Comments on: The climate science translation guide http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/ A better future for a troubled world Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:45:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Feliton http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-17245 Feliton Tue, 20 Jul 2010 22:36:05 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-17245 So, have there been any progress since the initial article ? I see its been few years now? So, have there been any progress since the initial article ?
I see its been few years now?

]]> By: Carl http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-17160 Carl Mon, 19 Jul 2010 04:17:51 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-17160 Some climatologists use certain theories to try to show that CO2 causes warming and has positive feedback to make it more powerful than it is. THE HISTORICAL DATA SHOW THAT EARTH WARMS AND COOLS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE AMOUNT OF CO2. So you can trust a computer model that could pump any result the designer wants it to show, as those of us who have done a lot of computation math. know well, but WHAT THE HISTORICAL DATA SHOW IS WHAT THE REAL WORLD HAS ACTUALLY WROUGHT. If your computer model gives results that contradict what the physical world has recorded, you would be just an idealogue in the same genre as the religious true believer. Like Einstein said, if your theory is to be accepted, it must be tested by real world data. All this blah blah on this Web site is unreal self-flagellation that flies in the face of pragmatic science. It leaves me wondering whether or not we are about to enter a new dark age where speculation and sophistry replaces observation and experimentation. IF I COULD SEE REAL WORLD DATA FROM NATURES EXPERIMENTS, OR A WELL DESIGNED EXPERIMENT, THAT SHOW THAT CO2 HAD A NONNEGLIGIBLE WARMING EFFECT, I would then be more emenable to further investigation, but don't come back with only a theory, or the cherry-picked or fudged data. THE HOCKEY IS A FARCE AND EVERYONE WHO HAS LOOKED AT UNTAMPERED DATA KNOWS IT. I am done on this subject. Ciao! Some climatologists use certain theories to try to show that CO2 causes warming and has positive feedback to make it more powerful than it is. THE HISTORICAL DATA SHOW THAT EARTH WARMS AND COOLS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE AMOUNT OF CO2. So you can trust a computer model that could pump any result the designer wants it to show, as those of us who have done a lot of computation math. know well, but WHAT THE HISTORICAL DATA SHOW IS WHAT THE REAL WORLD HAS ACTUALLY WROUGHT. If your computer model gives results that contradict what the physical world has recorded, you would be just an idealogue in the same genre as the religious true believer. Like Einstein said, if your theory is to be accepted, it must be tested by real world data. All this blah blah on this Web site is unreal self-flagellation that flies in the face of pragmatic science. It leaves me wondering whether or not we are about to enter a new dark age where speculation and sophistry replaces observation and experimentation.
IF I COULD SEE REAL WORLD DATA FROM NATURES EXPERIMENTS, OR A WELL DESIGNED EXPERIMENT, THAT SHOW THAT CO2 HAD A NONNEGLIGIBLE WARMING EFFECT, I would then be more emenable to further investigation, but don’t come back with only a theory, or the cherry-picked or fudged data. THE HOCKEY IS A FARCE AND EVERYONE WHO HAS LOOKED AT UNTAMPERED DATA KNOWS IT.
I am done on this subject. Ciao!

]]> By: Shaun Chamberlin http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-17150 Shaun Chamberlin Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:32:03 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-17150 Or not so much. Water vapour: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/ Or not so much.

Water vapour: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/04/water-vapour-feedback-or-forcing/

]]> By: Carl http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-17142 Carl Sun, 18 Jul 2010 23:03:55 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-17142 WATER VAPOR is the MAJOR greenhouse gas, being more than 22,000 ppm versus 386 ppm for CO2. Also, it absorbs roughly 10 times the bandwidth of IR and absorbs light which CO2 does NOT. This water planet is a water planet and it is the water vapor that causes warming and cooling. CO2 is so insignificant that is it silly to talk about it except as negligible. The second law of thermodynamics assures that the Earth, approximated by a black body, will radiate its thermal energy to frigid outer space. That is why we need the Sun's radiation every day or we will get colder over time, but water vapor in the atmosphere and the oceans hold some latent heat to keep the planet from being -16 degrees centigrade. AFTER STUDYING THE HISTORICAL DATA for the last year, I can only conclude that the Earth cools at times when CO2 is higher and warms at times when CO2 is higher. Similarly for less CO2. Thus I conclude the the level of CO2 and Earth's average temperature are independent - which means that NEITHER CAUSES THE OTHER. -- I am sorry if this shatters some deeply held beliefs (religiously) in the power of an insignificant greenhouse gas. HOWEVER, more CO2 will be fortunate for humans because it causes plants to grow faster and bigger with less water. All of the experiments show this on various plants. In real greenhouses, they add CO2 to make the plants lusher and grow faster. So the food supply can be expanded and be cheaper and world hunger can be eliminated (desert areas can produce food) - but it will take a lot more CO2 (which is safe up to 10,000 ppm). PERMISSION is granted for anyone to use this material for any purpose. I have hundreds of pages of details to back up the above much more strongly. But that material will not be free! Sorry, but it took a lot of time and study. WATER VAPOR is the MAJOR greenhouse gas, being more than 22,000 ppm versus 386 ppm for CO2. Also, it absorbs roughly 10 times the bandwidth of IR and absorbs light which CO2 does NOT. This water planet is a water planet and it is the water vapor that causes warming and cooling. CO2 is so insignificant that is it silly to talk about it except as negligible. The second law of thermodynamics assures that the Earth, approximated by a black body, will radiate its thermal energy to frigid outer space. That is why we need the Sun’s radiation every day or we will get colder over time, but water vapor in the atmosphere and the oceans hold some latent heat to keep the planet from being -16 degrees centigrade.
AFTER STUDYING THE HISTORICAL DATA for the last year, I can only conclude that the Earth cools at times when CO2 is higher and warms at times when CO2 is higher. Similarly for less CO2. Thus I conclude the the level of CO2 and Earth’s average temperature are independent – which means that NEITHER CAUSES THE OTHER.
– I am sorry if this shatters some deeply held beliefs (religiously) in the power of an insignificant greenhouse gas. HOWEVER, more CO2 will be fortunate for humans because it causes plants to grow faster and bigger with less water. All of the experiments show this on various plants. In real greenhouses, they add CO2 to make the plants lusher and grow faster. So the food supply can be expanded and be cheaper and world hunger can be eliminated (desert areas can produce food) – but it will take a lot more CO2 (which is safe up to 10,000 ppm).

PERMISSION is granted for anyone to use this material for any purpose. I have hundreds of pages of details to back up the above much more strongly. But that material will not be free! Sorry, but it took a lot of time and study.

]]> By: Shaun Chamberlin http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-13763 Shaun Chamberlin Tue, 04 May 2010 14:19:30 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-13763 Hi Elena, a good question! Last year <a href="http://www.scientificblogging.com/fine_scientist/matthews_measure_proposed_new_yardstick_climate_change" rel="nofollow">research came out</a> that argued that emitting one tonne of carbon dioxide leads to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change, which is one kind of answer to your question, but of course the situation isn't entirely that straightforward and <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v459/n7248/full/nature08047.html" rel="nofollow">the list of caveats is significant</a>! Hope that helps. Hi Elena, a good question! Last year research came out that argued that emitting one tonne of carbon dioxide leads to 0.0000000000015 degrees of global temperature change, which is one kind of answer to your question, but of course the situation isn’t entirely that straightforward and the list of caveats is significant! Hope that helps.

]]> By: Elena Reyes http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-12951 Elena Reyes Mon, 12 Apr 2010 21:34:22 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-12951 Shaun, thanks a lot for the explanation! I've had a hard time trying to really understand the implications of CO2 in Global Warming. But this raises the question, how much is a kg of CO2 in terms of Global Warming? I mean, if a product emits 1kg of CO2 in order to be produced, how does that affect radiative forcing? Do you have any reference that could help me understand that? Thanks a lot. Shaun, thanks a lot for the explanation! I’ve had a hard time trying to really understand the implications of CO2 in Global Warming. But this raises the question, how much is a kg of CO2 in terms of Global Warming? I mean, if a product emits 1kg of CO2 in order to be produced, how does that affect radiative forcing? Do you have any reference that could help me understand that?
Thanks a lot.

]]> By: Shaun Chamberlin http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-12018 Shaun Chamberlin Sun, 14 Mar 2010 18:47:30 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-12018 John, the survey in question is from Naomi Oreskes, and is at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 Since you're in the intellectual area, I also suggest taking a look at her outstanding slideshow: http://www.darkoptimism.org/ClimateScepticism.pdf John, the survey in question is from Naomi Oreskes, and is at: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Since you’re in the intellectual area, I also suggest taking a look at her outstanding slideshow:
http://www.darkoptimism.org/ClimateScepticism.pdf

]]> By: John http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-11915 John Thu, 11 Mar 2010 07:16:15 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-11915 Dear Shaun, Thank you for your post. I am looking for "that" study mentioned by Al Gore in his documentary, which reviews 500 (I think) articles by scientists which agree that Global warming is a reality, and compares this to another 500 articles (or how many?) in the popular press, which argue that there is some uncertainty. It was published in the journal Science (I think) many years ago. You don't have a reference to it by any chance? Thanks a lot. Please delete this post, since it disrupts your discussion. Regards, John Dear Shaun,
Thank you for your post. I am looking for “that” study mentioned by Al Gore in his documentary, which reviews 500 (I think) articles by scientists which agree that Global warming is a reality, and compares this to another 500 articles (or how many?) in the popular press, which argue that there is some uncertainty. It was published in the journal Science (I think) many years ago. You don’t have a reference to it by any chance?
Thanks a lot.
Please delete this post, since it disrupts your discussion.
Regards,
John

]]> By: Toby http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-9690 Toby Mon, 11 Jan 2010 23:02:37 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-9690 Ever heard of Beer–Lambert law ? If you have, guess you forgot to mention it. If not, please look it up. Ever heard of Beer–Lambert law ? If you have, guess you forgot to mention it. If not, please look it up.

]]> By: Transition Times :: Transition Times » Blog Archive » Heroes and Villains in Copenhagen, and Beyond http://www.darkoptimism.org/2008/09/03/the-climate-science-translation-guide/comment-page-1/#comment-9635 Transition Times :: Transition Times » Blog Archive » Heroes and Villains in Copenhagen, and Beyond Sun, 10 Jan 2010 16:37:25 +0000 http://www.darkoptimism.org/?p=53#comment-9635 [...] below, but to cut a long story short, nothing was agreed that comes remotely close to addressing the scale of our climate challenge. Indeed, as I and many others have been pointing out for months, an agreement in line with climate [...] [...] below, but to cut a long story short, nothing was agreed that comes remotely close to addressing the scale of our climate challenge. Indeed, as I and many others have been pointing out for months, an agreement in line with climate [...]

]]>