Climate-gate

[Trippy]

I used to be a development engineer, which meant I developed new ideas and technology, from test tube to production. The normal procedure was to learn about the topic, in light of the goal created by management. This involved library work, looking at the existing science and technology and learning about their limitations, to see if these could be extended or not. If not, you now had to look now at frontier data of the latest science in that area. You may need to research national lab data. This research stage is where manmade global warming is. They make use of the CO2 angle which is a good development starting point. Many things were tried and considered and CO2 showed the best promise to reach the goal.

The next step is a test tube experiment and then scale up from test tube to a larger pilot test to prove the concept. The targeted science and tech is there to offer a framework to help define the pilot plant makeup as well as the types of tests that can prove the concept is scalable.

Once you do the polite tests, other unexpected variables will appear that will then need to be ironed out. Or in some cases it may result in dropping that angle since it may work but is not scalable. Once the pilot test is running smooth and the data is hard to refute by anyone, including the critics, one is allowed scale up to production. After engineering builds the production facility, based on pilot data, the next step of development is production start-up, to troubleshoot and make adjustments, since all levels of scale up brings new challenges. Once this is ironed out and running smooth, you do the tech transfer to production, and then start as new project at the library and lab.

The consensus is skipping the last few steps, and has substituted the prestige of consensus for pilot development data. Rather than hard data that will convince the sceptic they have a warm and fuzzy embrace for partial development work. The critics are still hungry for truth. The scale up and pilot test is being done using computer simulation models. This is useful but is not the same as reality tests. Reality tests would be harder to refute than a computer model, with possible hidden game engines to get what you need. Hard tests upgrade from consensus to real science.

None of this answers anything I actually asked you. I'm familiar with the processes used by engineers, I'm also familiar with the processes used by scientists. I understand what a pilot program is, my point was that the example of a pilot program you suggested will give a negative result, because that's what the science predicts will happen.

This is science, not engineering.

 

[wellwisher]

No, because the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis predicts that your 'pilot scheme' will not give a positive result. Why? Because that's not how climate works. What I can show you are plenty of examples of mankind affecting regional climates (for example the cooling effects of irrigation), or at least one example of mankind affecting atmospheric chemistry on a global scale (the ozone hole).

I give water a lot of weight on many things including climate and weather. Clouds, rain and snow are weather. According to you, water has pilot data; irrigation. The reason we do pilot tests is to create a control so we can factor out other variables.

None of this answers anything I actually asked you. I'm familiar with the processes used by engineers, I'm also familiar with the processes used by scientists. I understand what a pilot program is, my point was that the example of a pilot program you suggested will give a negative result, because that's what the science predicts will happen.

This is science, not engineering.

Engineering is concerned with scaling up science, which in this case, is scale up from the lab to the globe. You can grow bacteria in a test tube, and then assume the same will happen in the oceans. But this is not how it works in reality. Some science is not designed to be scaled, which is why you do pilot tests to see. What I don't understand if pilot scale up will be negative, why is the next scale up, to the globe, positive? It is like saying I can make this soup on my stove, but it won't scale up in a restaurant, but it will scale up in factory, with the biggest factory allowing the closest match. I don't understand this.

 

[Trippy]

Engineering is concerned with scaling up science, which in this case, is scale up from the lab to the globe. You can grow bacteria in a test tube, and then assume the same will happen in the oceans. But this is not how it works in reality. Some science is not designed to be scaled, which is why you do pilot tests to see. What I don't understand if pilot scale up will be negative, why is the next scale up, to the globe, positive? It is like saying I can make this soup on my stove, but it won't scale up in a restaurant, but it will scale up in factory, with the biggest factory allowing the closest match. I don't understand this.

I'm short on time, so I have to be brief.

Greater absorption of incoming or outgoing IR should be absorbed under the scenario you propose, however, it is unlikely (at least by my understanding) to cause any measurable warming because the concentration scales based on distance from the chimney similar to 1/x[sup]2[/sup] (I think) so any effects would be very localized, further, the area under study is effectively attached to a giant heat sink - the rest of the atmosphere.

If you could somehow isolate the power station from the rest of the atmosphere (making it a closed system) in a way that was transparent to IR and included the entire atmospheric column, then that would work as a pilot study, however, we do not have the engineering skill or materials (to my knowledge) to conduct such an experiment.

 

[rpenner]

Could you show me the data from a large scale pilot test, to see if this can work on a larger scale than a test tube? For example, does the weather around huge coal plants change due to the steady stream of CO2, hundreds of times higher than global concentration? It is useful to do pilot test before full scale up into production, unless the pilot test will not work.

