Subject: Climate tipping point
Posted by: satguru
Date: Dec 29 11
This theory is totally bugging me. James Hansen claims that at a future point of rising CO2, when the temperature reaches around +2.5C there will be a runaway increase with associated chaos.
As I only managed O level physics I only have the basics, but seems to me to violate two laws of physics. By simply changing the atmosphere, how can you actually create more heat than goes in, assuming the sun is constant for this equation? His theory implies that at a certain point he refers to as a 'tipping point', the hitherto relatively stable climate will go haywire as will the temperature.
The second is that tipping points only refer to objects with mass reaching a point where the portion over a line reaches over 50% of its total and gravity takes over and it falls. You could just about call boiling point one as well but that won't apply here of course.
So my simple question is that bearing in mind this is a future event with no prior history or known experimental data, what phenomenon does he claim will change a climate which has undergone CO2 and temperature levels far higher than the present and forseeable future is now going to go crazy when it crosses a hitherto unknown point?
I have more time and patience than at 16 so the little research I could manage tells me every single aspect of his claim is impossible. Not unlikely or sheer genius, but 100% against every law of conservation of energy, heat and mass. But as I have no actual training past 16 I have to ask people who should know to see if I may still have missed something.
Posted by: satguru
Date: Dec 29 11
This theory is totally bugging me. James Hansen claims that at a future point of rising CO2, when the temperature reaches around +2.5C there will be a runaway increase with associated chaos.
As I only managed O level physics I only have the basics, but seems to me to violate two laws of physics. By simply changing the atmosphere, how can you actually create more heat than goes in, assuming the sun is constant for this equation? His theory implies that at a certain point he refers to as a 'tipping point', the hitherto relatively stable climate will go haywire as will the temperature.
The second is that tipping points only refer to objects with mass reaching a point where the portion over a line reaches over 50% of its total and gravity takes over and it falls. You could just about call boiling point one as well but that won't apply here of course.
So my simple question is that bearing in mind this is a future event with no prior history or known experimental data, what phenomenon does he claim will change a climate which has undergone CO2 and temperature levels far higher than the present and forseeable future is now going to go crazy when it crosses a hitherto unknown point?
I have more time and patience than at 16 so the little research I could manage tells me every single aspect of his claim is impossible. Not unlikely or sheer genius, but 100% against every law of conservation of energy, heat and mass. But as I have no actual training past 16 I have to ask people who should know to see if I may still have missed something.
19 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
salami_swami 
|
schwoosh. Did you hear that? That was the sound of whatever the heck you just said going WAAAY over my head. Reply #1. Dec 29 11, 2:45 PM |
satguru
|
The methods used to present data by our rulers are never designed to inform, but tell us what they want us to hear. Therefore, if they want us to stop using (actually it's to keep on using but pay more for) fossil fuel, they have to put us off it. Therefore James Hansen has invented this 'Tipping point', a hitherto phenomenon only possible within objects with mass falling off a support when they overbalance. Related areas in physics are boiling point and explosive and flash points, none applicable here either. Without this hitherto unknown phenomenon the IPCC would no longer exist. Current changes and new data have made the original projections of rises obsolete, and a number of peer reviewed studies (although my 'prediction alarm' kicks in here) have predicted 20-30 years of falling temperatures by IPCC contributors. So all they now have left is this outlandish theory which all my attempts have up till now told me cannot be compatible with physics. I've posted this on a few sites as it is a stumper, and the couple of scientists who have arrived say I am absolutely right so Hansen's time appears to be running out rapidly. Reply #2. Dec 31 11, 10:37 AM |
daver852
|
James Hansen has been discredited and is widely regarded as something of a publicity seeking crackpot. Reply #3. Dec 31 11, 12:22 PM |
| daver852
|
Interesting article: http://www.real-science.com/earth-cooled-0-38-degrees-year Reply #4. Dec 31 11, 12:33 PM |
| satguru
|
If you were to look at world temperature variations over hundreds of years or more the overall variations have been so small had CO2 not risen no one would have commented on them at all, let alone tried to make them look higher than they are as 'they should be rising as CO2 is'. Therefore the sum total of the IPCC message is set in an unknown and unknowable future, which I only found this week to be solely based on what seems more and more to be an impossible figure dreamt up by James Hansen as he has a telephone line to God and was probably good friends with Michael Jackson. But he is still at the top of a power structure making the rules with absolutely no serious opposition besides possibly Ron Paul in the minuscule chance he becomes the next president. Reply #5. Dec 31 11, 12:53 PM |
