One Hour One Life Forums

I just can't help myself while waiting for the Apocalypse.

Evidence of warming is not evidence that humans are the cause. Nor is it evidence of impending catastrophe. There is no empirical evidence that the observed warming of the past 30 years or so is due to humans increasing CO2.

CO2 is a trace gas and a minor greenhouse gas making up about 0.04% of the atmosphere. The parts of the infrared spectrum it absorbs are also absorbed by water vapour which is a more abundant gas. That portion of the IR spectrum is largely saturated and little escapes to space. So saturated, that adding CO2 has a logarithmic effect. You have to double the amount of CO2 to achieve the same amount of IR absorption (like adding additional coats of paint to a window to block the light). At current rates of emissions it will take approximately 200 years to achieve this doubling.

Most of the greenhouse effect is due to clouds and water vapour, approximately 96-98%. Water vapour is also one of the primary means by which heat is transported via convection from the surface.  Clouds are formed from water vapour and overall clouds have a net cooling effect. A small decrease in cloud cover (less than 10%) can account for all of the observed warming over the past 30 years. However clouds are extremely complicated and always changing. We still cannot measure these changes for long periods as the amount of information tends to overwhelm the measuring instruments and they need to be reset. So no one knows what clouds have been doing for the past 30 years let alone the past 100 years.

Temperature is a beast. It is the chosen means by which we measure climate, although it is entirely uncertain why we do so since the climate is much more than just temperature. The earth is not in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium and so it is profoundly unscientific to talk about the earth's temperature. Yet some climate scientists actually do this.

Global average surface temperature is also profoundly unscientific. Temperature is not like length or weight. You can't add 20 deg to 25 deg and get 45 deg, it doesn't work that way. So you can't calculate an average temp the same way. Temperature is also unique to the time and place it is taken. The notion that we can calculate a global average temperature from a small number of surface points, unevenly distributed and of varying quality is laughable. The only proper way to find this average temperature is to observe the entire temperature field. But we can't do that so we settle for making it up.

Also an average is a statistic not a physical value. You can't add to it the same way. It also doesn't tell us anything about the individual values from which it is derived. For example, the average of 10 + 2 is 6 and average of 6 + 8 is 7. We may have increased the average by one but the individual value of 10 is still greater than either 6 or 8. That's why the claim that we have to keep an average from increasing by 2 deg is an utter absurdity.

As for predicting the future of the climate, that is not possible. The climate models used for this purpose are like crude cartoons. They are to climate like Mikey mouse is to real mouse. If you proposed that you could predict the behaviour of real mice by watching all of the cartoons of Mickey mouse you would be laughed at.

This is actually well known in climate science. Their answer is ignorance averaging, although they call it projection. They take many models and run each multiple times and then average out the results. However, each individual model run is no better than a wild guess, that's why they run each of them many times. Yet logically and obviously the average of a bunch of wild guesses is no more valid than any individual wild guess.

This 'solution' cannot solve the underlying physical problems, although it does solve the problem of securing financing for continuing the confidence trick. "Look at our lovely and colourful graphs of a fictional statistic! We need more money to make even more lovely and coulourful graphs so we can continue to investigate the behaviour of this fictional statistic"!

And what are the underlying physical problems you might wonder? Aside from clouds (we don't have a working theory of cloud formation btw) and convection (models are terrible at vertical representation of convection) there are two monsters of Cthulhu like proportions lurking here; Chaos Theory and Turbulence.

Solve those and we can all sleep peacefully.