It does. Specifically the CO₂ from urban activities in cities can form a region of the atmosphere with much higher CO₂ surrounding concentration than the surrounding air during times when there is not much atmospheric mixing. (Fossil fuel burning power plants and industries typically have tall smokestacks explicitly to encourage mixing with the atmosphere.) So more CO₂ does increase the optical density of the atmosphere near 10µm so some additional heat is trapped. Because the CO₂ enhancement drops off rapidly with altitude, just as high as 300-500m, this is not a large effect because the extra blanket of enhanced CO₂ is thin. Likewise, as Phoenix, Arizona isn't representative of the surface of a planet that's mostly water, there were no H₂O vapor enhancements considered. Thus this was a small-scale test in many ways.

http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~inez/MSRI-NCAR_CarbonDA/papers/barnet_refs/2000GL012632.pdf

But not only is it obvious that CO₂'s absorption spectrum in the lab directly leads to predictions of local increases of CO₂-associated optical depth for regions with increased CO₂ concentration, but we have the satellite measurements to back that up.

http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/carbon/space-based-observations-of-megacity-carbon-dioxide.pdf
http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/eng/gosat/page2.htm

 

[Trippy]

It does. Specifically the CO₂ from urban activities in cities can form a region of the atmosphere with much higher CO₂ surrounding concentration than the surrounding air during times when there is not much atmospheric mixing. (Fossil fuel burning power plants and industries typically have tall smokestacks explicitly to encourage mixing with the atmosphere.) So more CO₂ does increase the optical density of the atmosphere near 10µm so some additional heat is trapped. Because the CO₂ enhancement drops off rapidly with altitude, just as high as 300-500m, this is not a large effect because the extra blanket of enhanced CO₂ is thin. Likewise, as Phoenix, Arizona isn't representative of the surface of a planet that's mostly water, there were no H₂O vapor enhancements considered. Thus this was a small-scale test in many ways.

http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~inez/MSRI-NCAR_CarbonDA/papers/barnet_refs/2000GL012632.pdf

huh. I had often wondered if something like this had ever been looked into. Failure of imagination on my part to not look for it.

But not only is it obvious that CO₂'s absorption spectrum in the lab directly leads to predictions of local increases of CO₂-associated optical depth for regions with increased CO₂ concentration, but we have the satellite measurements to back that up.

http://www.kiss.caltech.edu/study/carbon/space-based-observations-of-megacity-carbon-dioxide.pdf
http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/eng/gosat/page2.htm

I forgot about this stuff. :*)

 

[wellwisher]

Because the CO₂ enhancement drops off rapidly with altitude, just as high as 300-500m, this is not a large effect because the extra blanket of enhanced CO₂ is thin. Likewise, as Phoenix, Arizona isn't representative of the surface of a planet that's mostly water, there were no H₂O vapor enhancements considered. Thus this was a small-scale test in many ways.

This is a reasonable test, but how did it add up in terms of a temperature rise? The main claim is CO2 and global warming not the absorption of CO2, which is not in question. Phoenix may not be the best place in terms of seeing a temperature rise, since daytime temperature is often 100 F.

I don't mean to be s picky, but consensus does mean one team is larger and has more resources. It also has organized politics on its side. To make it fair, the underdog zero funded team, like myself, should get to work all the angles. I am using the scale up angle at this time, since I assume the well funded team would not neglect this, unless......

Let me change angle and ask some other questions. In the diagram below where is the CO2?

 

[rpenner]

This is a reasonable test

End of story. If you want to know more, it behooves you learn enough science to contribute more than noise to the conversation.

Phoenix may not be the best place in terms of seeing a temperature rise

Indeed, but the issue was phrased in terms of a pilot model. To allow you to now shift the goalposts in an endless unscientific game of "not good enough" would be pointless.

consensus does mean one team is larger and has more resources.

Irrelevant to science. In science what matters is having the better empirically supported predictive model of phenomena. That's called Anthropogenic Global Warming. Science also says that since the success of Anthropogenic Global Warming in explaining climate trends over the past 150 years is sufficient for there to be a consensus of scientists adhering to Anthropogenic Global Warming as the most credible idea then there is no point in trying to explain it some other way -- particularly in light of the complete failure of every proposed model that begins by denying Anthropogenic Global Warming.

You have established that there is a line in the sand which you draw based on endorsement of Anthropogenic Global Warming as the most credible idea. You have established that professional climatologists split about 30 to 1 in favor of Anthropogenic Global Warming. You have established that the larger group has more resources than the smaller group (at least when it comes to absolute research dollars.) But nowhere have you made a fact-based logical argument against Anthropogenic Global Warming, therefore the null hypothesis that Anthropogenic Global Warming is true is the best hypothesis to explain the empirical observations.

It also has organized politics on its side.

Both sides have organized politics on their side. Only one side has science on its side.

To make it fair, the underdog zero funded team, like myself, should get to work all the angles.

You aren't funded because you aren't doing scientific research. I'm not funded because I'm not doing scientific research. Your argument equates your lack of intellectual curiosity, effort and painstakingly developed expertise with thousands of professional scientists who have all three. Yes there are two sides, but the only victory is you stepping over the line to join the side that is right.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/balsillie/balsillie_what.pdf

We have left the Holocene and entered a new epoch, the Anthropocene, when the biosphere is rapidly changing due to human activities. Global warming is just part of this process.

