Eaarth

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by t vago

It does not really matter. In the grand scheme of things, the military is under the control of the President, whether or not the President happens to be conservative, liberal, socialist, whatever. Regardless of what party the President happens to be a member of, the military still has to follow the President's orders. It says so right in the Constitution.

It's one thing to note that the military drew up a response based on observed facts, and inferences based on those facts. This is one facet of what the military does. With regard to the observed fact that the average global temperature appears to have gone up about 0.6 C, it is prudent that courses of action be taken should the inferences also be proven correct. To do so otherwise would just be foolish.

It is quite another thing the state that the military is apolitical, which it definitely is not. This is my point. Presidents select senior officers for promotions, for top military posts, and for positions within the Executive Department that require military postings. It is unavoidable that this will become political, and so it is unavoidable that the military will be influenced by politics.

And it is still another thing altogether to point to the fact that the military drew up plans with regard to the observed rise in temperature of 0.6 C, and somehow state it is further proof that AGW is proven. AGW is far from being proven, and is not the same at all as proof of a 0.6 C rise in average global temperature.

Saying military appointments are influenced by politics doesn't lead to the conclusion that what the military does is political. The Secretary of Transportation is appointed by the president, but that doesn't mean we have "Republican" or "Democratic" pot holes.

Some parts of government are very political, and others are mundane, even if the people running them are appointed through politics. If you want to show that this report is political as opposed to mundane then show how the military is flip-flopping on the issue depending on who the president is. If they aren't then odds are it's just threat assessment, eg the same thing the DoD does w/ energy, political instability, separatist groups, and so on.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Bush was hardly a conservative. But compared to what? Or to what degree? This is like Aragonis' comparison of Stalin and Wilson, both socialists. However, compared to Obama, virtually anyone (except maybe Saul Alinsky?) would be considered more conservative...

Damn, I forgot he was a tree-hugging liberal.

Generally speaking someone who is a Republican is considered conservative and a Democrat is considered liberal. In practice most people who get elected tend to be centrists, eg no "tree-hugging" Gore and no "Invade the world" McCain, but that doesn't mean a Republican isn't conservative.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by dcb

it isn't a "rise" though. It's basically back where it started.

Originally Posted by t vago

It is?

It would appear so

[t vago]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Saying military appointments are influenced by politics doesn't lead to the conclusion that what the military does is political. The Secretary of Transportation is appointed by the president, but that doesn't mean we have "Republican" or "Democratic" pot holes.

You missed something in your oh-so-clever retort. I never claimed that the military is apolitical, Neil did. I merely pointed out that politics are involved. I also stated that the military follows the President of the United States. If the President directs that a threat assessment be made due to global warming, then it'll get done, regardless of political persuasion.

And if some senior officer in the military thinks it's a good idea to prepare for the effects of global warming, and has a plausible scenario worked up for a threat assessment to be made, that assessment will also get done. It happens. It's human nature, not a conspiracy.

Besides that, merely stating something is a thread, and developing a threat assessment for that, does not constitute proof of something else. For instance, Kosovo is also identified as a threat, and a threat assessment was also made in the event that Kosovo destabilizes and plunges Europe into war. Does that constitute proof that Kosovo will in fact destabilize? No.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by dcb

It would appear so

You, um, do realize that only goes to about 1987 or so, right?

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by t vago

I get a 0.07 % rise, so it looks like a decimal point is off.

Regardless, you can't just look at a percentage variation of solar irradiance without comparing it to the percentage rise in average global temperature.

So, we'll place the 0.6 C rise in the same percentage term as for the rise in solar irradiance. Taking the average global temperature on Earth, which is estimated to be 18 C, or 291.15 K, we get 0.6 / 291.15, or a 0.2% rise.

Now, take that 0.07% rise in solar irradiance, apply it to the Earth's atmosphere with all of its many mechanisms that are still poorly understood (even by pro-AGW climatologists), and you get a 0.2% rise in average global temperature.

