quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
I have no doubt that magnetic fields and charged particles can warm parts of the atmosphere. However that does not amount to this being a significant factor - certainly in terms of the current terrestrial global warming.

Really? Did you quantify it? Some estimates, found among the various links I put above, have the estimates from Joule heating on the same order of magnitude as that from the solar irradiance. The current climate models have so far managed to massage, what, a 1 W/m^2 out of balance. While, by not taking Joule heating into account, they may have lost hundreds of W/m^2 of extra forcing.

That's a lot of energy to miss! Naturally, more extra energy also means more losses, so I don't claim that there are hundreds of W/m^2 out of balance. But taking Joule heating into account--which also, by the way, implies extending the models way into the ionosphere, as well as adding various ionization effect and solar wind interaction--would change the models quite dramatically, wouldn't it? Among other things, it would remove the implicit ceiling on the atmosphere, and then we'd see if a ceilingless greenhouse would ever work.

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
You're asking me (moi?) to expound crackpot theories? Believing the other stuff in the face of the mountain - nay Himalayas - of evidence of AGW?

That would be like a nude Pope, covered in chicken blood, doing a pagan dance. (No offence intended for all you religious folk out there)

A very thorough and argumentative discourse. And a crackpot theory, I surmise, must be whatever goes against the one true theory that has been proven once and forever more, right?

This is not to say that there aren't truly crackpot theories out there. But it would behoove us to realize that not every theory that disagrees with the "established canon" is automatically wrong. If that were the case, then no new theory would ever have emerged. The heliocentric theory would have never replaced the geocentric one. The theory of relativity would have never replaced Newton's mechanics. We would have been simply sitting on a dogma.

It is a folly to think that new science never disturbs (or entirely throws away, in some cases) the previously established theories. History of science is full of struggle of ideas. But progress goes much, much faster when more than one theory is on the table. It's called brainstorming, you know.

Why do I have to explain the obvious?

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:
Why do I have to explain the obvious?

Leo

You and Roger. Wish you chaps were right but you're not.

Why do I have to explain the obvious?

7gig tonnes of combusted carbon produce 26gig tonnes of CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

From calculations dating from Noah building the Ark to the present time it has been shown that CO2 produces global warming. Sadly there is no other reasonable theory to account for the rate of temperature increase of the Earth in the past few decades or couple of centuries.

RealPrimate, you ask why you have to 'explain the obvious?' - when I'm NOT asking you to (see my previous response).

I am asking you to explain the IN-OBVIOUS - that is: a brief outline of OTHER theories you know about.

Whether you agree with the theories, or not, is of no interest to me in seeking this information you have.

Two days ago you offered me this very valuable advice for a system of problem-solving:
"if you don't know then ask someone who does"
I'm a bit puzzled why you recommended a system which immediately appears to break down when I follow it and apply it to you - a person whose in-depth knowledge of a subject makes him "someone who knows".

I'm tempted to wonder if your advice needs to be modified to:
"if you don't know (about other global-warming theories) then ask someone who does - such as me... but I'm unable to share my knowledge because I get all tangled up before it has a chance to come out, and you'll end up WITHOUT the asked-for knowledge I have - but WITH my opinion of it."?

I'm sure you don't really believe that your 'opinion' of the knowledge you have is a far more valuable thing for me to be in possession of than the actual knowledge itself - as that's the underlying believe of a tyranny.

So once again - please supply brief outlines of OTHER theories people who work in science have put forward for possible causes of global warming - WITHOUT any qualitative evaluation of them.

Roger

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:
So once again - please supply brief outlines of OTHER theories people who work in science have put forward for possible causes of global warming - WITHOUT any qualitative evaluation of them.

Roger

As the other theories have been debunked more times than ... than... England losing on penalties, Murdoch losing libel cases. etc. I cannae help ye.

I may as well go on about

The grassy knoll
Princess Di was murdered.
Elvis lives.
Hanger 51
We'll really shake them up when we win the world cup.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:
RealPrimate, you ask why you have to 'explain the obvious?' - when I'm NOT asking you to (see my previous response).