• About 1/4 of all chemical energy produced by plants is now used by humans.
• The rate of species going extinct is 100-1000 times the usual background rate.
• Populations of large ocean fish have declined 90% since 1950.
• Humans now take more nitrogen from the atmosphere and convert it into nitrates than all other processes combined.
• 8-9 times as much phosphorus is owing into oceans than the natural background rate.
• In oceans, eutrophication has created about 400 dead zones, from 1 to 70,000 km² in area.
• Soil erosion from conventionally plowed agricultural fields is 10-100 times the natural background rate.

I am using the scale up angle at this time, since I assume the well funded team would not neglect this, unless......

It was unethical to subject humans to unnecessary studies when there is no fact-based argument for any opposing hypothesis? No science team is funded at a level to do more than measure the status quo at the level of cities the size of Phoenix and above? Your insinuation that the evidence is "not good enough" is not a scientific argument in light of the fact that there are no viable competing hypotheses to be differentiated by further testing at the scale of cities and countries.

Let me change angle and ask some other questions. In the diagram below where is the CO2?

Really, you have not responded to my question of what evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming would convince you that Anthropogenic Global Warming is true? You ask for evidence and then double-down on the stupid willful ignorance when it is brought to you.

Due to turbulence, the atmosphere is fairly well-mixed (except for H₂O which condenses out, O₃ which is chemically active and generated by action of UV rays and H₂ which is also generated by action of UV) up to about 80-120 km in altitude. Above that height the heavier gasses like CO₂ are less represented at higher altitude. So the bulk of CO₂ is below 100 km where the bulk of the atmosphere (about 99.99995%) is. Because most of the atmosphere is at lower altitude, a graph of the heat-content by altitude would be a very different curve without the zig-zagging.

http://ruc.noaa.gov/AMB_Publication...osition and Vertical Structure_eae319MS-1.pdf See text and Figure 2.

 

[Maggnum]

I don't have a lot to add to the eloquence of rpenner's post, but I do want to point out the "moving the goalpost" fallacy I noticed from wellwisher.

He first suggested that there was no experimental evidence. Trippy then brought to his attention the experimental evidence of CO[sub]2[/sub] using test tube data. Wellwisher then indicated that the test tube evidence was not enough, and that an experiment involving something akin to a city would be more convincing. rpenner provided evidence of an experiment involving the city of Phoenix. Wellwisher then declared that that wasn't good enough, and attempted to change the subject to a "different angle" (his words).

rpenner is absolutely correct in refusing to meet the new goalpost standard set up by wellwisher, and is further correct in not engaging in a change of subject as attempted by wellwisher. This is a classic example of "moving the goalposts" and quite frankly wellwisher, you should consider the self-reinforcing preconception behind your refusal to accept the consensus position adapted by 97%+ of the scientists who actually have the training, experience and credentials to study our changing climate.

For shame!

 

[wellwisher]

Indeed, but the issue was phrased in terms of a pilot model. To allow you to now shift the goalposts in an endless unscientific game of "not good enough" would be pointless.

If you bothered to read the study about Phoenix and CO2, it was concluded CO2 played a very minor role compared to the heating caused by the low water conditions in the desert soil, and heat absorption due to vast urbanization. The CO2 was not significant enough in this pilot test to be the smoking gun. One would conclude, fro this study, lower water and urbanization causes global warming in the Phoenix pilot plant. I was changing the subject because of the mercy rule, not goal post moving.

Due to turbulence, the atmosphere is fairly well-mixed (except for H₂O which condenses out, O₃ which is chemically active and generated by action of UV rays and H₂ which is also generated by action of UV) up to about 80-120 km in altitude. Above that height the heavier gasses like CO₂ are less represented at higher altitude. So the bulk of CO₂ is below 100 km where the bulk of the atmosphere (about 99.99995%) is. Because most of the atmosphere is at lower altitude, a graph of the heat-content by altitude would be a very different curve without the zig-zagging.

I have heard the comment that CO2 absorbs at such and such black box radiation temperature. Black box radiation is a function of temperature and not heat content. Wouldn't the CO2 also block the heat radiating from the warmer zones of the upper atmosphere toward the surface?

 

[rpenner]

Indeed, but the issue was phrased in terms of a pilot model. To allow you to now shift the goalposts in an endless unscientific game of "not good enough" would be pointless.

If you bothered to read the study about Phoenix and CO2, it was concluded CO2 played a very minor role compared to the heating caused by the low water conditions in the desert soil, and heat absorption due to vast urbanization. The CO2 was not significant enough in this pilot test to be the smoking gun. One would conclude, fro this study, lower water and urbanization causes global warming in the Phoenix pilot plant. I was changing the subject because of the mercy rule, not goal post moving.