Keep in mind that one of these poorly understood mechanisms is the ability of cosmic rays to influence cloud formation. Since clouds reflect sunlight back into space, that reflected sunlight cannot then cause greenhouse warming because it cannot hit the ground and warm it up. Solar output is known to partially shield the Earth from cosmic rays. So, if solar activity goes up, the Earth is a little more shielded from cosmic rays than before, and cloud formation drops. If cloud formation drops, more sunlight then is available to hit the Earth and heat up the atmosphere.

Correlation does not imply causation. If that was true and there was a 5% increase in ice cream consumption as well as a 5% increase in homicides during the summer we would already be patting ourselves on the back for banning ice cream and eliminating homicide. Roughly speaking, the increase from solar irradiation is calculated by multiplying the increase in isolation by the Earth's albedo (How much of that stays in the atmosphere), which is ~.3-.35. Given the graph of solar irradiation you posted then we've seen a ~.3W/m^2 increase since 1900, and w/ a albedo of ~.33, then we'll trap an additional ~.1W/m^2, which happens to be what the IPCC estimated. ~.1W/m^2 isn't enough to account for the increase in temperature, so we look at other things that change the albedo of the planet (GHGs) and are large enough in size. Granted, science is still about theory. It could be that we really aren't causing this because our science is wrong and we just happened to have a natural rise in an undetectable substance that causes what we think GHGs cause, or maybe "God" or "Aliens" are doing something similar to "test" us. All we have to go on is what we think we know and that points to GHGs as the driver behind the change in albedo. Theories/Laws can be broken, but I wouldn't want to try to break the law of gravity by jumping off the empire state building, and I wouldn't try to prove physical chemistry is wrong by betting against GCC, especially when the abatement for about half of our emissions is cost neutral.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by t vago

You, um, do realize that only goes to about 1987 or so, right?

you were saying something about solar influence?

[t vago]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Correlation does not imply causation.

Good, so show me why I should not imply that an increase in solar output should not cause temperatures to rise, but that I must assume that a slight increase in carbon dioxide must mean a rise in temperature.

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Roughly speaking, the increase from solar irradiation is calculated by multiplying the increase in isolation by the Earth's albedo (How much of that stays in the atmosphere), which is ~.3-.35. Given the graph of solar irradiation you posted then we've seen a ~.3W/m^2 increase since 1900, and w/ a albedo of ~.33, then we'll trap an additional ~.1W/m^2, which happens to be what the IPCC estimated. ~.1W/m^2 isn't enough to account for the increase in temperature,

Is this because the super-accurate computer models said they weren't? You know, the ones that continually have to be re-tweaked in order to a) not show an ice age by 1990, b) not show a global desert by 2000, and c) can't even correctly model cloud formation?

While you're at it, explain to me where the major heatsinks are, that drive Earth's climate, and explain how they are heated.

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

All we have to go on is what we think we know and that points to GHGs as the driver behind the change in albedo. Theories/Laws can be broken, but I wouldn't want to try to break the law of gravity by jumping off the empire state building, and I wouldn't try to prove physical chemistry is wrong by betting against GCC, especially when the abatement for about half of our emissions is cost neutral.

All you are willing to go on, is that somehow it's all Mankind's fault, because that's all you can see. You belittle natural causes as "aliens" or "God," and blindly accept as absolute truth a thing that depends on inaccurate computer models to even work. These computer models do not show all of what goes on in the atmosphere, for the simple reason that we do not know what goes on in the atmosphere. Therefore, the programmers have to insert a huge number of assumptions that do not match to reality.

It is intellectually dishonest to assume all sorts of feedback mechanisms that somehow amplify a supposed temperature rise induced solely by Mankind, and then turn around and completely discount as irrelevant the contribution of something that is completely outside of Mankind's control.

You guys keep saying that "this is caused by AGW" and "that is caused by AGW" like droughts in Australia, or a complete lack of snowfall in England by 2010. Now that we see flooding in Australia, and record cold and snowfalls in England, you guys now claim it's due to AGW. It seems to me like you guys won't be satisfied until Mankind is wiped off the Earth (thereby removing manmade carbon dioxide), before you are happy.