I am asking you to explain the IN-OBVIOUS - that is: a brief outline of OTHER theories you know about.

Whether you agree with the theories, or not, is of no interest to me in seeking this information you have.

Two days ago you offered me this very valuable advice for a system of problem-solving:
"if you don't know then ask someone who does"
I'm a bit puzzled why you recommended a system which immediately appears to break down when I follow it and apply it to you - a person whose in-depth knowledge of a subject makes him "someone who knows".

I'm tempted to wonder if your advice needs to be modified to:
"if you don't know (about other global-warming theories) then ask someone who does - such as me... but I'm unable to share my knowledge because I get all tangled up before it has a chance to come out, and you'll end up WITHOUT the asked-for knowledge I have - but WITH my opinion of it."?

I'm sure you don't really believe that your 'opinion' of the knowledge you have is a far more valuable thing for me to be in possession of than the actual knowledge itself - as that's the underlying believe of a tyranny.

So once again - please supply brief outlines of OTHER theories people who work in science have put forward for possible causes of global warming - WITHOUT any qualitative evaluation of them.

Roger

Roger,

I don't know why RP responded in that way: your request seems simple enough.

With the proviso that you are asking for theories not already established and therefore included in climate modelling, I can think of only 2.

The cosmic ray theory, where the sun's activity affects cosmic rays striking the earth's atmosphere, in turn affecting cloud formation.

The electric/plasma theory, where the sun's output interacts with the earth's magnetic field to produce heat directly. Leokor will expand on that or correct me if I've got it wrong, I'm sure.

Any more that anyone knows about?

quote:

Originally posted by realprimate:
As the other theories have been debunked more times than ... than... England losing on penalties, Murdoch losing libel cases. etc. I cannae help ye.

I may as well go on about

The grassy knoll
Princess Di was murdered.
Elvis lives.
Hanger 51
We'll really shake them up when we win the world cup.

RP, I think that's a bit unfair. Roger is only asking what they are. No need to dismiss them without even listing them.

quote:

So once again - please supply brief outlines of OTHER theories people who work in science have put forward for possible causes of global warming - WITHOUT any qualitative evaluation of them.

In no particular order:

Solar theories. The sun changes in more ways than just total solar irradiance (TSI). The shape of its spectrum changes, its magnetic field changes, and incidences of flares change. These have indirect influences on the earth. There is reasonable evidence that the solar cycle has an effect 2-3 times stronger than that indicated by TSI changes (that's still small compared with CO2).

The Svensmark theory that cosmic ray rates change due to the sun, and the possibility that this changes amount of low clouds. The theory is based on an observed correlation rather than identification of a clear mechanistic link between cosmic rays and clouds, and between clouds and temperatures. There is no explanation as to why low cloud amount should be affected and not medium or high cloud.

Oil theory. The theory that the anthropogenic oil film on the ocean reduces the production of droplets and thus the amount of very low level cloud.

Soot theory. The theory that most of the warming in the northern hemisphere is primarily due to the ice getting darker due to anthropogenic soot.

Can't be CO2 theory. It must be something else because physicists and modellers have fundamentally misunderstood the properties of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Aerosol theory. That aerosol changes (which can have both a cooling and warming effect) are the result of observed variations.

We don't know theory. That there is evidence of big climate changes in history and prehistory, and this might just be another "natural" swing with no determinable single cause.

Ocean theories. That the currents in the ocean are misunderstood and the warming is due to a net release from somewhere in the ocean.

Low sensitivity theory. CO2 causes warming, but feedbacks to the warming are small or negative, meaning the models overestimate warming (eg. Lindzen's Iris hypothesis). Recent warming has another cause.

It's not warming theory. The observed warming is a result of faulty instruments, urban growth, and incorrect corrections to the data. The physically observed impacts (reduction of glaciers etc.) have other causes, and there is often evidence in the other direction that is ignored. As a result, recent warming is not as compelling as you'd think.

Many of the above are valid theories, though climate scientists think they currently less important as they haven't been significant factors in recent warming.

Truesceptic

quote:

Any more that anyone knows about?