If you had bothered to read my post, it is obvious I read the paper. It's not my fault that you have unreasonable expectations and are comparing the short-term 0.12 K effect of local CO₂ concentrations in the absence of H₂O and other feedbacks to the 1.5-4.5 K equilibrium climate sensitivity of doubling CO₂ worldwide with all feedback mechanisms in a classic case of apples and oranges. This is just the repeated tactic of shifting the goal posts and saying "not good enough."

If you read the paper fully, it is obvious that attempts to naively compare it to equilibrium climate sensitivity for doubling CO₂ can't possibly be rational because "Although CO₂ levels in downtown Phoenix were several hundred ppmv higher than those of outlying areas, vertical integration of the entire column reveals that the total CO₂ content was only a few ppmv higher in the downtown area. Nonetheless, the shallow CO₂ blanket in the city could contribute to the higher temperatures of the urban heat island." Cities and their CO₂ domes are small compared to atmosphere and 150 years of industrial CO₂ release.

Here is the conversation we have had, do you see the moving of goalposts?

Could you show me the data from a large scale pilot test, to see if this can work on a larger scale than a test tube? For example, does the weather around huge coal plants change due to the steady stream of CO2, hundreds of times higher than global concentration? It is useful to do pilot test before full scale up into production, unless the pilot test will not work.

It does. Specifically the CO₂ from urban activities in cities can form a region of the atmosphere with much higher CO₂ surrounding concentration than the surrounding air during times when there is not much atmospheric mixing. (Fossil fuel burning power plants and industries typically have tall smokestacks explicitly to encourage mixing with the atmosphere.) So more CO₂ does increase the optical density of the atmosphere near 10µm so some additional heat is trapped. Because the CO₂ enhancement drops off rapidly with altitude, just as high as 300-500m, this is not a large effect because the extra blanket of enhanced CO₂ is thin. Likewise, as Phoenix, Arizona isn't representative of the surface of a planet that's mostly water, there were no H₂O vapor enhancements considered. Thus this was a small-scale test in many ways.

http://www.atmos.berkeley.edu/~inez/MSRI-NCAR_CarbonDA/papers/barnet_refs/2000GL012632.pdf

This is a reasonable test, but how did it add up in terms of a temperature rise? The main claim is CO2 and global warming not the absorption of CO2, which is not in question. Phoenix may not be the best place in terms of seeing a temperature rise, since daytime temperature is often 100 F.

Indeed, but the issue was phrased in terms of a pilot model. To allow you to now shift the goalposts in an endless unscientific game of "not good enough" would be pointless.

Due to turbulence, the atmosphere is fairly well-mixed (except for H₂O which condenses out, O₃ which is chemically active and generated by action of UV rays and H₂ which is also generated by action of UV) up to about 80-120 km in altitude. Above that height the heavier gasses like CO₂ are less represented at higher altitude. So the bulk of CO₂ is below 100 km where the bulk of the atmosphere (about 99.99995%) is. Because most of the atmosphere is at lower altitude, a graph of the heat-content by altitude would be a very different curve without the zig-zagging.

I have heard the comment that CO2 absorbs at such and such black box radiation temperature.

This is not correct. Blackbody radiation is a temperature-dependent distribution of wavelengths. CO₂ absorption is also a distribution. The terrestrial-temperature blackbody distribution overlaps with the CO₂ absorption distribution near a wavelength of 10µm which is particularly significant to climatology because that particular band of blackbody radiation isn't otherwise blocked. Because a substance that absorbs at a certain frequency can also radiate at that frequency, blackbody radiation is a simple smooth distribution while the radiation patterns of non-black objects (like CO₂) are complicated. The net effect is that the initial flow of ground radiation near 10 µm is caught up in a scattering process of heat energy between layers of the atmosphere.

Black box radiation is a function of temperature and not heat content.

Both radiation intensity and heat content are functions of how much matter is there. The atmosphere above 100 km may be hotter than the ground, but it is also very thin with 99.9995% of the atmosphere below it. Thus it has vanishingly small optical depth at any wavelength and thus cannot efficiently radiate blackbody radiation at any wavelength. A similar thing happens on the sun with the light we identify with the sun originating at the photosphere near 6000K and the radiation from the corona (at millions of Kelvin) completely negligible to all but the most sensitive of instruments.

Wouldn't the CO2 also block the heat radiating from the warmer zones of the upper atmosphere toward the surface?

Three problems with that phrasing:

• "Block" is not the correct term. Absorb is the correct term because one needs to model what happens to the captured energy.
• The upper atmosphere is very thin and also has a lower percentage of CO₂ than the lower atmosphere, so consequently, regardless of its temperature it cannot radiate strongly near 10 µm.
• What energy does manage to radiate from the upper atmosphere is not directed at Earth. Thermal emission is an undirected process.

Better phrasing: "Wouldn't the CO₂ of the lower atmosphere tend to absorb the radiation emitted near 10 µm from the hotter thermosphere above 100 km, a portion of which would otherwise directly reach the ground?" Answer: Yes, but that radiation is negligible because the atmosphere is too thin. The total net flow of heat energy from the thermosphere (heated primary by absorption of XUV) to the lower atmosphere is about 0.0008 to 0.0016 W/m² and the primary heat transfer mechanism is by direct conduction.

 

[Trippy]

Let me change angle and ask some other questions. In the diagram below where is the CO2?

This is a map of carbon dioxide concentrations as measured by satelite:

Click link to embiggen.

Note that the variation is only 10ppm.

Regarding this:

The atmosphere is fairly well mixed vertically, but let me answer your question with a question: Why do you think the Mesopause is so cold?

 

[wellwisher]

Relative the Phoenix study, the main culprits for the observed warming were urbanization and lack of water in the soil. We could see the CO2, due to the advancements in technology, but CO2 was a very minor player in the overall pilot plant heating. The pilot test suggests we need to look at urbanization and lack of water on soil surfaces, as the two main sources of manmade global warming. In development work, sometimes the data does not come as we want, so you may need to go with does come out. Or tailor a narrow test so you can ignore these two main variables.

For example, in 1850 there were 1.1 billion people, now we have 7.1 billion. This means more urbanization (roofs and roads) and more development of land such as into farmland, which removes all the plants/weeds so what we grow take less water and fertilizer.

One might ask, are we giving CO2 all the credit for something it plays a minor role in, because the power to be would have a harder time bullying farmers and city dwellers than oil companies? You would not be able to get the liberals on board to stick it to the farmers, with blind devotion. Or be up with stopping or reversing city growth seeing most of the largest cities in America (NY, LA and Chicago) side democrat. The CO2 angle is big oil, so this was the easiest battle to get liberals on board even if a minor player in the pilot study.

Again I have not rules out natural causes, but the pilot test pointed out two main man made causes, which show up even under crude pilot testing and do not require computer hocus locus and pretty graphics.

Below are pictures of a farm, at planting, and an airport on a hot summer day. To be inclusive, if CO2 does have a greenhouse effect, the lack of water in soils and urbanization by generating heat, means CO2 does not have to be as efficient, due to these extra manmade heat sources on the ground. The CO2 calculation may be biased toward natural heating so it looks better.

 

[iceaura]

One might ask, are we giving CO2 all the credit for something it plays a minor role in, because the power to be would have a harder time bullying farmers and city dwellers than oil companies?

That's the first new argument from the denialist crowd I've heard in some time - that the climate researchers decided to blame carbon dioxide for the incoming problems because it was easy to bully
oil companies.

 

[rpenner]

[Fact-free speculation on anthropogenic forcing from land use changes.]

Greenhouse gasses not only have an effect much larger than land use changes, but land use changes averaged over all latitudes tend to promote cooling. You seem to equate your clutching at straws for a way to continue your denial of the impact of CO₂ with scientific research, and thus equating uninformed instant speculation with the decades of work of thousands of scientists.

8.3.5 Land Surface Changes
8.3.5.1 Introduction
Anthropogenic land cover change has a direct impact on the Earth radiation budget through a change in the surface albedo. It also impacts the climate through modifications in the surface roughness, latent heat flux and river runoff. In addition, human activity may change the water cycle through irrigation and power plant cooling, and also generate direct input of heat to the atmosphere by consuming energy.
...
8.3.5.3 Surface Albedo and Radiative Forcing
Surface albedo is the ratio between reflected and incident solar flux at the surface. It varies with the surface cover. Most forests are darker (i.e., lower albedo) than grasses and croplands, which are darker than barren land and desert. As a consequence, deforestation tends to increase the Earth albedo (negative RF [Radiative Forcing]) while cultivation of some bright surfaces may have the opposite effect. Deforestation also leads to a large increase in surface albedo in case of snow cover as low vegetation accumulates continuous snow cover more readily in early winter allowing it to persist longer in spring. This causes average winter albedo in deforested areas to be generally much higher than that of a tree-covered landscape (Bernier et al., 2011).
...
8.3.5.4 Other Impacts of Land Cover Change on the Earth’s Albedo
...
Urban areas have an albedo that is 0.01 to 0.02 smaller than adjacent croplands (Jin et al., 2005). There is the potential for a strong increase through white roof coating with the objective of mitigating the heat island effect (Oleson et al., 2010). Although the global scale impact is small, local effects can be very large, as shown by Campra et al. (2008) that reports a regional (260 km²) 0.09 increase in albedo and –20 W m⁻² RF as a consequence of greenhouse horticulture development.
8.3.5.5 Impacts of Surface Change on Climate
...
Numerical climate experiments demonstrate that the impact of land use on climate is much more complex than just the RF. This is due in part to the very heterogeneous nature of land use change (Barnes and Roy, 2008), but mostly due to the impact on the hydrological cycle through evapotranspiration, root depth and cloudiness (van der Molen et al., 2011). As a consequence, the forcing on climate is not purely radiative and the net impact on the surface temperature may be either positive or negative depending on the latitude (Bala et al., 2007). Davin and de Noblet-Ducoudre (2010) analyses the impact on climate of large-scale deforestation; the albedo cooling effect dominates for high latitude whereas reduced evapotranspiration dominates in the tropics. This latitudinal trend is confirmed by observations of the temperature difference between open land and nearby forested land (Lee et al., 2011).
...
8.3.5.6 Conclusions
There is still a rather wide range of estimates of the albedo change due to anthropogenic land use change, and its RF. Although most published studies provide an estimate close to –0.2 W m⁻², there is convincing evidence that it may be somewhat weaker as the albedo difference between natural and anthropogenic land cover may have been overestimated. In addition, non-radiative impact of land use have a similar magnitude, and may be of opposite sign, as the albedo effect (though these are not part of RF). A comparison of the impact of land use change according to seven climate models showed a wide range of results (Pitman et al., 2009), partly due to difference in the implementation of land cover change, but mostly due to different assumptions on ecosystem albedo, plant phenology and evapotranspiration. There is no agreement on the sign of the temperature change induced by anthropogenic land use change. It is very likely that land use change led to an increase of the Earth albedo with a RF of –0.15 ± 0.10 W m⁻², but a net cooling of the surface—accounting for processes that are not limited to the albedo—is about as likely as not.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

See also table 8.6 and figure 8.15.

Bala, G., K. Caldeira, M. Wickett, T. J. Phillips, D. B. Lobell, C. Delire, and A. Mirin, 2007: Combined climate and carbon-cycle effects of large-scale deforestation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 104, 6550–6555.
Barnes, C. A., and D. P. Roy, 2008: Radiative forcing over the conterminous United States due to contemporary land cover land use albedo change. Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L09706.
Bernier, P. Y., R. L. Desjardins, Y. Karimi-Zindashty, D. Worth, A. Beaudoin, Y. Luo, and S. Wang, 2011: Boreal lichen woodlands: A possible negative feedback to climate change in eastern North America. Agr. Forest Meteorol., 151, 521–528.
Campra, P., M. Garcia, Y. Canton, and A. Palacios-Orueta, 2008: Surface temperature cooling trends and negative radiative forcing due to land use change toward greenhouse farming in southeastern Spain. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 113, D18109.
Davin, E. L., and N. de Noblet-Ducoudre, 2010: Climatic impact of global-scale deforestation: Radiative versus nonradiative orocesses. J. Clim., 23, 97–112.
Jin, M. L., R. E. Dickinson, and D. L. Zhang, 2005: The footprint of urban areas on global climate as characterized by MODIS. J. Clim., 18, 1551–1565.
Lee, X., et al., 2011: Observed increase in local cooling effect of deforestation at higher latitudes. Nature, 479, 384–387.
Olsen, S. C., C. A. McLinden, and M. J. Prather, 2001: Stratospheric N2O–NOy system: Testing uncertainties in a three-dimensional framework, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 28771.
Pitman, A. J., et al., 2009: Uncertainties in climate responses to past land cover change: First results from the LUCID intercomparison study. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L14814.
van der Molen, M. K., B. J. J. M. van den Hurk, and W. Hazeleger, 2011: A dampened land use change climate response towards the tropics. Clim. Dyn., 37, 2035– 2043.

 

[wellwisher]

We base the global temperature rise, on 100 years of CO2. We don't look at a moment of time and generalize. The above study does not compare 1850 to 2014, so show how the percent of land development and urbanization has also been rising. For example, currently the snow is melting where I am. The places where the bare ground is showing first is where all the large trees have been cut down and the sun can filter in. This area was all woods at one time, not too long ago. The wooded areas have more snow. They contribute less heat each year from spring through summer. One can stand in both places and feel the difference.

In the summer, if I want to beat the heat I go under a big tree and not in the driveway or on the roof. I water the garden and grass, but if you go into the woods it is cooler without watering, due to respiration by the trees and evaporation. I am not sure if the researcher above ever left the lab to touch reality by scaling up to a large pilot study to test their thesis.

Back to the Phoenix pilot test, which is a higher step in development than inside the lab, without a pilot test. The Phoenix pilot study of large scale attributed water (or lack of) and urbanization as being more pronounced than CO2. This was conducted, after it was speculated and hoped that the CO2 would be a much larger player so there was a smoking gun. The pilot tests separate the men from the boys of science.

Do you have any studies that use large scale pilots test to support the above calculations?

 

[Trippy]

Do you have any studies that use large scale pilots test to support the above calculations?

You mean like... Satelite measurements of Albedo from space, that sort of thing?

cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/gifs/ALBALL.mpg

I'm surer Rpenner will be able to ptovide some appropriate papers.

 

[rpenner]

I am not sure if the researcher above ever left the lab to touch reality by scaling up to a large pilot study to test their thesis.

This is anti-scientific trolling.

You didn't even bother to identify which thesis you are complaining against. All of the cited papers have multiple authors so your rambling complaint about "the researcher" doesn't make sense. You also are trying to send us on one of your "not good enough" infinite descents. If you want to see someone do a particular study then it behooves you do either do the study yourself with a methodology reliable enough to pass peer review or fund someone to do the particular study to your specifications. But as you have ignored that the IPCC definition of land use includes deforestation and you are confusing SHADE with albedo, I don't see that you have made a fact-based rational argument that any researcher has failed on any point. Thus the value of a study made to your specifications would not impact the status quo of climatology.

 

[wellwisher]

The point I was making is the CO2 assumption, of manmade global warming, is an accumulative effect that has occurred over 100 years, and has resulted in about a 1 degree rise, more or less. The graph above has a scale of 6 months and not 100 years. It is not a good side by-side comparison to determine whether CO2, or the impact of man via land/water use and development is the main culprit.

How about using a CO2 diagram for the past 6 months for side-by-side. The scale would be too small for the CO2, and one would not be able to tell any difference between seasonal changes and just the normal variation in natural data. If I was doing this, I would get old maps of the world to get an idea of what was developed in 1850, onward, beginning when there were only 1 billion people on earth. One could also look at construction and farm techniques, each decade, to see the materials being used over that time. This more complete study would then give us a long term mapping, with the same time scale as the CO2 assumption to see if these coordinate. There is plenty of money in the consensus to do this. I would assume it has been done since it would lead to st least one additional layer of the truth, if that is important to the consensus?


Let me back track, to show why we are discussing this particular thing. There is hard data, on more than one occasion, that shows natural warming and cooling of the earth and the related climate change. Nature skipped the pilot data and went right to production for the entire earth. Manmade global warming is a work in progress, since this has never occurred on the earth, before this possible current trend. This is true since man has not be around that long and/or has the capacity to impact the globe. We can all agree on these statements.

Relative to the political divide, liberal or progressive tends to sides with the novel and new, which is what manmade is. Often liberal choices have not been tested in large scales before going right into production; Obama Care. While conservative tends to side with the longer term, test proven, that has worked for centuries stuff, which is the natural data; marriage. The political divide is another way to prove which has more established science tradition. Birds of a feather will flock together and sniff their kind out.

Politically, conservatives have given ground on many novel social changes, such as in education and family unit, with many of these leading to unintended consequences and huge cost overruns. The break-up of the family has led to many unintended social consequences with huge cost overhead. These consequences are not pitched at the beginning, when the consensus was forming around the ideal data. This social dynamics accounts for some conservative, ignoring sound data; They can sense the writing on the wall; create whole new problems during implementation stages of change in the liberal tradition.

But relative to science, the natural data cycles are hard to refute, by any scientists, because it is based on history and 20/20 hindsight. This is not a consensus but a statement of proven fact that obeys the philosophy of science; same for all to see. Manmade is not a statement of fact, since it is a first occurrence and still needs the subjectivity of a consensus, since there no absolute proof, since it is not 20/20 hindsight, but a work in progress.

Since manmade is still at the consensus stage, a few steps shorts of 20/20 hindsight absolute, I suggested we need to run a pilot test. If these results pan out, we could change consensus science into real scientific method based science. I have been asking for such a study that can get us beyond the politics of consensus, where reasonable counter arguments can be made.

One study that was pointed out was the Phoenix study. They could see CO2 from satellite so this was a good place to try. But the conclusions did not put the CO2 at the top of the list, but it was third behind water and urbanization considerations. This is when I figured a good pre-pilot paper study would compare the two side-by-side, over the same time scale, during the 100-150 year duration of the CO2 accumulative effect. This was called anti-science trolling, which it is not. But name calling is used for a short term straight jacket. This is anti-consensus science since consensus science s not how real science is done, when science is being fully consistent with the scientific method.

The equation E=MC2 stands by itself, regardless of opinion or consensus, since it has been proven true. This is also true of the natural data of climate change from the earth's past. Coke tasting better than Pepsi is a consensus science (science used to collect data). This consensus can change if the next generation has different tastes. It is settled today but not forever. There is still subjectivity when something is a work in progress.

The burden of proof is for the consensus to reach the level of real science, not real science dumb down and join the consensus. That is how politics wors with mudslinging one of the tools used to do that, like above.

 

[rpenner]

The point I was making is the CO2 assumption, of manmade global warming, is an accumulative effect that has occurred over 100 years, and has resulted in about a 1 degree rise, more or less.

Since you have not proposed a viable alternative hypothesis, a far better summary of human knowledge is that anthropogenic causes are the biggest drivers of climate change over the past 150 years, that well-mixed greenhouse gases are the largest contributors to the effect and CO₂ for the uniqueness of its absorption peak in the 10 µm IR window is the biggest player of the well-mixed greenhouse gases, and that while the overall average global temperature has gone up by 1 degree Celsius, the effect is vastly more pronounced in some regions than others and every indication is that the globe is not in thermal equilibrium yet and even if all additional anthropogenic changes ceased today further warming is expected.

The graph above has a scale of 6 months and not 100 years. It is not a good side by-side comparison to determine whether CO2, or the impact of man via land/water use and development is the main culprit.

If you mean the albedo diagrams, there is no indication that they are diagrams for a specific year. If you really wanted to look into the issue of albedo change due to human land use, you would begin by going to a university library and looking up those papers cited by the IPCC.

There is plenty of money in the consensus to do this. I would assume it has been done since it would lead to st least one additional layer of the truth, if that is important to the consensus?

You assume unnecessarily when you have been free to read the IPCC summaries of dozens of papers. Why would you choose to speculate without facts when facts are so readily available? Why should anyone consider your addition to the conversation to be other than noise?

We can all agree on these statements.

No. Neither Nature nor Mankind acted volitionally to alter the climate of Earth. Both natural and manmade changes to climate equilibrium have to be understood to attribute current warming trends to humanity. This has been done. Your assertion that "man has not be around that long and/or has the capacity to impact the globe." has been categorically wrong for some decades now.

[Politics makes conservatives stupid, so lets all ignore scientists and choose to call science only what conservatives accept. Let's avoid all talk about mitigating the risk until I personally say the evidence is good enough.]

By holding a political thumb on the scales of science you are making a choice to be dumber than those that listen to the facts. By saying "not good enough" you don't contribute to the conversation at all. There is no evidence that even utter actual disaster would be "good enough" by your entirely subjective measure.

The burden of proof is for the consensus to reach the level of real science, not real science dumb down and join the consensus.

It's not a consensus of politicians driven by cronyism, it's a consensus of expert opinion weighing the facts. You are saying "judges don't get to say what the law means, I do" -- and how conceited is that?

That is how politics wors with mudslinging one of the tools used to do that, like above.

You have not supported your naked assertions. I think that is how politics actually works, in the furtherance of short-term interests. But occasionally even politicians left their eyes to the horizon and actually make fact-based arguments for the good of all of their constituents.

 

[Trippy]

The point I was making is the CO2 assumption...

It's not an assumption, it's experimentally verified, there are even papers discussing the changes in out-going IR flux as measured by satellites.

...of manmade global warming, is an accumulative effect that has occurred over 100 years, and has resulted in about a 1 degree rise, more or less.

Right, it's a long term problem.

The graph above has a scale of 6 months and not 100 years.

The 'graphs' I posted are actually maps of albedo. They show the average clear sky albedo measured over a period of years (I forget how long precisely) as measured on a 2.5 degree grid. I posted two seperated by six months so that you could see the seasonal differences between them.

It is not a good side by-side comparison to determine whether CO2, or the impact of man via land/water use and development is the main culprit.

I didn't say anything about CO2, only albedo.

Let me back track, to show why we are discussing this particular thing. There is hard data, on more than one occasion, that shows natural warming and cooling of the earth and the related climate change.

Caused or exaggerated by the milankovich cycles (which predict the earth should be cooling) and variations in atmospheric chemistry (caused by things like the uplift of the himalayas or the colarado plateu).

But relative to science, the natural data cycles are hard to refute, by any scientists, because it is based on history and 20/20 hindsight.

Nobody is trying to refute the natural cycles, the only assertion that is being made in this regard is that what is currently going on is not part of it.

This is not a consensus but a statement of proven fact that obeys the philosophy of science; same for all to see. Manmade is not a statement of fact, since it is a first occurrence and still needs the subjectivity of a consensus, since there no absolute proof, since it is not 20/20 hindsight, but a work in progress.

I've asked you before if you actually know what "scietific consensus" means and how it is different from "political consensus" or a "popular consensus".

One study that was pointed out was the Phoenix study. They could see CO2 from satellite so this was a good place to try. But the conclusions did not put the CO2 at the top of the list, but it was third behind water and urbanization considerations. This is when I figured a good pre-pilot paper study would compare the two side-by-side, over the same time scale, during the 100-150 year duration of the CO2 accumulative effect. This was called anti-science trolling, which it is not. But name calling is used for a short term straight jacket. This is anti-consensus science since consensus science s not how real science is done, when science is being fully consistent with the scientific method.

Yeah, because you're ignoring significant portions of the paper - for example, the study used a CKD type of 1 dimensional atmospheric model to simulate the effects of increased CO2, the same kind of model you've been complaining about for who knows how long. You're also ignoring the fact that the paper is able to explain the results in a manner that is self consistent. These short comings go back to the point I made a few posts ago about needing a walled city.

The equation E=MC2 stands by itself, regardless of opinion or consensus, since it has been proven true. This is also true of the natural data of climate change from the earth's past. Coke tasting better than Pepsi is a consensus science (science used to collect data). This consensus can change if the next generation has different tastes. It is settled today but not forever. There is still subjectivity when something is a work in progress.

The burden of proof is for the consensus to reach the level of real science, not real science dumb down and join the consensus. That is how politics wors with mudslinging one of the tools used to do that, like above.

Again, you prove you do not understand what scientific consensus actually means - as has already been pointed out to you, mass-energy equivalence currently enjoys scientific consensus, however, this was not always the case.