben taken into account by
climate models.

There is a summary of the progarmme on the Channel 4 website.

Alan

On Mar 9, 11:26 am, "Alan Gardiner" wrote:
Will Hand wrote:
Well it's just finished and my first reaction -

I enjoyed it. Better than I expected. Some interesting science. Mr
Corbyn, though, added nothing and told a few porkies. As always I
feel both sides have something to offer and I feel that the
politicisation of GW is unhelpful, particularly the involvement of
the UN. I would like to see the cosmic ray theory tested properly and
rigourously in our climate models as it makes sense to me.

There we go! I did see Lawrence quite a bit in that film too (not
literally).

Will.

Unfortunately I missed the programme but it is worth pointing out that
accurate measurements of solar output have only been available since 1978.
There is quite a nice summary of the position athttp://www.eoearth.org/article/Solar_radiation. Overall there has been a
small increase since 1978 and it is therefore not unreasonable to assume
that this increase was occurring before the accurate measurements were
available.

However I don't see how that they can claim that solar activity matches
very precisely the plot of temperature change since there are no precise
measurements of the former before 1978.

You are writing of the work of the astronomers royal from 1850 onward?

I couldn't agree with the first two paragraphs of the first link you
posted. Can you quote the relevant part of what was left of that page,
please?

A NASA funded study made in 2003http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance...
does give some support to the solar radiation theory so this idea has been
around for some time and will have presumably been taken into account by
climate models.

"Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits,
during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05
percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study."

This is in reference to your claim of data only going back to 1978, I
believe?

There is a summary of the programme on the Channel 4 website.

Got a link?