| satguru
|
This is interesting. Experience tells us that since CO2 has risen drastically our temperature has not, so why would we ever expect anything to change? Water vapour? No, it isn't increasing, and NASA's Aqua satellite discovered CO2 actually replaces it when increasing, therefore reducing the greenhouse effect as it is a lot weaker. Today this article arrived in my list which is the apparent sole reason for the IPCC's existence, as CO2 directly and water vapour cannot cause runaway climate change through exponential warming, but they thought methane could. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/31/be-careful-today-and-tonight-billions-may-die/ A few years since this theory was put forward, it has become known the methane cycle actually followed CO2 naturally since the climate began, so any changes had been natural for both. The methane has gone up since then already, about 300%, and as any experiment shows, had no effect. Nothing at all, it couldn't even be measured in the noise of the millions of other changes (not an exaggeration) at such a low level. Then it started to fall. So the methane has risen, no one was there to see it, and now going away as nature absorbs it on its own. If Rajendra Pachauri heading the IPCC does not know this he ought to be retired, along with his whole organisation, as without methane CO2 and water vapour alone cannot cause climate change. Who says? The methane article. They, and not me or Anthony Watts, say the cause of the climate change Al Gore wanted us all to disown our parents about like all good cult leaders, is methane. CO2 would raise temperatures enough to release the methane beneath the ice which would generate more etc etc until we were 20C higher. That in fact left science behind altogether as although the methane has since escaped, the same laws of physics apply to all gases, and as we are not so close to the sun like Venus, which they appear to have used as a model, methane still cannot and never will actually generate heat. However many chemicals you get in the air only the sun can do that, their case is dead. Reply #6. Jan 01 12, 10:13 AM |
| salami_swami
|
Schwoosh! Reply #7. Jan 03 12, 11:53 AM |
| satguru
|
Swami, believe me you are not alone. The governments actually rely on this, as if Al Gore (as he testified to a senate committee) says this is true, one thing about senate committees and their national citizens is very few of them are scientists. I explained on another thread yesterday how despite loving science all my life had to become a sideliner when the maths started taking over at higher levels at school till I had to drop the courses. But in climate and most other scientific news it doesn't matter. They do the maths for us, and the worst we are usually left with is simple arithmetic or statistics. The difference between maths and stats is maths manipulates and discovers figures, while stats takes them and arranges them nicely. Anyone with basic school physics and statistics can easily see these figures require phenomena not possible in science, I have had a few identical questions posted far and wide as free scientists are not that easy to come by, and so far the ones who were good enough to help have all confirmed this theory is bunk. Absolute arrant nonsense. Imagine a greenhouse with maximum internal reflectivity, ie a fully mirrored surface allowing heat in and not out. Then, either using known infra-red absorption spectra, or, or better still and, pump various gases in the greenhouse and measure the temperatures inside compared to the constant outside, then you will get both a range of greenhouse gas powers and the maximum possible. No one yet has managed to tell me the maximum, not because they don't have the figures, but it does not seem to work. This would mean the gas would have to generate its own source of heat, which is why the tipping point runaway feedback story is dead on its feet. Secondly the atmposphere is not a closed greenhouse with solid walls but a gas which to make it simple is mainly ventilation holes with a metaphorical sponge of molecules which do vibrate faster when hit by rising infra red radiation. I knew none of this myself till recently but had no choice if carrying on this project. Basically there is an upper limit on any heat conservation method, from the perfect theoretical total internal reflecting closed system, to a wide open atmosphere with very little matter to heat in comparison to solid greenhouse walls. But both have one thing in common, they can't generate heat from within, they all need an outside source, and we only have the one, the sun. I can put it another way, if you insulate your house, can you make it warmer than the heating provides? Reply #8. Jan 03 12, 12:50 PM |
| salami_swami
|
"I can put it another way, if you insulate your house, can you make it warmer than the heating provides?" Did I mention, schwoosh? I, um, well, I... I don't know, can you? :P Reply #9. Jan 03 12, 3:43 PM |
| satguru
|