Well I'd add aerosols and cloud formation because these are parametrised ie quantified assumed behaviours are included not equations and feedbacks of the scientific theory hence they can't interact with and change in response to other variables.

Thanks TrueSceptic and SteveM - As always, your straightforward replies add a real value to the discussion and increase the gravity of your viewpoints.

(although I can't help thinking there's a bit of 'letting-off-the-hook' going on here too )

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Truesceptic

quote:

Any more that anyone knows about?

Well I'd add aerosols and cloud formation because these are parametrised ie quantified assumed behaviours are included not equations and feedbacks of the scientific theory hence they can't interact with and change in response to other variables.

But aren't those accepted limitations of current models, not alternative theories attempting to explain GW?

quote:

But aren't those accepted limitations of current models, not alternative theories attempting to explain GW?

I'd argue that one persons limitation in the models is another persons missing theory. The debate should not be about alternative theories it's about a synthesis of many interacting present and missing hypotheses leading to improved predictions of basic climate behaviour eg. How has the balsnce of aerosol production moving from west to east since 1970 affected the climate?

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:

I'd argue that one persons limitation in the models is another persons missing theory. The debate should not be about alternative theories it's about a synthesis of many interacting present and missing hypotheses leading to improved predictions of basic climate behaviour eg. How has the balsnce of aerosol production moving from west to east since 1970 affected the climate?

Roger is asking specifically for alternative theories, those outside of current modelling.

Truesceptic

quote:

Roger is asking specifically for alternative theories, those outside of current modelling.

Then Roger can choose to ignore my comments if he wishes.

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
I have no doubt that magnetic fields and charged particles can warm parts of the atmosphere. However that does not amount to this being a significant factor - certainly in terms of the current terrestrial global warming.

Really? Did you quantify it? Some estimates, found among the various links I put above, have the estimates from Joule heating on the same order of magnitude as that from the solar irradiance. The current climate models have so far managed to massage, what, a 1 W/m^2 out of balance. While, by not taking Joule heating into account, they may have lost hundreds of W/m^2 of extra forcing.

That's a lot of energy to miss! Naturally, more extra energy also means more losses, so I don't claim that there are hundreds of W/m^2 out of balance. But taking Joule heating into account--which also, by the way, implies extending the models way into the ionosphere, as well as adding various ionization effect and solar wind interaction--would change the models quite dramatically, wouldn't it? Among other things, it would remove the implicit ceiling on the atmosphere, and then we'd see if a ceilingless greenhouse would ever work.

Leo

Leokor,

It is not for me to quantify this effect.

1) In much of the detail I defer to the opinions of experts in their fields - and I have read of this, but not found experts being swayed by it.

2) It really is for the proponents of a novel theory to produce testable predictions and expected observations. So the ball of "rigorous investigation" lies firmly in your court.


The greenhouse has no roof. Greenhouse theory is a poor (but entrenched) analogy for a complex distributed process (mainly) in the tropospheric column.

My list of planets and selection of article on the changes is merely illustrative - for each example claimed to be a result of a "global" effect throughout the solar system there is in actuality an alternate local explanation. Yes it's true that data is not available for all the solar system. But a claim of increased solar output would give a consistent pattern of expected observations across all planets/moons in the solar system.

Likewise I'd expect to see some form of expected observable pattern in the case of your hypothesis.


I mention the BSRN network because of the impact on warming and diurnal range trends that changes in ground insolation seem to be connected with. e.g Wild et al www.iac.ethz.ch/people/mknut/2006GL028031.pdf
I am very aware that you are not talking insolation, but I am not convinced that other effects outweigh direct radiative effects (in UV/Visible peak of effective emission temp 6500k)

Sorry but I'm too busy catching up on reading right now. I will await a more robust evidence base for your hypothesis with interest.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
1) In much of the detail I defer to the opinions of experts in their fields - and I have read of this, but not found experts being swayed by it.

[...]

Sorry but I'm too busy catching up on reading right now. I will await a more robust evidence base for your hypothesis with interest.

As a matter of fact, my previous post does just that--present a more robust evidence, from experts. Feel free to take a look when you have more time.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
2) It really is for the proponents of a novel theory to produce testable predictions and expected observations. So the ball of "rigorous investigation" lies firmly in your court.

You don't get it. If I were a scientist working in that field, presenting a new theory, then yes, I would have to perform a lot of very rigorous research. But that's not what I'm doing. Since I don't have time and money to perform such research on my own, and since, to the best of my knowledge, I wasn't aware of anyone having done such research, the only thing I can do is to make a case for such research to be conducted--which is exactly what I was doing.

On the other hand, as soon as I learn of any research done in that direction, I'll definitely let you know. As I have already done, in my previous post.

You, on the other hand, have a lot of research done in support of the CO2 theory. So I'm justified to ask whether electric heating has been accounted for. That research exists, which can hardly be said about my side of the debate, with few exceptions.

quote:

Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
The greenhouse has no roof. Greenhouse theory is a poor (but entrenched) analogy for a complex distributed process (mainly) in the tropospheric column.

Actually, it's more than an analogy. This is how the theory was formulated at first, and the basic mechanism behind it remains the same, albeit with a gazillion of small adjustments. By the way, no climate-developing mechanism can be confined to the troposphere alone. The stratosphere always responds (heck, some major periodic oscillations of the stratosphere are guided by waves of tropospheric origin). This, and the fact that it is relatively stable and easier to measure, is why stratospheric data is so important and widely used on all sides of the debate.

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:
You don't get it. If I were a scientist working in that field, presenting a new theory, then yes, I would have to perform a lot of very rigorous research. But that's not what I'm doing. Since I don't have time and money to perform such research on my own, and since, to the best of my knowledge, I wasn't aware of anyone having done such research, the only thing I can do is to make a case for such research to be conducted--which is exactly what I was doing.

On the other hand, as soon as I learn of any research done in that direction, I'll definitely let you know. As I have already done, in my previous post.

So why has the research not been done? It sounds like it should be easy to prove the effect. And I thought this theory has been around for a while? I wonder, has the research in fact been done, but without the results you want?

quote:

You, on the other hand, have a lot of research done in support of the CO2 theory. So I'm justified to ask whether electric heating has been accounted for. That research exists, which can hardly be said about my side of the debate, with few exceptions.

This is a misrepresentation. Research was not done to "support" the CO2, or any other, theory. It was and is done to discover what is happening and why. Again, if the electric effect was real and significant, do you really think it would have been missed all this time?

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
So why has the research not been done? It sounds like it should be easy to prove the effect. And I thought this theory has been around for a while? I wonder, has the research in fact been done, but without the results you want?

Apparently, my earlier post has been deleted by moderators. As you will shortly see, it does reference the available research on the subject, using the CCM SOCOL climate model (both with and without the Joule heating effect, for comparison) and real historical data from the NASA database.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
This is a misrepresentation. Research was not done to "support" the CO2, or any other, theory. It was and is done to discover what is happening and why.

Not according to Channel 4. In fact, it started long ago, with a theoretical hypothesis by Arrhenius. To be fair, we are indebted to the CO2 hypothesis for providing an impetus to advance our understanding of climate and build sophisticated models in record time. Doesn't mean the theory is right, though.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
Again, if the electric effect was real and significant, do you really think it would have been missed all this time?

Because there is a great reluctance in certain areas of science to admit that electricity plays important part in space. Because we are conditioned to think of space as vacuum, for all practical purposes. Because we are conditioned to think in terms of neutral states of matter--solids, liquids, gas. Because, whenever we do see electromagnetic forces in play, we are conditioned to think of them as side-effects of some mechanical processes. Because our children are still being taught that the voltage differential observed in lightnings is produced, across great distances, by water droplets "rubbing off each other" (try it; a hurricane-force wind will not suffice). Because most astrophysicists still think that plasma can "drag" magnetic field along with it, whereas any plasma physicist who's ever worked with real plasmas knows it to be demonstrably wrong.

Long time ago, Alfven conducted an experiment, to see how a stream of plasma would behave upon encountering a bend in magnetic field lines. Some said it would just keep going in the same direction as before, dragging the magnetic field with it (as the astrophysicists' fictional plasma does). Some said it would bend too, to follow the magnetic field lines (as the ideal plasma does). The real plasma did nothing of the sort. The stream turned in the direction opposite to the bend at first, before it was deflected by the magnetic field and made to follow the field lines.

Plasma does not drag magnetic field; it is magnetic field that directs plasma. This is what the "frozen-in" magnetic fields of the ideal magnetohydrodynamics are really about: they're frozen not because they move with plasma, but because ideal plasma cannot but follow them. So what makes the Sun's magnetic field change in time? The same thing that produces it, without which they can't exist in the first place--electric currents.

I could harp and harp on this ad nauseum. But it is time to repost my research references.

Leo

quote:

Originally posted by leokor:
Not according to Channel 4. In fact, it started long ago, with a theoretical hypothesis by Arrhenius. To be fair, we are indebted to the CO2 hypothesis for providing an impetus to advance our understanding of climate and build sophisticated models in record time. Doesn't mean the theory is right, though.

When did Channel 4 say this and if they did, so what? When has a TV channel ever been an authority on the validity of scientific theories?

The theory is "right" in the sense that including it in climate models gives results very close to observations. Omit the theory and you get poor correlation. It is also "right" from basic physics.

quote:

Because there is a great reluctance in certain areas of science to admit that electricity plays important part in space. Because we are conditioned to think of space as vacuum, for all practical purposes. Because we are conditioned to think in terms of neutral states of matter--solids, liquids, gas. Because, whenever we do see electromagnetic forces in play, we are conditioned to think of them as side-effects of some mechanical processes. Because our children are still being taught that the voltage differential observed in lightnings is produced, across great distances, by water droplets "rubbing off each other" (try it; a hurricane-force wind will not suffice). Because most astrophysicists still think that plasma can "drag" magnetic field along with it, whereas any plasma physicist who's ever worked with real plasmas knows it to be demonstrably wrong

Long time ago, Alfven conducted an experiment, to see how a stream of plasma would behave upon encountering a bend in magnetic field lines. Some said it would just keep going in the same direction as before, dragging the magnetic field with it (as the astrophysicists' fictional plasma does). Some said it would bend too, to follow the magnetic field lines (as the ideal plasma does). The real plasma did nothing of the sort. The stream turned in the direction opposite to the bend at first, before it was deflected by the magnetic field and made to follow the field lines.

Plasma does not drag magnetic field; it is magnetic field that directs plasma. This is what the "frozen-in" magnetic fields of the ideal magnetohydrodynamics are really about: they're frozen not because they move with plasma, but because ideal plasma cannot but follow them. So what makes the Sun's magnetic field change in time? The same thing that produces it, without which they can't exist in the first place--electric currents.

I could harp and harp on this ad nauseum. But it is time to repost my research references.

Leo

I need to know more about this, but I'll say from the outset that your claims about the motivations of mainstream science are not convincing.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
When did Channel 4 say this and if they did, so what? When has a TV channel ever been an authority on the validity of scientific theories?

Not on validity, but on history of their development. For more on the history of the greenhouse effect, see:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

It has been driven by "what-if" speculations, for a hefty chunk of its lifetime. Not because, as you claim, we have noticed the global warming and needed to explain it.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
The theory is "right" in the sense that including it in climate models gives results very close to observations. Omit the theory and you get poor correlation. It is also "right" from basic physics.

If the climate depends more on the temperature increase than on the source thereof, it is very easy to fine-tune the hitherto uncertain parameters to fit the data curve, which can often turn into an exercise in circular reasoning if not done carefully. Example: "we don't know the actual value of such-and-such parameter, but if it were equal to such-and-such, then we get a fit; therefore, this is the correct value of the parameter; and therefore, the theory is right."

It appears now that Joule heating is a far more powerful heating force. Yet it was excluded from the models. Says something about the models.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
I need to know more about this, but I'll say from the outset that your claims about the motivations of mainstream science are not convincing.

There is more on this in the "Greenhouse it ain't" thread of this forum.

Leo