[t vago]

Originally Posted by dcb

you were saying something about solar influence?

Well, if you spent more time examining what I posted, and less time trying to be clever, you'd see the second graph goes up to about 2008. You'd also notice that Neil's precious temperature graph tracks solar irradiance pretty well. You'd also notice that I posted two different datasets showing the same thing.

Then again, I'm just arguing with another follower of the AGW religion.

[dcb]

I'm just looking at the data and what you posted, I'm not calling you names or trying to be clever. Do you think you can be more objective about the data? I'm not on Neils side here, I'm basically ignoring him because I can't usually get through to him. Are you saying you are done discussing the data too? All our answers lay in personal attacks now?

You posted a couple graphs, they basically end where they started, what were you trying to say? I thought the suns influence was overwhelming, then why the warming trend again?

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by t vago

Good, so show me why I should not imply that an increase in solar output should not cause temperatures to rise, but that I must assume that a slight increase in carbon dioxide must mean a rise in temperature.



Is this because the super-accurate computer models said they weren't? You know, the ones that continually have to be re-tweaked in order to a) not show an ice age by 1990, b) not show a global desert by 2000, and c) can't even correctly model cloud formation?

While you're at it, explain to me where the major heatsinks are, that drive Earth's climate, and explain how they are heated.



All you are willing to go on, is that somehow it's all Mankind's fault, because that's all you can see. You belittle natural causes as "aliens" or "God," and blindly accept as absolute truth a thing that depends on inaccurate computer models to even work. These computer models do not show all of what goes on in the atmosphere, for the simple reason that we do not know what goes on in the atmosphere. Therefore, the programmers have to insert a huge number of assumptions that do not match to reality.

It is intellectually dishonest to assume all sorts of feedback mechanisms that somehow amplify a supposed temperature rise induced solely by Mankind, and then turn around and completely discount as irrelevant the contribution of something that is completely outside of Mankind's control.

You guys keep saying that "this is caused by AGW" and "that is caused by AGW" like droughts in Australia, or a complete lack of snowfall in England by 2010. Now that we see flooding in Australia, and record cold and snowfalls in England, you guys now claim it's due to AGW. It seems to me like you guys won't be satisfied until Mankind is wiped off the Earth (thereby removing manmade carbon dioxide), before you are happy.

Quote sniping is awful and you should feel awful.

It's not about belief, it's about science. An increase in solar irradiation will cause temperatures to rise and an increase in the Earth's albedo will cause temperatures to rise. The increase in solar irradiation we've seen is not enough to account for all of the increase in average temperature alone, but it is still part of it.

Saying the fundamentals are wrong because some people design some wonky computer models is like saying all math is wrong because little Bobby failed his Algebra class. If the models are wrong then the models are wrong, that doesn't change the absorption bands of Carbon Dioxide or any other GHG. The end result is still the same, greater GHG emissions lead to an increase in albedo and more energy trapped in the atmosphere (higher average temps). People can try (and tend to fail) to model the specifics, and get those wrong, but that doesn't mean that the physical chemistry is wrong, it means they suck at modeling for whatever reasons, or that we don't have the tools to model something precisely. In other words, we can say with a large degree of certainty that our GHG emissions are warming the climate, but trying to predict exactly how much that warming will be 50-100 years from now is much harder. We know that so far we're looking at a ~1.3+/-.3 F rise due mostly to GHG emissions w/ a little bit from increased solar irradiation, but we don't know exactly what the increase will be because there are uncertainties when it comes to climate modeling, and even greater uncertainties when it comes to modeling human behavior (how much GHG emissions will change).

Lastly, cut the 'tude dude. Stop lumping everyone together. There is no "you guys". If you want to point out the Neil that weather isn't the same as climate then do so, don't lump everyone together. Stop trying to Godwin the thread, humanity can get by just fine even if we minimize GHG emissions. We're also not here to explain to you how the Earth's climate works. IMO I'm spending enough time trying to explain to you where you're incorrect/correct in terms of what you're posting, going through years of math/physics/other sciences is a bit beyond the scope of this thread.