I very much doubt it. Despite a fascination with science my maths prevented me lasting beyond the basic exams, but can sense when Newton's laws are involved. James Hansen (and possibly him alone, plus his millions of followers of course) believes the heat is trapped in the ocean, but even if so, is not going to all escape suddenly but keeping the puddle comparison, a puddle will always evaporate gradually at a fixed amount in relation to the temperature and wind. Therefore the water vapour required to cause this added heating must be released gradually. That means his theory is sunk already, and so far no additional evidence of added water vapour has ever been found. The second half of this theory which was new to me, was the expectation of the ocean to act as a battery, storing the heat and preventing the increase in temperature to be known by the usual measurements. Dr Hansen, they measure the sea as well! Anyway, one non-peer review point raised already, I will change the comparison from a puddle evaporating to a bath cooling. Legal training says when you have a complex problem then reduce it to basic principles. If you run a bath, your own experience (plus an optional thermometer) will tell you the temperature will fall on a pretty steady slope assuming the room temperature is constant. The ocean is a massive bath. If your bathwater cools at a steady rate then logic would tell us all water does. Even the ocean. Dr Hansen appears to have left every single one of the scientific principles we all learnt first before a few went on to get science degrees behind, and without the basics then you may as well forget any following material. To sum up, 1) The ocean/water evaporates at a steady rate. 2) Water cools at a steady rate. Therefore unless he's discovered Newton's 14th and 23rd laws previously lost, he's talking pure bubkes, and all the world's policies have been based on this bubkes. I've had this posted for a week now on a number of sites and the couple of scientists replying have agreed as well. Just because someone's at the top of their profession does not give them access to additional phenomena, we all have to work with the same ones regardless of qualifications. Reply #10. Jan 06 12, 11:47 AM |
| satguru
|
A bit more work on the subject. Danish scientists measuring Arctic ice going back thousands of years discover ice had been 50% lower and remained stable. History, where possible to learn, always tells us the answers in the future as it has a habit of repeating the same results. Basically if the ice does not speed up its melting (as was physically not possible) then the sea level must remain stable and the climate follow. The major link in Hansen's chain has been broken and without the ice melting none of the other results could follow. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14408930 Did the IPCC consider this paper? Well what do you think. Reply #11. Jan 24 12, 7:13 PM |
BOB501
|
While I can not argue with your science. History as you mention in your responce is apt to repeat itself. That being said history and science respond to differences in time and circumstances. I mean there is no doubt there are more people depending and consuming more and more of the Earth's resources. That alone has to contribute to the wear and tear of dear old Terra Firma. While I am not into predictions but being more of a reactionary, like most of us. I can't help to think things can't remain the same and the effect of change is enevidable. Good or bad we will see. Reply #12. Jan 24 12, 9:35 PM |
| satguru
|
The only effects we are having are pretty clear to see, and all you need to do is measure the biggest of all in the world (not mentioned on the news) of pouring raw sewage into the sea. This has carried on throughout the third world although the money spent on trying to mess around with the climate could have provided sewers and treatment plants already. This is not even industry, it is just from huge populations with no money. Then we have chemical pollution, from the majority of the manufacturing world not governed by regulations and following the west from the last century emptying their waste into rivers and landfill. We have massive deforestation which causes desert erosion and draws huge amounts of water from the system for the crops which replace them. I could go on, but really wonder why most of these genuine and preventable issues are allowed to carry on while worldwide governments try and stop us creating a natural and essential gas to life on a mathematical equation not yet proved? Reply #13. Jan 26 12, 9:06 PM |
Greatguggly
|
I'd say it's about money and politics. Yet another tool used by government to destroy private industry and make the masses ever more dependent on bone-headed bureaucrats. Reply #14. Jan 31 12, 8:48 PM |
| satguru
|
Here's a bit of history few people have been told, I only just discovered it. I did know that all these things had happened before and the effects were known so no need for computer models, but this is way beyond what we're living with now and makes them all totally worthless. "The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html Reply #15. Feb 18 12, 6:44 PM |
| satguru
|
They've changed the estimate but didn't tell anyone about it- this was over a year ago! "Assessing impacts of future anthropogenic carbon emissions is currently impeded by uncertainties in our knowledge of equilibrium climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon dioxide doubling. Previous studies suggest 3 K as best estimate, 2 to 4.5 K as the 66% probability range, and nonzero probabilities for much higher values, the latter implying a small but significant chance of high-impact climate changes that would be difficult to avoid. Here, combining extensive sea and land surface temperature reconstructions from the Last Glacial Maximum with climate model simulations, we estimate a lower median (2.3 K) and reduced uncertainty (1.7 to 2.6 K 66% probability). Assuming paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future as predicted by our model, these results imply lower probability of imminent extreme climatic change than previously thought." Well who'd have guessed it? (the IPCC currently assess a 0.4C of the total temperature increase since 1850 to increased CO2, way below the lowest estimates of both, and not a model but actual results). http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/11/22/science.1203513 Keep scaring the kids Algore! Reply #16. Mar 02 12, 8:28 PM |
lesley153
|
This, from Dr Vincent Gray of the IPCC, could help spell the end of one of the shortest-lived religions in human history: " Nobody seems to realise that the most elaborate and comprehensive conflict of interest that has been inflicted on the public is the "Global Warning" Theory. " I have been an Expert Reviewer on every one of the Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and I can tell you that there is not a scrap of evidence in any of them that human emissions of carbon dioxide have any harmful effect on the climate. " How have they got away with it? " http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/ipcc-expert-dr-vincent-gray-there-is.html Reply #17. Mar 24 12, 5:55 PM |
| satguru
|
Thanks Lesley, he is one of the original questioners of the theory, and glad to see he's now collecting all his earlier work and using it to demonstrate why the whole thing simply can't add up. I'll add a few little extras I've found over the last few months. 1) Water vapour may act as a greenhouse gas but also makes clouds. The greater the cloud cover during the day the less heat gets to the earth. That is negative feedback as although the clouds hold any in at night (which would make them neutral overall) they may have less to hold if don't allow the heat in in the first place. I just need a little more to tie that up altogether but so far is looking neutral-minus. 2) Just go back to basics. Heat moves evenly from a warmer to cooler medium till they reach equilibrium. That means if the sun warms the sea, and the heat is kept a little longer from added CO2 (not even certain, the theory works in a lab and in equations, but cannot be tested for certain outside a computer model as yet) so if James Hansen's current theory that the ocean is acting as a store which will apparently suddenly let its heat out, it is based on a physical process as yet unknown to science, not explained by him (he assumes his position saves him having to do so) and breaks the rule I just described. 3) The IPCC have now (where's the link, darn it...) attributed only half the temperature rise of 0.8C to CO2, meaning the feedback is now negative, yet they still exist. If this is the case (and the data all says so in an observation lasting 150 years) it would take centuries of a continuous rise plus a lack of saturation (another total unknown, that is accepted as not possible to model as yet) and looking at around 180ppm before we reached the IPCC theoretical point where benefits (yes, they mention many if people read the reports) are outweighed by the problems at 3C. 4) As time passes the single factor which is known is CO2 is rising regardless. The various temperature records (ie those before and since the hockey stick) either show no correlation at all between the two (IPCC used till 1995) or a gradual divergence of the two even using the hockey stick. The previous figure I used is based on the top point of the hockey stick, plus uses both anomalies (averages, still a questionable method despite being used to iron out gaps in total measurements) and direct data, and whichever way they look at it cannot find any possible evidence a tipping point is possible as the explanations behind it are all based on rhetoric and feeding data into models to produce all sorts of effects controllable by the choice of data entered. I could probably go on for many more points, but they just increase the same view in more focus, and contradict both basic laws and current observations. Without a tipping point it would simply be impossible for the current rise in CO2 to have a measurable effect, as without some major (currently negative) feedback it will be hard to tease out the small changes from the background and could never hit more than 1C for centuries regardless. Reply #18. Mar 24 12, 8:33 PM |
| satguru
|
Hard to deny geoengineering (their description for it, not mine) is real after a few of the planes were captured when flying through hostile countries and found to be carrying a “technologically sophisticated” network of nano-pipes led to the trailing edges of the wings and horizontal stabilizers for “dispersing” the contents of the waste tanks in an “aerial-type mist”.http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/environment/humans/chemtrails/news.php?q=1246309936 The planes were all US air force, and rather than the various materials claimed to reflect back sunlight (as if that was something we actually needed in the first place- imagine if it actually worked!) they were used to spray non-lethal chemical weapons. Needless to say this piece like most others similar didn't make the newspapers or TV. Reply #19. Apr 11 12, 10:08 AM |
19 replies. On page 1 of 1 pages. 1
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: