Will you stop trolling me?Originally Posted by inow
I asked for the science that proves the formulas for the CO2 forcing. I want something solid that shows x quantity of CO2 produces y energy of forcing. Not the formulas we have seen, but the proof the formulas are correct.
I see. So in the 9 minutes since I shared that link, you have already exhaustively read each and every article contained therein and concluded that there are no equations supporting their numbers?
That's pretty amazing, Wild Cobra. I would have thought it would take that long just to pull up the actual publication for one or two of them, let alone read and comb through them all. I'm truly impressed.
There are a lot of variables which must be taken into account, and you know this. To ask for "one equation" is silly. One must account for numerous systems, and your continued attempts to oversimplify things are precisely what leads to your continued errors on the topic.
You have just proven yourself a troll. You needlessly post a list of links you have posted several time. If you have the answer I'm looking for, give me the single reference, rather than being a troll with information overload.
All you are doing is showing me you don't know squat of what I am speaking of. You repeatedly use this tactic. Posting links, without explaining diddly yourself.
I am absolutely not impressed with you.That's pretty amazing, Wild Cobra. I would have thought it would take that long just to pull up the actual publication for one or two of them, let alone read and comb through them all. I'm truly impressed.
If you don't know the answer to my question, then please don't respond to me with needless BS.
You've offered that link several times. I've read it twice in the past several months. It is not very informative.I see. So in the 9 minutes since I shared that link, you have already exhaustively read each and every article contained therein and concluded that there are no equations supporting their numbers?
That's pretty amazing, Wild Cobra. I would have thought it would take that long just to pull up the actual publication for one or two of them, let alone read and comb through them all. I'm truly impressed.
There are a lot of variables which must be taken into account, and you know this. To ask for "one equation" is silly. One must account for numerous systems, and your continued attempts to oversimplify things are precisely what leads to your continued errors on the topic.
Nice dodge on coming up with real evidence or scientific principles.
I have only found empirical formulas based on GCM output and curve fitting based on historical data correlations. They obtain the results they get by presupposing CO2 caused or causes the degree of warming observed and then they act like they came up with something profound when the formula matches their presumptions. It is known as a tautology.
I can't find it either.Any of you who believe CO2 is anywhere close to what the IPCC says, then please point me to that evidence. Please. I have never been able to find it. Nobody has ever been able to show it to me.
For the second time on this thread alone, to add to the several other links and references and so forth that I and others have gone to the trouble of digging up for you (you being unwilling to conduct even the most rudimentary of searches on your own):
Just the beginning, of course - but those papers start from your apparent starting point, in the 1950s.
Not that I expect any effect. I expect you to slide into this:
That's where all that real world data and observation comes in. The situation, real world weather prediction on a planetary and century scale, is phenomenally (literally) complex, and as in all real science what we end up with is evidence and argument and gradually narrowing uncertainties and a conventional wisdom on what's going on. Not "proof".
And when confronted with the conclusions and provisional consensus derived from this great mass of research and sound argument produced thusly so far, I expect you dismiss them all on the grounds that they assume the various formulas and so forth of the basic "greenhouse" mechanism - and back and forth.
When one checks one's theories and models against real world data, and adjusts accordingly, it's called "science".
Mathematics, not science, is built on tautology. These are not mathematical arguments.
typical avoidance Iceaura. I wouldn't expect anything else. One of the reasons the GCM's do such a poor job of predicting future trends is likely because they are tweaked to match past trend based on presumed effects rather than well understood principles. I 'm not surprised you consider that scientific.
Lot's of words and copious references that answer different questions, Ice but still nothing to indicate that the IPCC predictions are supported by evidence.
Then your elementary mistakes in reasoning and your misdescriptions of it are deliberate lies, and the alignment of them with the talking points of the politically motivated is not a coincidence ?
Let's take a look at a few of them:So: any evidence that you are not simply retailing poorly understood talking points from agenda-driven websites and media manipulations?
Somewhere back in this morass of a thread which I'm not going to wade into, there's a reference to the Institute of Physics statement that "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it [IOP] does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming."
IOP has issued a clarification: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."
IOP will not explain how the misleading statement got out in the first place, which is ironic considering the IOP's main complaint was about lack of transparency. It does appear that a sub-group of a committee of the IOP was "guided" by an energy consultant who works for oil companies, and that the majority of IOP's 36,000 members, and particularly the environmental subcommittee, had no input, nor opportunity to review the statement. That the original statement does not reflect the views of many, or probably an overwhelming majority of its members seems likely.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...iry-submission
We know that already.
Nobody disagrees with that statement. We only disagree to the value of CO2's radiative forcing.In a statement issued today the institute said its written submission to the committee "has been interpreted by some individuals to imply that it does not support the scientific evidence that the rising concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is contributing to global warming."
None of us say the climate is not changing. There is no quantification of the change by CO2. No specification of what out mitigation should be. I see soot as the major AGW component, not CO2. What if I choose their statement to mean that? That is my bias to the statement. Others bias is that CO2 is the major problem. How unscientific to leave that wide open to interpretation...It says: "That is not the case. The institute's position on climate change is clear: the basic science is well enough understood to be sure that our climate is changing, and that we need to take action now to mitigate that change."
Who's saying the science itself is flawed? We disagree with the values of some of the variables, not the science itself.The institute said its critical comments were focused on the scientific process, and "should not be interpreted to mean that the institute believes that the science itself is flawed."
Bunbury, why do people incorrectly assume what we are saying, and what others are saying. Isn't it possible that their latest statements were carefully parsed as not to piss of the AGW crowd?
Here ya go there chief:
At the risk of being chastised, you are a complete idiot!Here ya go there chief:
[charts removed for brevity]
In the context this was written, it is clear I was referring to the IOP not placing a value on the radiative forcing.There is no quantification of the change by CO2
Those charts do nothing to farther this discussion. We know such charts exists. We have seen them so many times in various forms. Those of us who disagree with the values of radiative forcing are completely aware of such charts, and they prove nothing. All you are doing is proving yourself incompetent for these discussions.
What is your purpose of presenting them, other than being a complete troll?
You said:
I see soot as the major AGW component, not CO2.
Yet, according to this study, while important as an influence, soot is not comparable to CO2 in effect... soot is easily secondary to the CO2. How do you respond? Perhaps you'll call me a troll or dismiss the journal Nature as publishing nothing more than propaganda like you usually do.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../409671a0.html
Why don't you stop following me with stupid off track remarks. Look again what I said in context instead of being a jerk.You said:
I see soot as the major AGW component, not CO2.
Yet, according to this study, while important as an influence, soot is not comparable to CO2 in effect... soot is easily secondary to the CO2. How do you respond? Perhaps you'll call me a troll or dismiss the journal Nature as publishing nothing more than propaganda like you usually do.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../409671a0.html
Please stop stalking me. I'm not that way.
Sorry about that then, the GWP of methane is 25 times as strong as an equal amount of carbon dioxide. IOW, carbon dioxide is not a stronger greenhouse gas unless by stronger you mean that it persists in the atmosphere longer.You are wrong. You are talking about the GWP (Global Warming Potential). That is not the same as radiative forcing.
It is not clear to me how you have determined that those running the models had a predetermined view of the outcome.
Is it because science has reached consensus, and thus scientists running models are likely to already hold such a presumptive position?
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/top...iative_forcing
This link has a forum specifically geared towards questions on radiatvie forcing, perhaps you can find the answers that have been so elusive, there.
I see you decided to go with the first of the two options I forecasted. The article directly addresses your claims, regardless of how you feel about me and my contributions here.Why don't you stop following me with stupid off track remarks. Look again what I said in context instead of being a jerk.Yet, according to this study, while important as an influence, soot is not comparable to CO2 in effect... soot is easily secondary to the CO2. How do you respond? Perhaps you'll call me a troll or dismiss the journal Nature as publishing nothing more than propaganda like you usually do.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../409671a0.html
CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it.Sorry about that then, the GWP of methane is 25 times as strong as an equal amount of carbon dioxide. IOW, carbon dioxide is not a stronger greenhouse gas unless by stronger you mean that it persists in the atmosphere longer.You are wrong. You are talking about the GWP (Global Warming Potential). That is not the same as radiative forcing.
These are taken form the IPCC's values, and fit to a logarithmic formula. They are all log curves, and this is an extrapolation assuming the IPCC numbers are correct:
I think where the AGW crowd confuses people is with the GWP number and the linearized slopes from 1750 numbers to 2007 numbers:
You see, the slope of CH4 from 1750 numbers to 2007 numbers are are more than 28 times greater than for CO2. The slope however is ever changing. There is more potential for CH4 to warm, because CO2 farther along the curve than CH4. If we stop at the 1000 ppm point, then CO2 has a radiative forcing of 38.0 watts per square meter. CH4 is at 7.03 and N2O is at 23.8.
Here's another angle to consider. Look at how much volume each gas is capable of absorbing:
Great link. I get this:
Runtime Error
Description: An application error occurred on the server. The current custom error settings for this application prevent the details of the application error from being viewed remotely (for security reasons). It could, however, be viewed by browsers running on the local server machine.
Details: To enable the details of this specific error message to be viewable on remote machines, please create a <customErrors> tag within a "web.config" configuration file located in the root directory of the current web application. This <customErrors> tag should then have its "mode" attribute set to "Off".
<configuration>
<system.web>
<customErrors mode="Off"/>
</system.web>
</configuration>
Notes: The current error page you are seeing can be replaced by a custom error page by modifying the "defaultRedirect" attribute of the application's <customErrors> configuration tag to point to a custom error page URL.
<configuration>
<system.web>
<customErrors mode="RemoteOnly" defaultRedirect="mycustompage.htm"/>
</system.web>
</configuration>
I have pointed out in the past that that is a pay for service. You know I cannot access it without paying, and I won't pay, especially since you routinely link material that does not apply to the argument at hand.I see you decided to go with the first of the two options I forecasted. The article directly addresses your claims, regardless of how you feel about me and my contributions here.Why don't you stop following me with stupid off track remarks. Look again what I said in context instead of being a jerk.Yet, according to this study, while important as an influence, soot is not comparable to CO2 in effect... soot is easily secondary to the CO2. How do you respond? Perhaps you'll call me a troll or dismiss the journal Nature as publishing nothing more than propaganda like you usually do.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../409671a0.html
I know that the AGW crowd says soot has less radiative forcing than CO2. My question remains. What proof is there that the formulas used to quantify radiative forcing are correct? I can find formulas, but how are they derives other than SWAG?
If your Nature link provides that answer, then why can you not quote it?
Again, if you are incapable of providing the answer I seek, then please just go away.
Here you go:I have pointed out in the past that that is a pay for service. You know I cannot access it without paying, and I won't pay, especially since you routinely link material that does not apply to the argument at hand.I see you decided to go with the first of the two options I forecasted. The article directly addresses your claims, regardless of how you feel about me and my contributions here.Why don't you stop following me with stupid off track remarks. Look again what I said in context instead of being a jerk.Yet, according to this study, while important as an influence, soot is not comparable to CO2 in effect... soot is easily secondary to the CO2. How do you respond? Perhaps you'll call me a troll or dismiss the journal Nature as publishing nothing more than propaganda like you usually do.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../409671a0.html
The dark side of aerosols
Meinrat O. Andreae
Abstract
According to new modelling calculations, black carbon in the atmosphere exerts a large warming influence on global climate. Curbing emissions of this pollutant may be advisable both on climate and on human health grounds.
For a while, it looked so simple: greenhouse gases warm the Earth and sulphate aerosols cool it down. Because aerosol particles in the atmosphere scatter sunlight back into space, they reduce the amount of energy that the planet absorbs, keeping it cooler in much the same way as a coat of light paint keeps a car cooler than does dark paint. But this simplistic view ignores the fact that aerosol particles in the real world are not white but grey, mostly because they contain soot particles from the incomplete combustion of fuels. And the darker grey the particles are, the more solar energy they can absorb, heating the atmosphere. On page 695 of this issue1, Mark Z. Jacobson draws our attention to that dark side of atmospheric aerosols — he proposes that the warming effect from black carbon in aerosols may balance the cooling effect of the sulphate component, the largest single contributor to aerosol cooling.
It has been known for quite some time that aerosols can absorb solar radiation, and that their radiative effect — cooling or warming — depends on the proportion of light scattered to that absorbed2. But although light scattering by aerosols can be measured and modelled fairly accurately, the assessment of the radiative effects of black carbon has remained a challenge for both modellers and experimentalists. It is not uncommon for black-carbon measurements with different techniques to vary by a factor of two, mostly because black carbon is actually a mixture of graphite-like particles and light-absorbing organic matter. Many techniques are not selective enough to distinguish between these components.
Direct optical measurements of aerosol light-absorption are also problematic3. They typically start with the collection of aerosols on a filter; as a result, the optical properties of the particles are changed by contact with the filter material, or with one another. Only one instrument, the photoacoustic spectrometer, directly measures the light absorption of particles suspended in the atmosphere, but it has not yet been widely used. Finally, lack of a generally accepted calibration procedure is a problem affecting all measurements of black carbon and light absorption.
These methodological difficulties have made it difficult to answer the key questions about black carbon: where does it come from, how much of it is emitted, how is it distributed in the atmosphere and what are its radiative effects? We know that the main sources are the burning of biomass and fossil fuels (Fig. 1), but there are large uncertainties in estimating the magnitude of either of them. Without quantitative tools to determine aerosol absorption worldwide by remote sensing, our knowledge of the global distribution of black carbon remains inadequate. An illustration is the 1999 discovery of the 'Indian plume' by the INDOEX project4, which showed massive amounts of black carbon being emitted from southern Asia, adding maybe as much as 25% to the previously known global sources of this pollutant.
Figure 1: Vehicle fumes, a source of black carbon.
Knowledge of the global amount and distribution of black carbon is poor, and severely hampers attempts to assess its radiative effect.
High resolution image and legend (56K)
Clearly, then, our poor knowledge of the amount and whereabouts of atmospheric black carbon severely hampers our ability to assess its radiative effect. Given this situation, Jacobson1 works with the best current knowledge or assumptions, imperfect though they may be, about the sources of black carbon. He uses them as input for a global model that predicts black carbon's global distribution. But to derive the resulting effects on climate, he finds that precise knowledge is needed about exactly how black carbon is mixed with other particles in the aerosol.
The mixing state that Jacobson considers most plausible is that of a black-carbon core aggregated with other aerosol components. For this, his model calculates a global-mean radiative warming of 0.55 W m-2, as compared with the International Panel on Climate Change estimates5 of 0.47 W m-2 for CH4 (methane) and 1.56 W m-2 for CO2 (carbon dioxide). If research investment were to be scaled by climate impact, these figures would suggest that resources at the level of about one-third of those now devoted to carbon-cycle research should go into black-carbon studies — a staggering thought!
But is it reasonable to compare the present-day effects of black carbon, which has a lifetime of about a week, to that of the long-lived greenhouse gases, which have lifetimes of decades or centuries? The accepted way to compare the climate impact of a chemical species emitted to the atmosphere is using 'global warming potentials', which relate the species' radiative effects over a given time to those of CO2. This may be a difficult exercise to carry out for black carbon, given that its lifetime, and also its distribution, are so different from those of CO2. But it is clear that black carbon's impact is most important on short timescales, whereas those of CH4 and CO2 reach much farther into the future.
In this short lifetime, however, lies a possible advantage: if we could somehow stop emitting black carbon today, it would be gone from the atmosphere in a week or two. This is only a thought experiment, of course: in the real world, the black-carbon burden of the atmosphere can only decrease as fast as human society manages to curb black- carbon emissions.
Beyond these climate-related issues, black carbon also differs from the greenhouse gases by being an air pollutant that harms human health. This combination of characteristics — significant effects on climate, short lifetime and toxic consequences — has led Hansen et al.6 to propose that consideration should be given to taking urgent action to reduce black-carbon emissions. But an essential first step is that we make every effort to reduce uncertainties about this pollutant's sources, its chemical and physical properties, and its radiative effects in the atmosphere.
References
1. Jacobson, M. Z. Nature 409, 695–697 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
2. Charlson, R. J. & Pilat, M. J. J. Appl. Meteorol. 10, 1001–1002 (1969). | Article |
3. Heintzenberg, J. et al. Contrib. Atmos. Phys. 70, 249–263 (1997).
4. Novakov, T. et al. Geophys. Res. Lett. 27, 4061–4064 (2000). | Article | ISI | ChemPort |
5. Houghton, J. T. et al. (eds) Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
6. Hansen, J. , Sato, M. , Ruedy, R. , Lacis, A. & Oinas, V. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 9875–9880 (2000). | Article | PubMed | ChemPort |
Let's drill down on one of these. Your choice. I think its's time to analize the evidence. Your accusations supported only by sound bites are getting old.Then your elementary mistakes in reasoning and your misdescriptions of it are deliberate lies, and the alignment of them with the talking points of the politically motivated is not a coincidence ?
I offered the five summaries of evidence that supports my arguments and you dropped in the sound bites as a response. Your words are easy to write. You can write anything really. However, they are empty if you can't dispell the evidence I have offered. I'll adress each one. If you have a specific complaint about evidence mentioned in this summary point it out and I will offer the evidence directly. Your handwaving is making me dizzy.
Untrue. The paper provided offers copious examples of actual causes including failure to correctly adjust long operating stations for urban influences, dropping stations that report cooler temperature and then integrating the warmer station data over larger geographical areas, improper adjustments for instrument calibrations, and a host of additional issues. Can you offer a specific error in the analysis?1. Evidence that surface instrument compilations contain a strong warming bias after 1989. Nobody here has shown that to be in error.
{Nobody has shown it to be a plausible description of the trends, either. Too much supporting evidence for a heat wave. And it's a talking point from the politically motivated.}
Rember also that neither I nor the researchers nor the authors are disputing the general warming trend from 1650 through the 2000's, yet you seem to imply we are. The the paper disputes the degree of warming particularly after 1989. This is important because known sources of climate trends account for the trend through the 1970's but surface instrument trends deviate in the mid 1980's through the present. It is unusual untill one includes this bias, then it makes complete sense.
I have not disputed satellite trends (poisoning the well here), however the calibration problems in the past were real and have been mostly corrected. Actually the normal aproach is to use all validated sources, set aside all that have issues, and focus on correcting them so you can use them in confidence.1a. Evidence that satellite proxy readings of lower atmospheric temperatures are a far better estimate of global temperature trends after 1978.
{Another talking point. A few years ago the calibration problems with the satellites were the topic of these "manipulated data" accusations. The normal approach would be to not choose any one (inevitably limited and incomplete) data set and discard the others, but use them all. )
Nonsense. It is quite relevant to use past behavior to explain current trends. Historically, changes in CO2 concentration did not drive or significantly influence global temperatures, those who respect known and understood patterns should be skeptical of the claim that current physical behaviors are now different. To do so is a violation of the principle of uniformatism. Instead one must show that current behavior is the same as in the past but the conditions existing today have never previously occured. Unfortunately, past data shows CO2 concentrations in excess of 2000 ppm with no significant corresponding warming overprint.2. Evidence that surface temperature is and has been the primary driver of atmospheric CO2 concentration for hundreds of thousands of years.
{Irrelevant political talking point. Either you don't understand the "theory", or you are deliberately spamming us with this one.}
Neither. The statement is correct. rather than waving it off, demonstrate where it is false. Please provide data to support your claim. By the way, previously I offered two reviewed and published papers and some articles summarizing them.3. Evidence that current GCM's violate 90% of the basic sound principles of forecasting and are far less accurate (7.7 times) at predicting future temperature trends than simple models based on sound forecasting principles. {Either statistical incompetence on your part, or a deliberate spam from the talking point website you linked originally.}
Not at all. The data supports the notion that the recent upward trend in global temperatures is real and it is significant and it is an artifact primarly of known causes that have occured in the recent past. It counters the argument and unsupported claim that AGW provides a temperature overprint in excess of a few tenths of a degree. To dispose of this you need to show that the data does not correlate.4. Evidence that variations in solar patterns and the influence it has on natural oscillations in earth systems provide a historical pattern of correlation many times stronger than correlations between the current CO2 pattern from 1800 forward which has been altered by human activity. {Again basically irrelevant. Again a confused use of statistics. Again a talking point.}
Several reports associate recent temperature cycles to medium and long term ocean oscillations, and atmospheric interactions of flourocarbons and other aerosols. These cycles can account for the periodic short term (10-30 year) deviations in the long term correlation between solar and celestial influences. But let's address your claim that CO2 boosting is supported by evidence. Provide a temperature value for CO2 caused boosting since 1800 in degrees centigrade and then support your claim with evidence that points unequivically to CO2.5. Evidence that other natural and human influences account for the 0.4C deviation in temperature present between 1983 and 2007. {Empty assertion. The evidence and argument for any given proposed such "influence", any actual and specific claim, is very weak, compared with the evidence and arguments for CO2 boosting being the major driver}
It is not clear to me how you have determined that those running the models had a predetermined view of the outcome.
Is it because science has reached consensus, and thus scientists running models are likely to already hold such a presumptive position?
I would hope that model writers would not incorporate presumption of physical effects in modeling. In my work we use models regularly but we use models of known and understood physical influences. Our presumptions are generally around the specific configurations which are generaly hard to know. In the case of GCM's the science of the effects are not understood.
That's the stuff that the research in the 1950s, which I have linked for you several times, showed to be misleading. The people warning us about the effects of the CO2 boost are using more recent analyses and researches (post WWII), which address the real atmosphere rather than laboratory tubes of gas under standard temperature and pressure.
Sure. It was all hypothetical - the actual analysis was not addressed, merely some suggestions made as to how it might have gone wrong based on (misrepresented, but who cares) aspects of its process. Meanwhile, there's a huge pile of evidence from other sources - everything from ecological to economic - indicating that it did not in fact go wrong.
All sources have issues.
To inform the explanation, you mean. Simply pointing to past behavior explains nothing - not even the past behavior.
Bullshit.No, it doesn't.
That's the stuff I laughed at before. LInk it again, and I'll debunk it again - that was the data supporting my claim that you were full of shit before, and it will do as many times as you want to make that claim again.
That it does not correlate has been shown many times, by inow and others, with simple graphs of the measured temperatures and so forth. Your counter, in the past, has been to invoke "lags" and other mysteries that conveniently account for exactly the lack of correlation observed.
Like this:Maybe they "can", but they haven't yet been successfully employed for that purpose. Meanwhile, the apparent CO2 boost influence just keeps cooking along underneath all the known cycles and measured "oscillations".
Do you check your models? What if they produce results that disagree with physical measurements - do you adjust them, and if so how?
I am curious why you think the scientists hold a presumptive position when it comes to climate modeling.It is not clear to me how you have determined that those running the models had a predetermined view of the outcome.
Is it because science has reached consensus, and thus scientists running models are likely to already hold such a presumptive position?
I would hope that model writers would not incorporate presumption of physical effects in modeling. In my work we use models regularly but we use models of known and understood physical influences. Our presumptions are generally around the specific configurations which are generaly hard to know. In the case of GCM's the science of the effects are not understood.
He thinks they set up the models to give the results they want them to give. He thinks they do this and nobody but him and his denier buddies can see it. He goes on to say that they don't do it on purpose, but out of sheer incompitence. He bases alot of this on how he himself goes about creating short term models for his company's purposes.
Thanks, KALSTER, but I'll speak for myself. I'm sure you don't know my thoughts as well as I do.I am curious why you think the scientists hold a presumptive position when it comes to climate modeling.
Uniform experience tells me that everyone has biases that they bring to their work. It is very difficult to put them aside, and when one is dealing with complex systems with low understanding of the interactions, it is easy to let intuition and presumption guide you. It is human nature to have prior commitments and climate scientists are no different.
I don't think that others are blind to this reality. But when conclusions confirm bias, most people have a tendency to accept them easier. this tendency is not a result of incompetence.
Sure it is. Letting bias interfere with objective science is incompetence. And you are painting a lot of people with this brush.this tendency is not a result of incompetence.
What part of "actual causes" did you miss? Did you even read the article? Have a closer look and you will see that it deals with actual data, actual processing and results. It is not hypothetical.Sure. It was all hypothetical - the actual analysis was not addressed, merely some suggestions made as to how it might have gone wrong based on (misrepresented, but who cares) aspects of its process.
Here is the article again.
Then why will you not offer up your best evidence that AGW has, can or ever will influence global temperature by the 2-3 degree centigrade figure the IPCC claims?Meanwhile, there's a huge pile of evidence from other sources - everything from ecological to economic - indicating that it did not in fact go wrong.
Here is a new paper that independently corroborates the the previous paper and further suggests the surface instrument compilations contain bias. It looks at the divergence between satellite troposphere readings and surface compilations. It notes that the divergence is land based and suggests reasons for the divergence. It does not recommend your stick your head in the sand, "all sources have issues" approach, rather it suggests that the problem be corrected.All sources have issues.
Reference please.Bullshit.
In the mean time I offer this graphic, website and the numerous published papers supporting it that demonstrates a very different picture of recent atmospheric CO2 verses temperatures between 1800 and 2000. This evidence also supports the view that even recent temperature trends drive atmospheric CO2 and not the other way around.
Reference and explanation please.No, it doesn't.
Here it is.That's the stuff I laughed at before. LInk it again, and I'll debunk it again - that was the data supporting my claim that you were full of shit before, and it will do as many times as you want to make that claim again.
Be specific and focus on my claims about forecasting principles and the fact that the simple model is 7,7 times as accurate as GCM's. Refrain from the red herring side issues you normally employ.
Here is a good example of the poor correlation generated by GCM's
I'll address the rest of your unsupported misinformation in the unlikely event you digest this.
Thank-You
As I suspected. It has nothing to do with my question. Inow is just giving me BS again.
First, I'll just say that you deserve all the BS you get because you are stubbornly resistant to information which shows your position fallacious... You dismiss scientific study as propaganda, and you use simplified models of complex systems to pretend that the consensus by the experts is wrong or based on conspiracy.
With that said, I was addressing your point about soot being more of a relevant factor in the current warming trend than is CO2. You'll notice that I quoted the specific bit of what you were saying prior to responding. The article shows that CO2 impact is greater than soot impact, thus clearly demonstrating how false your position is.
I'm sorry if you don't like being shown to be mistaken, but that does not mean I'm trolling or giving you BS as you continue to falsely assert. Take care. I look forward to your next attempt to move the goalposts.
Are you saying that climate science (and science) is comparable to business models?Thanks, KALSTER, but I'll speak for myself. I'm sure you don't know my thoughts as well as I do.I am curious why you think the scientists hold a presumptive position when it comes to climate modeling.
Uniform experience tells me that everyone has biases that they bring to their work. It is very difficult to put them aside, and when one is dealing with complex systems with low understanding of the interactions, it is easy to let intuition and presumption guide you. It is human nature to have prior commitments and climate scientists are no different.
inow did not post it in response to your question but rather to your assertion that soot is comparable to CO2. The article outlines ways in which CO2 and soot are not comparable.Thank-You
As I suspected. It has nothing to do with my question. Inow is just giving me BS again.
The article also discusses the relationship between GWP and radiative forcing, which appear to be directly linear (if not in a 1:1 correspondence, which is unclear). Thus a 25 fold greater effect in GWP of CH4 over CO2 should in fact mean a greater radiative forcing by methane than by CO2. Thank you for your earlier graphs.
the article is a letter, not an article per se, and thus does not represent primary science but rather a synthesis of several primary sources, which are referenced. I would not call it BS.
I have said before, I believe these studies are based on flawed premises to begin with.
Yes, but as you know, I disagree with the radiative forcing assigned to CO2 and am all but certain it is lower than the radiative forcing of soot. What good does an article do that does not allow peer review? At least I explain my thoughts as to why. What is their data and methodology?
I was making a relative statement. One that still hinges on the accuracy of formulas assigned to derive CO2 radiative forcing. When they finally realize CO2 has less a forcing than it is assigned, it will be published as less than soot.
OK, I am wrong by consensus. Consensus is not science.
You act as if I haven't seen such assessments before. I keep insisting on data that can be tested, but you always offer articles that just sing the same tune rather than ones with factual data and methodology.
I'm sorry you are incapable of supplying the information I ask, but pretend you do.
That's why I have asked you not to respond to my questions if you don't have a proper answer. That's why I consider you a troll. You repeatedly offer information I already know, and pretend you are offering a service, then say I am too stupid to understand.
How many times have I asked for data and methodology?
If you want me to stop seeing you as a troll, then stop repeating information and links I am already aware of and that you know I am aware of. Realize that I am skeptical. Show me something that dispels my skepticism. The more you are only capable of regurgitating the same material, the more it strengthens my idea that you guys on the AGW side don't know what you are talking about...
1. Jacobson, M. Z. Nature 409, 695–697 (2001). | Article | PubMed | ISI | ChemPort |
Yes, but as you know, I disagree with the radiative forcing assigned to CO2 and am all but certain it is lower than the radiative forcing of soot. What good does an article do that does not allow peer review? At least I explain my thoughts as to why. What is their data and methodology?
The letter references articles (peer-reviewed, with methodology) and it seems that you are looking for the one above.
the journal Nature often has a 'news and views' section for readers who do not wish to wade through the techincal details. If you wish to read the technical details you then go to the primary articles.
As posting the articels is likely to be a breech of copyright I am leery of doing so again, but this is not an evasion. You may be able to request the articles at your library, which will often subscribe to high-profile journals including Nature.
Yes, I know. However, it is the question of the formula validity for CO2 forcing I repeatedly asked for, and he knows it. The articles showing difference in CO2 and CH4 portrayed by the IPCC and others doesn't matter if one of the formulas are wrong. I make one offhand remark about soot being a greater AGW threat than CO2, and he wants to stick to articles saying I am wrong, rather than my root concern... the accuracy of radiative forcing assessments.
Well, I think that is coincidental since part of the GWP is estimated lifetime.
wiki: GWP:
The GWP depends on the following factors:
* the absorption of infrared radiation by a given species
* the spectral location of its absorbing wavelengths
* the atmospheric lifetime of the speciesEven if a gas absorbs radiation efficiently at a certain wavelength, this may not affect its GWP much if the atmosphere already absorbs most radiation at that wavelength.Ooops... look at the link for the formulas.The radiative forcing capacity (RF) is the amount of energy per unit area, per unit time, absorbed by the greenhouse gas, that would otherwise be lost to space. It can be expressed by the formula:
RF = \sum_{n=1}^{100} Abs_i * F_i / (path length * density)
where the subscript i represents an interval of 10 inverse centimeters. Absi represents the integrated infrared absorbance of the sample in that interval, and Fi represents the RF for that interval.[verification needed]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides the generally accepted values for GWP, which changed slightly between 1996 and 2001. An exact definition of how GWP is calculated is to be found in the IPCC's 2001 Third Assessment Report. The GWP is defined as the ratio of the time-integrated radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace substance relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas:
GWP \left(x\right) = \frac{\int_0^{TH} a_x \cdot \left[x(t)\right] dt} {\int_0^{TH} a_r \cdot \left[r(t)\right] dt}
There is also a nice writeup on GWP on page 385 of TAR. Text (without the formula which will screw up):
The GWP has been defined as the ratio of the time-integrated
radiative forcing from the instantaneous release of 1 kg of a trace
substance relative to that of 1 kg of a reference gas (IPCC, l990):
---formula---
where TH is the time horizon over which the calculation is
considered, ax is the radiative efficiency due to a unit increase
in atmospheric abundance of the substance in question (i.e.,
Wm−2 kg−1), [x(t)] is the time-dependent decay in abundance of
the instantaneous release of the substance, and the corresponding
quantities for the reference gas are in the denominator. The GWP
of any substance therefore expresses the integrated forcing of a
pulse (of given small mass) of that substance relative to the
integrated forcing of a pulse (of the same mass) of the reference
gas over some time horizon. The numerator of Equation 6.2 is the
absolute (rather than relative) GWP of a given substance, referred
to as the AGWP. The GWPs of various greenhouse gases can then
be easily compared to determine which will cause the greatest
integrated radiative forcing over the time horizon of interest. The
direct relative radiative forcings per ppbv are derived from
infrared radiative transfer models based on laboratory measurements
of the molecular properties of each substance and considering
the molecular weights.No, it means that at that a specific added number of molecules or mass will influence the life looked at by such a factor.
Keep in mind, assuming the IPCC's numbers are accurate, then my graphs are pretty close. They clearly show both N2O and CH4 to be weaker greenhouse gasses than CO2. What if CO2 and N2O should be as low as CH4 on the graph?
I just referenced data from SAR, TAR, and AR4. In TAR, table 6.7 on page 388, they list Radiative efficiency. CO2 is 0.01548 Wm−2 ppmv−1, (1.548e-5 for ppb) CH4 is 3.7e-4, and N2O at 3.1e-3. AR4 table 2.14 page 33 has the values as 1.4e-5 for CO2, 3.7e-4 for CH4, and 3.03e-3 for N2O These correspond pretty close to the instantaneous slopes on my excel sheet I generated the graphs from. At 379 ppm, I get a slope of 1.45e-5 for CO2. At 278 ppm, this slope is 1.97e-5. I get a slope of 3.664e-4 for CH4 at 1774 ppb and 5.876e-4 at 730 ppb. I didn't add the trendline to my N2O graph, but I'll bet it is close to the IPCC Radiative Efficiency as well.
You cannot base actual radiative forcing potential by GWP numbers, or instantaneous slop of a non-linear curve.
What I call BS is the amount they all assign to radiative forcing of CO2.
How long has this science supposedly been settled? In SAR, the IPCC assigned CO2 for at 1.56 watts/square meter forcing above 1750 levels. In TAR, they revised this to 1.46, then increased it again to 1.66 in AR4. Now they revised it downward again to 1.56 watts. At the same time, I didn't see a figure for soot by itself in SAR or TAR, but AR4 quantified it at 0.1 The recent IPCC revision now has it at 0.47, and the linked article increases it to 0.55.
The trends tell me that they are guessing on CO2. This is in no way a settled science. With a total forcing of 1.6, how can soot be increased by .45 and only have CO2 downgraded by 0.1?
We will see in the future. When they finally get it right, and assign the solar forcing to around 0.8 higher than the 0.12 they currently give it, how much more will the CO2 forcing have to be reduced to allow for this? Remember, they only reveal the "direct radiative forcing" for solar energy, and it is the driving force of energy of which greenhouse gasses are a feedback to the energy.
---found while looking for something else, TAR page 356:
1.5% more absorption for doubling of CO2... seems to help my arguments that the radiative forcing assigned is wrong...They found a rather small effect due to the additional
lines, less than a 5% effect for the radiative forcing of the cited
gases and less than 1.5% for a doubling of CO2.
Maybe I'll find time to go and look it up. I'm am very skeptical of it having what I seek however.
Agreed. I simply wish Inow would stop posting stuff that isn't doing any good. At least i explain my links, without just tossing out multiple links as he does.
I definitely understand and respect that aspect. Still, if the peer review process is to be transparent like it should be, then it shouldn't be hidden by copyrights. That's one reason why I doubt I will find my answers there.
I frankly don't care how you see me, as I don't really hold you in high regard. I will also note that the surest way to keep me poking at you and intentionally trying to piss you off is to keep calling me a troll and telling me not to. I'm happy to ignore you most of the time, but will respond to your more ridiculous comments... especially when they pertain to me personally.
Thank you for admitting to purposely trying to antagonize me, and you wonder why I call you a troll.I frankly don't care how you see me, as I don't really hold you in high regard. I will also note that the surest way to keep me poking at you and intentionally trying to piss you off is to keep calling me a troll and telling me not to. I'm happy to ignore you most of the time, but will respond to your more ridiculous comments... especially when they pertain to me personally.
Isn't that ground to be booted?
Peer review refers to the review of articles by peers in the field prior to publication, not to review by the general public. there is no copyright during the peer review portion of (pre)publication, as the article in question is not yet published.
You seem to be talking about post-publication review by the general public, which is not the same thing at all.
Peer review is also suppose to be reviewed by those who are skeptical, but then convinced by the data and method. I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen on any AGW paper, and why they make their root data so hard to find.Peer review refers to the review of articles by peers in the field prior to publication, not to review by the general public. there is no copyright during the peer review portion of (pre)publication, as the article in question is not yet published.
You seem to be talking about post-publication review by the general public, which is not the same thing at all.
Perhaps. It is similarly difficult to find peers skeptical of evolution, when submitting to an evolutionary journal. Some viewpoints are not widely held amongst the scientifioc community.
I don't think so, and certainly not science in general.Are you saying that climate science (and science) is comparable to business models?
I doubt the difficulty is in finding dissenting viewpoints. A university project in Oregon has nearly 32,000 individuals with various degrees in science fields on a list of those who dissent from the IPPC position on AGW. Clearly the issue is elsewhere.
Actually the article claimed that CO2 impact is greater than soot impact, however nowhere in the article was it "shown" or demonstrated to be factually correct. The distinction between fact and claim is something you trip over continuously.
It is failure to make this distinction that is at the root of the issue with AGW theory. We have noted over and over that AGW in the magnitude bandied around by the IPCC and advocates is not supported by factual evidence.
Except, it is.
Yes, the elusive evidence nobody here seems able to produce. We have seen copious amounts of evidence to suggests AGW has and can cause impacts between -0.1 and +0.4 degrees Celsius, but so far no evidence that it exceeds this level.
[quote="cypress"]Actually this has been calcualated and a link posted to you already. I actually read the link but it seems you havent.
You see different GHG absorb different spectra so it is possible to measure how much longwave radiation different GHGs absorb by measuring the spectra of light being reemitted to the surface and escaping the atmosphere in comparison to that incoming from space.
One of the graphs you posted even shows this quite clearly.
You will need truly Blairlike abilities to get out of this one.Temperature historically drives CO2. You are trying to pull a fast one.
So how do you explain those examples in history where there has been a high CO2 content but low temperature - you cant have it both ways. Or is it that climate science is a bit more complicated than you thought ?
reply from Wild Cobra : Could be errors in the proxy, errors in collecting the cores or errors in processing them. Could be other conditions occurring at that time that influenced the proxy. Could be you nitpicking at insignificant statistical anomalies. Please show us these failures to correlate along with the statistical significance of the deviation. I suspect it will not be significant when taken as a whole.
I refer you to a comment you yourself make later on in this thread :
seeing as you are contradicting yourself how can anyone else take you seriously ? Or am I getting confused I originally wrote this to Wild Cobra and you answered . Either way if you guys could get your heads together and decide whether you think there has been high CO2 and cooling at the same timne or not. If you agree there has then how do you explain low temperature levels and high CO2 if temperature drives CO2. (I suspect it will have the same explanation as vice versa)Unfortunately, past data shows CO2 concentrations in excess of 2000 ppm with no significant corresponding warming overprint.
Actually I think it was the Ordovician (cant remmeber can look it up) where there were cool temperatures but high CO2.
Oh - so replacing the fossil fuel industry with renewables and alternatives will completely overturn society will it ? Who do you work for again ? No really I would like to know the name of the company.
It is profoundly irresponsible to completely overturn society for nothing.
I suspect the economic terrors changing to renewable energies are exagerated by the fossil fuel industry.Nope, I suspect you have no understanding of global economics and the turmoil caused by acting without cause.
So the only logical conclusion is that you are being deliberately misleading.Actually I am very qualified in environmental and atmospheric science.
Firstly we know that CO2 is absorbing infrared radiation from the absorbtion/emmission of certain speactra a already measured . How much is simply a matter of calcualting how much is being absorbed and what effect this will have over time as has already been shown in the links posted to you (I will dig it out later).
Actually I understand them well. I generally agree with a large percentage of the papers I have read, I just don't find that they address this particular question. They make all sorts of valid conclusions, but they do not demonstrate that AGW will ever have an impact of the 2-3C the IPCC claims. I have not seen any good evidence to support the concerns being raised by you. Again please offer a list and we will discuss them.
So - I have to say as a layman reading through this argument I have to say I find you guys arent reading the links that are being posted to you and are relying on sophistry and pedantry to stay alive in this forum. I can only reach the conclusion that you are deliberately trying to spread confusion.
Your insistence that those pages of speculation are analysis of process or data confirms rather my opinion of your qualifications in this matter, which are rather different than your claims.
Just one example: the article purports to argue from a geographical bias in dropped reporting stations to a consequent bias in reported temperature averages, without ever considering the reasons for the dropping, the actual data effects of the dropping, or the subsequent methods for arriving at the new averages. That is rank speculation, not any dealing with actual data, processing, or results. It spends several pages on this handwaving and guesswork, a large percentage of its argument and conclusions.
Which doesn't deal with the point - you want to drop data you think has issues, and use other data that also has issues. Your criteria is mysterious.
Meanwhile: Your new paper attributes the divergence between surface and satellite measurements to a few possibilities, the most frequently mentioned being more clouds, a predicted possiblity of CO2 boosting for which there is little corroborating data, and greenhouse gas warming, which is well established as a likely consequence of CO2 boosting.
It also corroborates my earlier observations, which you claimed to see no evidence for, of greater warming at night and at high latitudes - both features of the data that conflict with attributions to solar flux as a major cause of the measured warming. And we see that solar flux variation is not mentioned as a reasonable explanation of the patterns in the data.
It doesn't seem to do that. Where does that interpretation come from?
Specifically? For starters, the paper deals with "forecasting" in general, with examples of forecasting in various fields unrelated to climate - which it then relates to climate, in some abstract sense we can summarize as "predicting the future is often tricky, and people make lots of mistakes". It uses examples such as Malthus's apparently mistaken - or perhaps merely postponed - predictions of starvation from population growth. The relevance of this to predicting that doubling the CO2 in the air will have significant effects, probably the ones most directly predicted by physics as well as others, is unclear.
It then searches for climate related forecasts by Googling for names of "experts" and getting 50 of 250 or so to provide examples - from weather to yearly rainfall, which it then evaluates as "correct" or not by some criteria or another not always specified. It finds that experts make mistakes, and forecasts are uncertain.
It then observes the uncertainty of climate forecasts, and concludes that because they are uncertain the best prediction is that there will be no significant changes from the current boosting of CO2 concentration. It regards the predictions of climate models as very uncertain, and therefore not worth attending or using to guide policy. It does not regard the default prediction as requiring support - the null hypothesis is status quo, by assumption.
Your simple model was auto-correlated, based on the fact that one year's temps affect the next year's. I recall that from your earlier post - the data isn't in this one AFAIK. And you don't bother to specify what it's 7.7 times as accurate at doing.
And to add a bit of comedy, you posted it right next to this link you've repeated here, which goes to some pains to refute the notion that fitting one's curve to past data improves the accuracy of predictions in the absence of mechanism - which the "7.7 times as accurate" simple model conspicuously lacked.
But hey, you are highly qualified, so no doubt I'm missing something.
True enough, I am very familiar with principles of radiative heat transfer in stratified mixed gas layers. But heat transfer mechanisms in the atmosphere behave differently from the theoretical results obtained by simple integration of radiative emission and absorption of a single trace component over variable height, concentration and temperature profile. The reason is that there are a number of competing mechanisms that are capable of radically altering the simple theoretical model. You can get the order of magnitude and general behavior but it it important to recognize that this is a theoretical model as opposed to objective evidence of actual atmospheric behavior.Actually this has been calcualated and a link posted to you already. I actually read the link but it seems you havent.
You see different GHG absorb different spectra so it is possible to measure how much longwave radiation different GHGs absorb by measuring the spectra of light being reemitted to the surface and escaping the atmosphere in comparison to that incoming from space.
One of the graphs you posted even shows this quite clearly.
Let's explore this a little further though. From this analysis and assuming the model accurately represents actual behavior, what temperature increase can you predict from this model for an increase of CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm? Also after compensating for temperature driven increases in CO2, what is the net human addition in CO2 since 1800?
So you understand where I am heading with this, after adjusting for human contribution to CO2 increases and applying the theoretical model to empirical data we end up with an impact that is far less than the 2-3 degree impact claimed by the IPCC.
You will need truly Blairlike abilities to get out of this one.So how do you explain those examples in history where there has been a high CO2 content but low temperature - you cant have it both ways. Or is it that climate science is a bit more complicated than you thought ?Temperature historically drives CO2. You are trying to pull a fast one.
reply from Wild Cobra {actually these are my words (cypress)} : Could be errors in the proxy, errors in collecting the cores or errors in processing them. Could be other conditions occurring at that time that influenced the proxy. Could be you nitpicking at insignificant statistical anomalies. Please show us these failures to correlate along with the statistical significance of the deviation. I suspect it will not be significant when taken as a whole.
I refer you to a comment you yourself make later on in this thread :
seeing as you are contradicting yourself how can anyone else take you seriously ?
I fail to see the contradiction. "Warming overprint" refers to a CO2 GHG generated heating bais on top of a normal warming pattern consistent with much lower CO2 concentrations (<500 ppm). I am sorry that I was not clear enough for you to understand what I am saying.
Confused seems like the right term.Or am I getting confused I originally wrote this to Wild Cobra and you answered .
I won't speak for WC. Personally I doubt there have been many cases of high CO2 along with significant cooling under circumstances that are presently or recently in operation. The infrequent cases, I believe are explained by the situations I described when I answered your question previously. You claim there have been these situations and I asked to see the data. I have reviewed the historical proxies and I don't see this behavior any time over the past 400,000 years. I don't think conditions on the earth prior to 400,000 years ago are very relevant to today's situation but if you disagree let's hear your argument.Either way if you guys could get your heads together and decide whether you think there has been high CO2 and cooling at the same timne or not. If you agree there has then how do you explain low temperature levels and high CO2 if temperature drives CO2. (I suspect it will have the same explanation as vice versa)
Actually I think it was the Ordovician (cant remmeber can look it up) where there were cool temperatures but high CO2.
Not hardly. It is going to happen eventually. Energy companies will adapt or wither and die. It is part of the economic cycle. The upset to society occurs by manipulation of the normal process and the abrupt and rapid changes in established economic patterns.Oh - so replacing the fossil fuel industry with renewables and alternatives will completely overturn society will it ?
It is profoundly irresponsible to completely overturn society for nothing.
I work for a global energy company that agrees with your point of view and is rapidly taking steps to alter its energy portfolio. I don't wish to post personal informationWho do you work for again ? No really I would like to know the name of the company.
Another is that you are deluded into thinking the evidence that indicates modest AGW is evidence for significant and dangerous global warming.So the only logical conclusion is that you are being deliberately misleading.Actually I am very qualified in environmental and atmospheric science.
Save yourself some time. The theoretical calculations are too simplistic to model the complex atmospheric processes involved in estimating the energy balance. It gives us an order of magnitude but it does not help us to fully understand actual atmospheric impact. Perhaps instead you can show us some evidence that the theoretical number matches empirical data. It appears to be high by a factor of two or more.Firstly we know that CO2 is absorbing infrared radiation from the absorbtion/emmission of certain speactra a already measured . How much is simply a matter of calcualting how much is being absorbed and what effect this will have over time as has already been shown in the links posted to you (I will dig it out later).Actually I understand them well. I generally agree with a large percentage of the papers I have read, I just don't find that they address this particular question. They make all sorts of valid conclusions, but they do not demonstrate that AGW will ever have an impact of the 2-3C the IPCC claims. I have not seen any good evidence to support the concerns being raised by you. Again please offer a list and we will discuss them.
I'm sorry that I am misunderstood. I read and understand the links provided. The links offer lots of information but it is rarely relevant to the primary point, which is that though there is evidence for modest AGW it is not of the magnitude that the IPCC predicts. The evidence points to warming less than 1/4 that predicted by the IPCC.So - I have to say as a layman reading through this argument I have to say I find you guys arent reading the links that are being posted to you and are relying on sophistry and pedantry to stay alive in this forum. I can only reach the conclusion that you are deliberately trying to spread confusion.
Who do you work for again ? No really I would like to know the name of the company.
I work for a global energy company that agrees with your point of view and is rapidly taking steps to alter its energy portfolio. I don't wish to post personal information
Exxon mobil agrees with my point of view - publicly.
Ill adress the rest of your post in due course - bit busy now.
I would like to point out that my original post was to Wild Cobra - yet you answered all posts as if I was addressing you. It doesnt really matter but I will now have to make a separate post to WC - ilike some sort of skeptical seven headed hydra.
Sorry Gus, I was pretty tired of these threads for a while. Which post did you want me to respond to?
It is common knowledge that Exxon does not agree with your position. Most energy companies do not.
I actually worry about your ability to follow good scientific methods.Your insistence that those pages of speculation are analysis of process or data confirms rather my opinion of your qualifications in this matter, which are rather different than your claims.
Just one example: the article purports to argue from a geographical bias in dropped reporting stations to a consequent bias in reported temperature averages, without ever considering the reasons for the dropping, the actual data effects of the dropping, or the subsequent methods for arriving at the new averages. That is rank speculation, not any dealing with actual data, processing, or results. It spends several pages on this handwaving and guesswork, a large percentage of its argument and conclusions.
The analysis portion of the report does not speculate about the motivations for dropping the stations and good science should not speculate about such things. The analysis method takes the data and demonstrates what happens when you include the stations in the geographical integration and when you do not. The factual result, as demonstrated by the reported results is a warming bias by dropping the stations. The results and conclusions follow directly from the demonstration of the two runs, one with the station data and one without. The report notes that they find nothing in the GISS or NOAA processes to compensate for this bias. Requests for clarification have gone unanswered. The conclusions review the factual reasons for the bias but also devote some time to speculate about the motivations behind the processes others have used.
It is rank speculation to try to guess the motivations of NOAA and GISS since they have not described this process in detail. I wonder why you suggest the analyst should make such speculation?
It deals directly with the point. It notes that surface instrument data contains know bias that has not been properly addressed, whereas know issues with satellite data has been resolved. It suggests that divergence between the two datasets is not reasonable and therefore at least one dataset has issue. the fact that the land surface set contains known bias, and land temperatures show a disproportionate rise whereas sea temperatures show good correlation in both sets makes it easy to figure out where attention to improvement is needed. Your unwillingness to see this speaks volumes of your character.Which doesn't deal with the point - you want to drop data you think has issues, and use other data that also has issues. Your criteria is mysterious.
But it offers no explanation for how these alternatives would cause their divergence in the two sets. While it is good to be complete in suggesting alternatives, it seems silly to consider thm serious until after the known issues are resolved and there is still divergence. Trouble is other work already demonstrates that correction of bias in surface instrument compilation eliminates most or all of the divergence. the question to you is why should we go looking for obscure explanations when an obvious one is staring us in the face?Meanwhile: Your new paper attributes the divergence between surface and satellite measurements to a few possibilities, the most frequently mentioned being more clouds, a predicted possiblity of CO2 boosting for which there is little corroborating data, and greenhouse gas warming, which is well established as a likely consequence of CO2 boosting.
Again the far more obvious explanation is staring us in the face, namely that high latitude warming bias is being introduced by the compilation process. Let's fix the data set first and then see if your warming pattern remains.... I suspect it won't.It also corroborates my earlier observations, which you claimed to see no evidence for, of greater warming at night and at high latitudes - both features of the data that conflict with attributions to solar flux as a major cause of the measured warming. And we see that solar flux variation is not mentioned as a reasonable explanation of the patterns in the data.
Unless you can show that this does not apply to climate predictions your complaint falls flat.It doesn't seem to do that. Where does that interpretation come from?
Specifically? For starters, the paper deals with "forecasting" in general, with examples of forecasting in various fields unrelated to climate - which it then relates to climate, in some abstract sense we can summarize as "predicting the future is often tricky, and people make lots of mistakes".
It was using examples to establish the case for action. This does not count against the article.It uses examples such as Malthus's apparently mistaken - or perhaps merely postponed - predictions of starvation from population growth. The relevance of this to predicting that doubling the CO2 in the air will have significant effects, probably the ones most directly predicted by physics as well as others, is unclear.
I think you are referring to the method they obtained names to send out a request for opinions of the better GCM's to test. Do you believe they did not test the better GCM's?It then searches for climate related forecasts by Googling for names of "experts" and getting 50 of 250 or so to provide examples - from weather to yearly rainfall, which it then evaluates as "correct" or not by some criteria or another not always specified. It finds that experts make mistakes, and forecasts are uncertain.
Actually they compare the predictive accuracy of the GCM's to a simple model that they devised for follow forecast rules. The simple one they found meets the criteria is a static temperature model. They compare predictive performance and find that their simple model is on average 7.7 times more accurate than the best performing GCM.It then observes the uncertainty of climate forecasts, and concludes that because they are uncertain the best prediction is that there will be no significant changes from the current boosting of CO2 concentration. It regards the predictions of climate models as very uncertain, and therefore not worth attending or using to guide policy. It does not regard the default prediction as requiring support - the null hypothesis is status quo, by assumption.
GCM's are base lined (or as you say, auto-correlated) at the current year as well so the simple model is not advantaged over the GCM’s. The simple model predicts future global mean temperatures 7.7 times more accurately for a variety of time spans and starting year.Your simple model was auto-correlated, based on the fact that one year's temps affect the next year's. I recall that from your earlier post - the data isn't in this one AFAIK. And you don't bother to specify what it's 7.7 times as accurate at doing.
No, I don't follow what you are trying to say here at all.And to add a bit of comedy, you posted it right next to this link you've repeated here, which goes to some pains to refute the notion that fitting one's curve to past data improves the accuracy of predictions in the absence of mechanism - which the "7.7 times as accurate" simple model conspicuously lacked.
I didn't find much of what you said here terribly interesting.But hey, you are highly qualified, so no doubt I'm missing something.
I was re-reading the last few pages of this thread, and realized I hadn't read all of this great one to respond to
If those works don't show validation of of the formulas, then why are you presenting them?For the second time on this thread alone, to add to the several other links and references and so forth that I and others have gone to the trouble of digging up for you (you being unwilling to conduct even the most rudimentary of searches on your own):
Just the beginning, of course - but those papers start from your apparent starting point, in the 1950s.
Not that I expect any effect. I expect you to slide into this:
I agree. Now when you show me a model that includes the total increased 0.2+% of a solar irradiance increase from the 1700's to the 1980's, we might find agreement.
My point all along, at least mentioned in some posts, is that CO2 radiative warming calculations are wrong. They make the assumption that CO2 is as high as they say, so they make a formula to support it.
Don't you see my point? I say their constants are all wrong in the formula.
It's not science when you are unwilling to acknowledge other factors change your results. More solar and soot radiative forcing leaves less by this process for CO2 forcing.When one checks one's theories and models against real world data, and adjusts accordingly, it's called "science".
In they end, they are. I have shown simple proof that the IPCC and the AGW crowd does not include about 0.8 watts per square meter of solar. Recent improved understanding of soot has increased it's radiative forcing by more than a factor of five. We have a clear 1.2+ watts increase between the two. I think all of us skeptics agree that the 1.6 total forcing is correct. If we leave this unchanged, then we must find some other area to remove the 1.2 watts from. With CO2 at 1.66 watts, just consider the possibility that it should only be 0.46 watts or less.
Just open your mind, and consider the possibilities rather than being closed minded about it.
Just how do they derive the formula to state CO2 forcing. If it's to explain the warming, then shouldn't it be re-written? At least re-evaluated?
Really?That's the stuff that the research in the 1950s, which I have linked for you several times, showed to be misleading. The people warning us about the effects of the CO2 boost are using more recent analyses and researches (post WWII), which address the real atmosphere rather than laboratory tubes of gas under standard temperature and pressure.
Do you like making such erroneous statement?
File:Atmospheric Transmission.pngThe data used for these figures is based primarily on Spectral Calculator of GATS, Inc. which implements the LINEPAK system of calculating absorption spectra (Gordley et al. 1994) from the HITRAN2004 (Rothman et al. 2004) spectroscopic database. To aid presentation, the absorption spectra were smoothed. Features with a bandwidth narrower than 0.5% of their wavelength may be obscured.
If that what you think, then can you please show us how the AGW crowd has proved their formulas for CO2 radiative forcing are correct? At least close? I'll settle for proof they are accurate to +/- 20% for relative changes.
How did they come up with them?
I haven't been able to find such a thing. Cypress says he hasn't either.
Publicly they do agree :
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...ate_views.aspx
I will adress the rest of your post later.
Ah Ok - cypress confused me by replkying to a post adressed to you. Ok .The excess CO2 is produced because increased plant activity pulls more nutrients into the soil and therefore increasease methanogenic activity.
They recorded an 80 percent increase in CH4. I am also sure its not a 1:1 response - but considering the size of the biosphere and the influence swamps etc have had on climat ein the part it is another piece of the jigsaw and another reason not to emit more CO2.I raised the question concerning more CH4 with added CO2. I didn't completely dismiss the idea. I do find it interesting. I would be curious to know how much CO2 they had to add to get a measurable difference. I seriously doubt it's anywhere near a 1:1 response.
Mole for Mole CH4 is a much stronger greenhouse gas but then the term is kind of meaningless because they dont absorb the same spectrum and CH4 has much shorter time in the atmosphere .CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas at equal concentrations to CH4. At present levels, an increase in CH4 makes more a difference than the same increase of CO2, because CH4 is on a far steeper instantaneous slope of the logarithmic curve than CO2 is. CH4 has a greater stated effect when combined with expected persistence.
Lag times of millions of years ? (see ordovician cooling)
[quote="Gus"]Wiki does a pretty good job. Look there.
Im interested in your understanding not wikipedias.
Not every dissenter is Albert EinsteinConsensus is not science.
I dont think you really understand how science works - science is not a court of law. Every theory has holes in it - even evolution. You have a hypotheses - you test the enviroment to see if theres evidence for it. In the case of GW theres lots of corroborating evidence.
[quote]Those of us who are not afraid of AGW will be laughing at the AGW crowd in a few years.
Just wait and see.
[quote="Gus"]
I hope you are right.
Again : you expect us to believe George Bush was in league with climate scientists and solar power manufacturers for the last 8 years ?
The figure for CO2 heat trapping is a calculation, not an assumption, in those papers.
And you say so based on a type of calculation that has been discredited for sixty years now, by theory and by the evidence.
You have made that claim, yes. Your arguments in support of it are invalid in theory and contradicted by evidence, as has been linked for you several times now. The IPCC does include solar flux, as theoretically effective and actually measured.
That won't do it - the patterns and magnitudes don't match, even if the soot were consistently effective everywhere and whenever the warming happened.
And you still have to account for the CO2 trapping - regardless of soot.
But when I look for your arguments in favor of those adjustments, I find stuff like this:
Erroneous how? Are you trying to claim that by using lab verified physical properties in calculating real world effects, they are going wrong?
You can't beat something with nothing: I'm looking at an IPCC description that agrees with the reports from dozens of disciplines and hundreds of researchers and my own years of observation, that has mechanism and argument and data support. You hand me stuff based on sixty year old discredited theory, involving a massive conspiracy theory, ornamented with arguments against alternatives that seem clearly mistaken, and explaining its lack of agreement with physical pattern by invoking "lags" it is unable to specify.
So I'll say this again. A healthier biosphere = more CH4.
Still, if this is based on healthy plant activity rather than CO2, what can we do about it, or should we even try?
No it isn't. If I add just 1 ppb of each gas into the atmosphere, or a closed system to test, I will see a greater influence from the CH4. That is only at current levels. If I start with equal levels of each gas, and add 1 ppb of each, then I will measure a greater influence from the CO2.
Sure you can. CO2 isn't the only thing that affects the weather. There are dozens of different primary factors. I'm was just getting tired of your repeated pecking over this said over and over. As for lag times, as temperatures rise and fall, the oceans will release and absorb CO2. This is not an instantaneous process, and lags are observed to average about 800 years for the equilibrium to balance. Somewhere about half the changes are very short, and it is the oceans surface layer that changes the most rapid. The ocean however completes a circulation in centuries, therefor it takes a very long time to complete the process.
Too many differences that long ago to compare to today in reality.
I'm not interested in writing a book. It's a very complex topic. Cannot be summarized in a few short paragraphs. There's the various carbonic forms, circulation, time-lines, temperature, salinity, ph, etc, etc, etc...Wiki does a pretty good job. Look there.
What does that mean? I guess 1000 years ago, you would say the world is flat. Am I right?
Agreed. So why is the best argument the AGW crowd can come up with is "consensus?" Why can't they make a convincing argument?
I have no doubt.Those of us who are not afraid of AGW will be laughing at the AGW crowd in a few years.
Just wait and see.
You might like running around in circles chasing tails, but I don't.The figure for CO2 heat trapping is a calculation, not an assumption, in those papers.
Don't you understand my question?
Where is the evidence that those formulas themselves are correct?
I say they are wrong. I want to see the evidence that makes the formulas right. Not what the formulas are, or what the yield.
Don't you get it?
I already know the formulas and what the results of them are.
Regardless of why I say so, the fact is, nobody can show me why they are right!And you say so based on a type of calculation that has been discredited for sixty years now, by theory and by the evidence.
Nobody has proved me wrong in the solar forcing calculation I did. Care to give it a shot?You have made that claim, yes. Your arguments in support of it are invalid in theory and contradicted by evidence, as has been linked for you several times now. The IPCC does include solar flux, as theoretically effective and actually measured.
Are you now dismissing the science that even the IPCC acknowledges as soot having a higher forcing then previously accounted for?That won't do it - the patterns and magnitudes don't match, even if the soot were consistently effective everywhere and whenever the warming happened.
Yes, but how?
OK, Remain ignorant. I quote and link the method used, rather recent and not 50's material.But when I look for your arguments in favor of those adjustments, I find stuff like this:
Erroneous how? Are you trying to claim that by using lab verified physical properties in calculating real world effects, they are going wrong?
No, what I gave you was year 1994 and newer.
Where have I said anything about conspiracy. I'm saying all these years, the science has been misunderstood, and incorrectly taught. If you teach an entire generation that 2+2=5, then those of us who say 2+2=4 are deniers.
Wow, is that your position? You agree with the words and approach provided on the Exxon page? Ok then carry on.Publicly they do agree :
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...ate_views.aspx
I will adress the rest of your post later.
Cypress - Is there no logical fallacy you won't commit? Gus was NEVER stating that he agreed with their position. You made an assertion. He provided a reference which showed your assertion false. That's all there is to it.
He said "Publicly they do agree" ... [with his position] and then he posted the link that presumably represents both the "public" position of Exxon and a position that suposedly Gus agrees with. Therefore it is logical conclude that the link reasonably represents Gus' position. I think I'll wait for Gus to clairify what he intended to say. I am fairly sure he is more qualified than you to express what he intended to say.
If Gus comes back and says, well that's actually not my position, then his previous statement was in error. If he comes back and says he agrees with the stated position, then I misjudged Gus and I find him for more moderate than I suspected.
Inow, I realize you try very hard to discredit people you disagree with. I am fairly certain you would rather discredit the ideas that you find distasteful but it must be too difficult for you to do this so you attack the person instead. It is most unfortunate that you do personal attacks poorly as well.
Sigh.
Did you actually read it ? Here is exxons "official"position - :Wow, is that your position? You agree with the words and approach provided on the Exxon page? Ok then carry on.Publicly they do agree :
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...ate_views.aspx
I will adress the rest of your post later.
"ostensibly" they recognise GHG as a serious problema nd are looking for ways of reducing them so yes I agree with them. How sincere they are is a different matter - I understand they have withdrawn funding form their renewables program. They also , apparently, fully support the IPCCs reports.With increased global energy demand, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are expected to rise by an average of 1 percent per year through the year 2030. As was recently summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the risks to society and ecosystems from increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are significant. Meeting the enormous energy demand growth and managing the risk of GHG emissions are the twin challenges of our time.
We all must engage in the search for solutions if we are to succeed at mitigating these risks.
Take heart fair Inow. BTW - are you a Judoka ?
Not necessarily - it depends on which plants are more active, which nutrients are being pulled into the soil etc etc Increased CH4 is not the end product of a healthier biosphere and is definately not a good thing for the climate. It is not certain why more CH4 is produced but it is . CH4 is not a good thing if you want to slow down global warming . Also you need to look at the effects excess CO2 on plant stomate - it can cause leaf size and shape to change and could mean large leafed plants die out (as has happened before) .
Increased nutrients being pulled into the soil due to excess CO2 is not synonomous with "healthy". In the same way increased phospates in rivers from artificial fertiliser run off doesnt necessarily mean that algal blooms are "healthy".I raised the question concerning more CH4 with added CO2. I didn't completely dismiss the idea. I do find it interesting. I would be curious to know how much CO2 they had to add to get a measurable difference. I seriously doubt it's anywhere near a 1:1 response.
They recorded an 80 percent increase in CH4. I am also sure its not a 1:1 response - but considering the size of the biosphere and the influence swamps etc have had on climat ein the part it is another piece of the jigsaw and another reason not to emit more CO2.
Still, if this is based on healthy plant activity rather than CO2, what can we do about it, or should we even try?
But thats exactly what climatologists say to explain cool temperatures and high CO2 and vice versa. If you accept other things can affect climate and therefore mask the effects of CO2 then high CO2 levels and low temperatures can no longer be used as an argument to discredit the argument that co2 causes warming.
Sure you can. CO2 isn't the only thing that affects the weather. There are dozens of different primary factors. I'm was just getting tired of your repeated pecking over this said over and over. As for lag times, as temperatures rise and fall, the oceans will release and absorb CO2. This is not an instantaneous process, and lags are observed to average about 800 years for the equilibrium to balance. Somewhere about half the changes are very short, and it is the oceans surface layer that changes the most rapid. The ocean however completes a circulation in centuries, therefor it takes a very long time to complete the process.
Very convenient and not at all true - many of the climatic processes in action then can be seen today. Ironically ordovician cooling is usually used as a trump card by denialists who say it shows high CO2 levels dont cause warming.
I'm not interested in writing a book. It's a very complex topic. Cannot be summarized in a few short paragraphs. There's the various carbonic forms, circulation, time-lines, temperature, salinity, ph, etc, etc, etc...Wiki does a pretty good job. Look there.
[/quote]
I was just curious as to if you were aware that geologists and paleoclimatologists view the long term climate cycle as the "thermostat" of the planet . The weathering of rocks absorbs the CO2 and is the reason we have never seen a runaway greenhouse effect on this planet. It takes a very long time to work of course - far too long to deal with opur rate of emmisions. Still I guess the geologists are also in on this government conspiricy, or are just plain wrong like all the other scientific diciplines that claim to have evidence that shows CO2 regulates climate.
Not every dissenter is Albert EinsteinConsensus is not science.
[/quote]
What does that mean? I guess 1000 years ago, you would say the world is flat. Am I right?[/quote]
It means that when the majority of experts in a field agree on something its more liekly that they are correct than one or two politically motivate outsiders trying to discredit them are. Albert Einstein went agains the consensus and was correct - that does not mean that the fossil fuel industries desperate attempt to poke holes in climate science are also correct.
Agreed. So why is the best argument the AGW crowd can come up with is "consensus?" Why can't they make a convincing argument?[/quote]
No theres plenty of good arguments none of which you want to take into account at all - the fact you are unwilling to shift your position at all despit e wealth of evidenc eposted to you on this thread shows me you are either just proud or paid .
We can run through them again - we know how much energy enters the Earth, which speactra CO2 absorbs and which spectra fail tro make it back out of the atmosphere. We know CO2 stimulates the production of other greenhouse gases. We know CO2 retains heat. We know we ar epumping lots of it into the atmosphere . Does this not even slightly make ytou think that CO2 may increase the temperature of the planet. Even if you believe it doesnt much surely with the planet heating anyway its not a good idea to add to the problem - even slightly -
Those of us who are not afraid of AGW will be laughing at the AGW crowd in a few years.
Just wait and see.[/quote]
I have no doubt.[/quote]
I tend to trust people more who can see errors in their own arguments and admit uncertainties - this seems to me a much more scientific approach.
Yes, but taken as a whole, the entire position they describe, do you agree with the approach to conservation and the balance they propose between economic progress and finding solutions to reducing GHG? I don't see anything there that proposes scaling back CO2 emissions to the degree the IPCC is suggesting. Is that your position too?Did you actually read it ? Here is exxons "official"position - :Wow, is that your position? You agree with the words and approach provided on the Exxon page? Ok then carry on.Publicly they do agree :
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/...ate_views.aspx
I will adress the rest of your post later.
"ostensibly" they recognise GHG as a serious problem and are looking for ways of reducing them so yes I agree with them. How sincere they are is a different matter - I understand they have withdrawn funding form their renewables program. They also , apparently, fully support the IPCCs reports.With increased global energy demand, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are expected to rise by an average of 1 percent per year through the year 2030. As was recently summarized in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the risks to society and ecosystems from increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are significant. Meeting the enormous energy demand growth and managing the risk of GHG emissions are the twin challenges of our time.
We all must engage in the search for solutions if we are to succeed at mitigating these risks.
Wild Cobra - where did you get this graph from ? Please provide links .
[/img]
Cypress:
Im not sure this is the place for political or economic arguments but this is my opinion on the matter :
I believe the cost of not acting now would have far worse economic implications - including the for the profits of exxon mobil - if they could just think past their shareholders reactions for the next ten years.
The idea that rapidly replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources will precipitate further economic crisis again a myth perpetrated by those who sell fossil fuels.
There is also the matter of the US economy being tied to oil and opec using the dollar as the oil exchange curreny - if oil is no longer worth as much this may have other implications - but basically its time to change.
Granted renewables might not make them as much money in the short term but it will in the long term . In short Exxon need to change or die. As for the rest of us - renewable energy is much more viable than the fossil fuel industry has made out.
Only yesterday ~I was chatting to an engineer working on a new type of solar cell which can be printed on to steel .
Scotlands new wave powers stations will produce more than a nuclear power station, spain, sweden and several other countries are nearly 50 percent renewable already , and this has all happened in the last five years. As a result I do not believe swapping to renewables has to be this horrible crippling economic knighmare that the fossil fuel industry cliams. so they should stop moaning and start adapting - or they will lose out - they cant keep this charade up for long.
Companies like Exxon could really turn this situation to their advantage - instead of conducting a PR war against climate science they could encourage copenhagen and then be in a prime position to win all the contracts to produce renewable energy sources when new legislation is put in place.
Unlike other people, I don't need links to tell me what to believe.Wild Cobra - where did you get this graph from ? Please provide links .
[/img]
I look at various angles of the arguments given. I generated that graph myself in Excel. It is extrapolated from the IPCC data in the AR4. It is a graph of absolute radiative forcing of each of those three gasses using the same logarithmic formula for each, but each has a constant assigned to fit the values the IPCC claims for radiative forcing vs. gas levels. For CO2 for example, I used the 1750 and 2005 IPCC data for CO2 level and forcing delta of 1.66 watts per square meter. I think the CO2 levels were 280 ppm to 387 ppm. I did the same for Methane at 730 ppt, 1774 ppt and 0.48 watt difference if I recall correctly. I completely forget the N2O levels, I would have to open my worksheet to see. Even if my logarithmic formula is not quite correct, it is real close for comparative purposes. That is if we assume the IPCC data is correct.
Nothing wrong with the comparison, except that the formulas used are for laboratory containers of gas mixtures.
They aren't strictly relevant, except as components of more realistic models.
Then why do you continue to use wrong ones? The calculations you post here are idetnica to the ones supplanted by the papers I linked for you, forty years ago and more.
It wasn't wrong, it was irrelevant. It failed to deal with the significant circumstances involved in the world outside the lab.
No. I'm pointing out that handwaving about soot does not explain the patterns or magnitudes of warming we see. It melts ice - true. And we notice that the melting of the Greenland ice is proceeding faster than predicted by those who invoked CO2 warming only. But it does not preferentially warm the night air, or the winter air, or the air at high latitudes (it might preferentially cool the air at lower latitudes, though - which may be a factor).
I have linked you the papers that introduce the handling. More than once. You show no sign of having read them.
None of your calcuatlions here are based on anything done since the Korean War.
You have made no argument, presented no evidence, to support this assertion.
You would have to deal with the science as it is being taught, and show what's wrong with it. So far, you have simply cobbled together some pre=WWII calculations, and declared them unanswered.
You are saying that about every field of science involved, and every university department in these fields, and almost every professor in these departments - not only wrong, but coordinated (across generations as well as disciplines) in their errors.
Yes, I can see from your posts that you hold this belief. The policy makers in the company I work for seems also to hold this belief. Exxon policy makers do not seem to concur nor do I.
It is premature to label this a myth. Alternatives to fossil fuels are currently twice to four times as costly, and are likely to remain so even after economies of scale figure in since only the the top 15% margin of hydrocarbons have high recovery costs. In addition nuclear power seems to be the only current viable alternative on the scale that is required for large consuming economies.The idea that rapidly replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources will precipitate further economic crisis again a myth perpetrated by those who sell fossil fuels.
Fair point.There is also the matter of the US economy being tied to oil and opec using the dollar as the oil exchange curreny - if oil is no longer worth as much this may have other implications - but basically its time to change.
True if change is actually required now. Change will be on us eventually, it is only a matter of time.Granted renewables might not make them as much money in the short term but it will in the long term . In short Exxon need to change or die.
Solar simply does not scale.As for the rest of us - renewable energy is much more viable than the fossil fuel industry has made out.
Only yesterday ~I was chatting to an engineer working on a new type of solar cell which can be printed on to steel .
If the consuming public demands alternatives, energy companies will deliver. Change is not going to harm even the most reluctant company but it will hurt the consumers unless it is driven by the consumer demand. Spain, Scotland and Sweden do not scale to the US or China, the solution is not as easy as you suggest.Scotlands new wave powers stations will produce more than a nuclear power station, spain, sweden and several other countries are nearly 50 percent renewable already , and this has all happened in the last five years. As a result I do not believe swapping to renewables has to be this horrible crippling economic knighmare that the fossil fuel industry cliams. so they should stop moaning and start adapting - or they will lose out - they cant keep this charade up for long.
I'm not sure who you think purchases Exxon's products, but it is largely individuals who are not going to pool into some contract. You imply what is generally the worst fear of this whole thing and that is a massive government interference of energy supply and distribution ostensibly because consumers and suppliers will not do the "correct" thing and therefore must be compelled to switch to non-carbon energy sources.Companies like Exxon could really turn this situation to their advantage - instead of conducting a PR war against climate science they could encourage copenhagen and then be in a prime position to win all the contracts to produce renewable energy sources when new legislation is put in place.
Thus far the consuming public is not sold on paying twice as much or more for alternative energy sources as insurance against a threat that is not verified. I can see that you are, but most are not. Your have your work cut out for you.
Dishonest bookkeeping, subsidized infrastructure, preferential treatment.
Make the oil companies pay for the Iraq War, and do the books. Make the coal companies clean up the mercury contamination, forbid them from removing mountains and contaminating aquifers or rivers, and do the books.
That and wind and heat engine solar.
If wind turbine companies were allowed to dynamite flat spots on the tops of convenient mountains, and install water storage tanks and other power storage infrastructure where ever they wanted to, wind would be considerable cheaper than deep water oil per delivered net joule.
As it is, both wind and thermal solar are cheaper than nuclear. And the public has been proven willing to pay for nuclear.
Hi Wild Cobra - please provide the original data you used to make this graph and the links or at least references to show where the data comes from.Unlike other people, I don't need links to tell me what to believe.Wild Cobra - where did you get this graph from ? Please provide links .
[/img]
I look at various angles of the arguments given. I generated that graph myself in Excel. It is extrapolated from the IPCC data in the AR4. It is a graph of absolute radiative forcing of each of those three gasses using the same logarithmic formula for each, but each has a constant assigned to fit the values the IPCC claims for radiative forcing vs. gas levels. For CO2 for example, I used the 1750 and 2005 IPCC data for CO2 level and forcing delta of 1.66 watts per square meter. I think the CO2 levels were 280 ppm to 387 ppm. I did the same for Methane at 730 ppt, 1774 ppt and 0.48 watt difference if I recall correctly. I completely forget the N2O levels, I would have to open my worksheet to see. Even if my logarithmic formula is not quite correct, it is real close for comparative purposes. That is if we assume the IPCC data is correct.
Sorry - completely untrue. When you take into account the decomissioning of nuclear power, deep geological storage not to mention irresponible mining practices etc etc the cost of nuclear is far higher. Again if the political will is there it can happen and we can run our society much more efficienty.Alternatives to fossil fuels are currently twice to four times as costly, and are likely to remain so even after economies of scale figure in since only the the top 15% margin of hydrocarbons have high recovery costs. In addition nuclear power seems to be the only current viable alternative on the scale that is required for large consuming economies.
I think this may be a large and unseen reason for opposition to transfering to renewables. Personally I would not like to see China take the lead either - but there has to be another way to maintain a dominant economic position.
Fair point..
Please elaborateSolar simply does not scale.
I didnt say it was easy - but the US only has 4 times teh population of Spain - I dont see why it shouldnt be possible - except for the Exxon dinosaur that doesnt want to change its way so is conducting its tobacco style PR war.Spain, Scotland and Sweden do not scale to the US or China, the solution is not as easy as you suggest.
Companies like Exxon could really turn this situation to their advantage - instead of conducting a PR war against climate science they could encourage copenhagen and then be in a prime position to win all the contracts to produce renewable energy sources when new legislation is put in place.
I dont see the public in Spain or Sweden paying twice as much for their energy.Thus far the consuming public is not sold on paying twice as much or more for alternative energy sources as insurance against a threat that is not verified. I can see that you are, but most are not. Your have your work cut out for you.
Have you ever seen the film "who killed the electric car" ?[/quote]
Then why does the IPCC use the same formula? Look at the AR4 ans see who's formulas they reference.Nothing wrong with the comparison, except that the formulas used are for laboratory containers of gas mixtures.
They aren't strictly relevant, except as components of more realistic models.
Do you always make such statements without verifying?
I am showing that even using the IPCC's own numbers, they are full of deceit.Then why do you continue to use wrong ones? The calculations you post here are idetnica to the ones supplanted by the papers I linked for you, forty years ago and more.
It is not irrelevant. The IPCC acknowledges a 0.12 watt direct radiative increase. This power and what directly hears the surface is the source power to the greenhouse effect. Any increase of decrease of solar energy increases or decreases the greenhouse radiative forcing, in a near linear fashion.It wasn't wrong, it was irrelevant. It failed to deal with the significant circumstances involved in the world outside the lab.
At least you acknowledge that.No. I'm pointing out that handwaving about soot does not explain the patterns or magnitudes of warming we see. It melts ice - true. And we notice that the melting of the Greenland ice is proceeding faster than predicted by those who invoked CO2 warming only.
Yes it does. The earth radiates as a black body source even when the sun is down. In fact, that's the major means of nighttime cooling. Soot holds the long wave radiation in far better than CO2 does. It takes a very small amount of soot in the air to absorb the radiated heat that would otherwise escape into space.
Bullshit. I dispiute the reasoning and values of the things I have seen. Since you and Inow like to link thopusands of words in articles rather than posing individal points in an article, and pointing to what quotes you refer to.I have linked you the papers that introduce the handling. More than once. You show no sign of having read them.
You guys use a lawyers trick. Subpoena information, and get what you ask if it exists, plus thousands of useless documents to wade through. Waste my time and get ignored. In the case of you and Inow, I rarely get what I ask for even.
Liar. Prove me wrong, after reviewing the IPCC AR4 and see what they use.None of your calcuatlions here are based on anything done since the Korean War.
Isn't your misunderstanding that I am using the wrong data and formula's enough to stop and think a bit that maybe I'm right. Why does the dame information your side uses claimed wrong buy you?You have made no argument, presented no evidence, to support this assertion.
That's like proving a negative in a way. Prove that your side is right. I have shown several fallacies in the AGW thinking. Science is about postulating a theory, then proving it right by not being able to show it wrong. I have sufficiently proved the current AGW conclusions wrong. You have not shown me wrong in ways that don't have valid counterpoints.
No I'm not. Just the forcing of greenhouse gases. Why does your side ignore the actual impact of solar changes?You are saying that about every field of science involved, and every university department in these fields, and almost every professor in these departments - not only wrong, but coordinated (across generations as well as disciplines) in their errors.
Here is the basis of most the data I extrapolated:
2007 IPCC report, AR4, Working group 1
I told you how I did it, but here is the direct path to the data. Now my method was to calculate the forcing using the IPCC's first formula for CO2, using it like the third formula to allow for 0. I then, in excel, took the difference calculated between 1750 levels to 2005 levels. I adjusted the constant to make the difference equal 1.66 watts. From here, other levels can be calculated. I did the same for N2O and CH4.
When speaking of radiative forcing, the IPCC is referring to the increase in power from 1750 levels. Information used:
Chapter 2 page 131:
The global mean concentration of CO2 in 2005 was 379 ppm, leading to an RF of +1.66 [±0.17] W m–2.The global mean concentration of CH4 in 2005 was 1,774 ppb, contributing an RF of +0.48 [±0.05] W m–2.Chapter 2 page 132:Nitrous oxide continues to rise approximately linearly (0.26% yr–1) and reached a concentration of 319 ppb in 2005, contributing an RF of +0.16 [±0.02] W m–2.
Chapter 2 page 139:The direct RF due to increases in solar irradiance since 1750 is estimated to be +0.12 [–0.06, +0.18] W m–2,
Chapter 2 page 140:In 2005, the global mean average CO2 mixing ratio for the SIO network of 9 sites was 378.75 ± 0.13 ppm and for the NOAA/GMD network of 40 sites was 378.76 ± 0.05 ppm, yielding a global average of almost 379 ppm.
The CO2 mixing ratio in 1750 was 277 ± 1.2 ppm.(7)In 2005, the global average abundance of CH4 measured at the network of 40 surface air flask sampling sites operated by
NOAA/GMD in both hemispheres was 1,774.62 ± 1.22 ppb.Note 7:This group uses automated systems to make 36 CH4 measurements per day at each site, and the mean for 2005 was 1,774.03 ± 1.68 ppb with calibration and methods described by Cunnold et al. (2002). For the NOAA/GMD network, the 90% confidence interval is calculated with a Monte Carlo technique, which only accounts for the uncertainty due to the distribution of sampling sites.Also see Chapter 2 page 141 table 2.1. 2005 levels CO2 at 319 ppm. CH4 at 1774 ppt. N2) at 319 ppt. Gives warming increases at 1.66, 0.48, and 0.16 watts per square meter. Note c says:For consistency with the TAR, the pre-industrial value of 278 ppm is retained in the CO2 RF calculation.
For those saying I am using the wrong formula, TAR Chapter 6.3.5 shows the formulas.Pre-industrial values are zero except for CO2 (278 ppm), CH4 (715 ppb; 700 ppb was used in the TAR), N2O (270 ppb) and CF4 (40 ppt).
I wonder how you could substantiate your opinions. What cost do you place on irresponsible pit mining uranium for example? The few wind farms are only competitive now due to subsidies and prime locations. It does not scale to the level required. What is the marginal cost of delivering 50% of America's energy requirement by solar and wind? Can you show that it is competitive?
In any case why do you think it takes political will? Why do you think consumer choice can't drive us to the alternatives you prefer? Do you think a handful of politicians are wiser than the consensus of consuming public?
You cannot practically generate sufficient energy for large countries like the US or China. Do the math. The US consumes about 1.0*10^17 BTU of energy per year and a modern commercial solar cell in ideal locations produces about 20 milliwatts per sq. inch after figuring downtime.Please elaborateSolar simply does not scale.
Nonsense. Resistance is from the consuming public not energy companies. Exxon knows who buys their products and won't buck their demands.I didnt say it was easy - but the US only has 4 times teh population of Spain - I dont see why it shouldnt be possible - except for the Exxon dinosaur that doesnt want to change its way so is conducting its tobacco style PR war.Spain, Scotland and Sweden do not scale to the US or China, the solution is not as easy as you suggest.
What are they paying, excluding subsidies? What is the real cost? Documentaries are good at making the point they wish to make.I dont see the public in Spain or Sweden paying twice as much for their energy.
Have you ever seen the film "who killed the electric car" ?
By some calculations the entire US electrical need could be met with 92 sq mi (or 92 mi sq depending on whether the title or the article is correct) of advanced, fresnel - lens enhanced, type photovoltaics:
The stigma of solar as only one of many solutions needed to satisfy our energy needs may not be true. David Mills, chairman and chief scientific officer of solar company Ausra, recently presented a paper at the International Solar Energy Society conference saying that solar thermal plants could indeed solve all of our energy problems, including nighttime electricity. I know...all our energy problems??? Well, I guess it's worth taking a look.
The plants use mirrors arranged in a Fresnel configuration to heat tubes of liquid rather than solar cells that convert the sunlight directly into electricity. The steam produced by the heated liquids power turbines that create electricity. While not a new technique, Mills says the technology will allow liquids to hold heat and produce steam during the night also. The paper calculates that 92 square miles of solar thermal farm could power the entire country.
http://www.ecogeek.org/solar-power/991
You can see a relevant paper by this Mills chappie here:
http://www.ausra.com/pdfs/ausra_usgridsupply.pdf
In other calculations, the entire US can be powered by solar in a decade:
http://www.buildingagreenerearth.com...ower-timeline/* The Future
Within 10 years, continued advances in solar technology will allow us to generate all the electricity needed to power the entire US, and photovoltaic power will be competitive in price with traditional sources of electricity.
Solar electricity will be used in an electrolysis process that separates the hydrogen and oxygen in water so the hydrogen can be used in fuel cells for transportation and in buildings.
Your attempt to pass off your calculations as matters ignored or done wrong by the IPCC looks more like deception, to me, than anything the IPCC has done.
? I' ve been insisting on such factors, in the face of your persistant dismissals and runarounds, for months now. At least I seem to be getting through a little.
That amount of soot persistently in the upper atmosphere, abosrbing shorter wave radiation all day (as CO2 does not), cools, net. Soot does not accumulate in the lower atmosphere, creating long term cumulative and forcing signal effects - its concentration is extremely variable over time. Its effects do not eliminate or somehow make to disappear the forcing signal from CO2. The apparent ice melting effects of soot seem to be from its deposition and absorption on the surface. And so forth.
I have posted links to the original papers in which your approach to calculating CO2 boost effects was shown to mislead, and overlook important properties of the physical situation. You have never acknowledged reading them, and never considered the analyses they contain. You have instead repeated your calculations, posted graphs of them, etc.
The IPCC uses the standard absorption properties of gasses as measured long ago, of course. You and the IPCC both base that basic stuff on pre-Korean War science, made a bit more precise by modern equipment. The IPCC goes on to employ more modern analysis of other factors for its conclusions about the real world. You don't.
You have never bothered to analyze the actual AGW thinking. You show no awareness of the actual arguments, calculations, etc.
The IPCC, which I suppose is what you mean by "my side", includes detailed and thorough consideration of solar changes - going so far as to launch special satellites to get data, spend lots of money on software analysis, collect datat from research stations devoted to monitoring solar radiation, find ways to collect relevant data and estimate solar radiation in times long past, etc and so forth.
Nobody is ignoring solar changes. The IPCC is not ignoring solar changes. I am not ignoring solar changes.
The repeated accusation of "ignoring solar changes", when those changes have obviously received a lot of detailed attention, is not honest. It's a bad faith, talking point tactic.
Your repeated "overlooking" of the fact that you are calculating the forcing of CO2, solar, etc, using methods and approaches invalidated for forty years or more does not lend credibility to your repeated demands that other people prove things to you. I have linked the basic, 1950s era papers. I have also linked three or four histories and synopses that someone interested in good faith, and possessed of the necessary background, could have used easily for their own investigation.
Looks like more ice this year than last at todays date. But the scientists were saying we would loose all the ice this summer, looks like they were wrong again.
global warming is a great threat for our existance....
everybody should aware of it and not to do anything silly...........
Ice the things you say are just that. Words. I put out some methodology, data, etc. You have not yet proved me me wrong with anything outside of your opinion and others.
How about directing me to the correct formula if you are going to insist I'm wrong. Why should I believe you when you don't offer valid evidence?
92 sq. miles of mirrors. That is huge, and ignores the engineering challenges not yet overcome. Perhaps some day. It is good to be visionary and look into the future, but this is not commercial just yet. Can anyone make a legitimate claim for a currently available technology today?
Yes, the future.... Always the future. 10 years? That is just research and development. Let's look at the investment, about one third to one half of the total yearly Gross Domestic Product. This is a huge amount when you consider total investment is about 15% of GDP. So to grow this industry in ten years would require everyone in the country to contribute about 8% of their income simply to make the investment in this. I know that I am not prepared to sink nearly a years income over the next ten years in technology we likely don't need. I wonder what percentage of of society is?In other calculations, the entire US can be powered by solar in a decade:
* The Future ...
I have already linked the original 1950s papers, three or four synopsis sites with their own links, and so forth. If you had any actual curiosity, or were engaged in an honest attempt to figure this out, that should have been enough.
They were obviously inadequate to the job of enlightening you. Beyond that, life is short and I am not a professional scientist with these resources at my fingertips. It's much easier for me to simply deal with your arguments here, which are becoming more and more obviously based in something other than actual interest or comprehension.
No, they weren't. And it's spelled "lose".
What is not commercial is replacing the entire electrical supply of the US with solar plants of some kind, immediately.
So? What is possible is replacing every single proposed new plant, and all additional expansion of capacity, and most replacement of aging plants, with heat engine solar. Here's some proven, 1970s era technology that is cheaper than nuclear power and much safer than any other proven electrical power production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_E...rating_Systems The more modern setups are cheaper and better, of course.
I don't recall seeing anything that doesn't disprove how I assess things. The best methodology I am aware of uses the HTTRAN spectral lines. This proves the logarithmic relationship, and the simplified formulas do pretty good when used what each is meant for.I have already linked the original 1950s papers, three or four synopsis sites with their own links, and so forth. If you had any actual curiosity, or were engaged in an honest attempt to figure this out, that should have been enough.
You're right. Maybe I'm brighter than you give me credit for, and your material is too dim.
But you don't explain things well, and your linked material is insufficient.
You show no sign of having read the links, or considered the earlier explanations I offered (you haven't even mentioned their arguments or content, instead repeating this kind of irrelevancy: "I don't recall seeing anything that doesn't disprove how I assess things. The best methodology I am aware of uses the HTTRAN spectral lines. This proves the logarithmic relationship,") - which I will not bother with any more: you are content to repeat invalidated bullshit, I am content to repeatedly label it as patience allows.
I'll make it simple Ice.
Show me the formulas for calculating radiative forcing. I have never seen this in your linked material, so if I missed it, then just show us the formulas, or stop accusing me of not reading your links.
I have no quick idea where to find them outside of technical papers, and no access to the technical paper bases and resources you have.
I linked for you the 1950s era papers with the original advances past the type of calculations you have been spamming this forum with. I also linked several synopsis histories with references to technical papers I cannot read without paying lots of money, but that any professional engineer or academic would have easy access to.
I did this more than once, on this forum, in direct response to you and to cypress both, on the mistaken assumption that your questions were honest and you would be interested in the actual basis of things like the IPCC claims.
I am not going to do it any more.
I am going to keep pointing out that your approach here has long been invalidated, your claims thoroughly refuted, and you have been handed more than sufficient opportunity to inform yourself of the invalidations and refutations, as long as you keep posting your little graphs and claims and conspiracy theories.
So you cannot prove me wrong.I have no quick idea where to find them outside of technical papers, and no access to the technical paper bases and resources you have.
The logarythic relationship is still valid. The formulas vary slightly, but just because some notions from the 50's are debunked, doesn't mean they all are.
Did you throw your baby out with the bath water?
Yet the answer to my question was never in the material you presented, not anything that showed me to be wrong other than someone elses word.
Because you cannot.
I understand.
You are wrong. You have never given me valid evidence to show I am wrong.
Yawn
That kind of irrelevancy is how I know you have not bothered with any of the other links, papers, and so forth I ran around digging up for you in the past.
You can run your own errands in the future. Supposedly, you're some kind of professional engineer or something, so it should be easy for you. It's spelled "logarithmic", btw.
Yet you cannot show me to be wrong still.That kind of irrelevancy is how I know you have not bothered with any of the other links, papers, and so forth I ran around digging up for you in the past.
Now you are becoming a troll and an asshole.
I spell it wrong once, and you jump on that?
You are pathetic.
I have shown several scientific communities that accept that greenhouse gas emissions have a logarithmic effect on radiative forcing. No one yet has shown otherwise.
How about this 2007 paper from Princeton:
Logarithmic Response and Climate Sensitivity of Atmospheric CO2.
If you don't believe good acadamia, then how about the AGW Bible... The IPCC AR4, Chapter 2, page 140:
Page 632:The simple formulae for RF of the LLGHG quoted in Ramaswamy et al. (2001) are still valid. These formulae are based on global RF calculations where clouds, stratospheric adjustment and solar absorption are included, and give an RF of +3.7 W m–2 for a doubling in the CO2 mixing ratio. (The formula used for the CO2 RF calculation in this chapter is the IPCC (1990) expression as revised in the TAR. Note that for CO2, RF increases logarithmically with mixing ratio.) Collins et al. (2006) performed a comparison of five detailed line-by-line models and 20 GCM radiation schemes. The spread of line-by-line model results were consistent with the ±10% uncertainty estimate for the LLGHG RFs adopted in Ramaswamy et al. (2001) and a similar ±10% for the 90% confidence interval is adopted here. However, it is also important to note that these relatively small uncertainties are not always achievable when incorporating the LLGHG forcings into GCMs. For example, both Collins et al. (2006) and Forster and Taylor (2006) found that GCM radiation schemes could have inaccuracies of around 20% in their total LLGHG RF (see also Sections 2.3.2 and 10.2).
Page 633:The radiative effect of absorption by water vapour is roughly proportional to the logarithm of its concentration, so it is the fractional change in water vapour concentration, not the absolute change, that governs its strength as a feedback mechanism. Calculations with GCMs suggest that water vapour remains at an approximately constant fraction of its saturated value (close to unchanged relative humidity (RH)) under global-scale warming (see Section 8.6.3.1).
If you prefer the experts at realclimate.org:Absorption of LW radiation increases approximately with the logarithm of water vapour concentration, while the Clausius-Clapeyron equation dictates a near-exponential increase in moisture-holding capacity with temperature. Since tropospheric and surface temperatures are closely coupled (see Section 3.4.1), these constraints predict a strongly positive water vapour feedback if relative humidity (RH) is close to unchanged.
CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and greenhouse effects are not the only CO2 problemA sandbox 101 question: What is it that makes methane and others “much more powerful” greenhouse gases? Is it because their internal makeup allows considerably more IR absorption, molecule for molecule? Or is it because they absorb in bands like the window that are “virgin territories”? For example if we had no GHG in the atmosphere, then added say 50ppm of both CO2 and CH4, which gas would contribute more toward warming? Or is it related to the relative lifetime of the various gases? Or some combination?
[Response: All of the above. Different bands are differently absorbed depending on what the resonance is (vibrational, stretching etc.) and that depends somewhat on the strength of the bonds (which is obviously molecule specific). Concentration matters a lot - absorption is linear at very low concentrations and flattens out to logarithmic at higher values. And overlap is really important. If a molecule absorbs in the atmospheric window region, it is much more important than one that overlaps with water vapour. - gavin]PETM WeirdnessThe common statement that methane is, molecule for molecule, a better greenhouse gas than CO2 is true only for situations like the present where methane is present in far lower concentrations than CO2. In this situation, the greater power of a molecule of CH4 to reduce the OLR results simply from the fact that the greenhouse effect of both CH4 and CO2 are approximately logarithmic in concentration. Reading from Fig. 4.35, we see that for methane concentrations of around 1ppmv, each doubling of methane reduces OLR by about 2W/m2. On the other hand, for CO2 concentrations near 300 ppmv, each doubling of CO2 reduces the OLR by about 6 W/m2. Hence, to achieve the same OLR reduction as a doubling of CO2 one needs three doublings of methane, but since methane starts from a concentration of only 1ppmv, this only takes the concentration to 8ppmv, and requires only 7/300 as many molecules to bring about as was needed to achieve the same reduction using a doubling of CO2. Equivalently, we can say that adding 1ppmv of methane yields as much reduction of OLR as adding 75ppmv of CO2…..Climate sensitivity: Plus a change…First of all, how much does atmospheric CO2 rise if you add 3000 GtC to the system in a (geologically) short period of time? Zeebe et al. did this calculation and the answer is about 700 ppmv – quite a lot eh? However, that is a perturbation to the Paleocene carbon cycle – which they assume has a base CO2 level of 1000 ppm, and so you only get a 70% increase – i.e. not even a doubling of CO2. And since the forcing that goes along with an increase in CO2 is logarithmic, it is the percent change in CO2 that matters rather than the absolute increase.One year on…
Steve Latham says:
24 March 2006 at 8:38 PM
I could probably look this up, but what is 2x CO2? I mean, is that 2x the historical level or 2x the present level (or 2x some other level)? Why not simply refer to the actual ppm? Further, why are we stuck on 2x? If we don’t have to wait for equilibration every time, surely it can’t be too onerous to plot out the sensitivity from present levels to, say, 3x? Cognitive psychologists tell us that we deal better with discrete entities and integers, but the world (and particularly the world of probability) is more continuous… my soapbox argument against limiting discussion to values that are ‘convenient’.
[Response: It turns out not to matter (which is why it rarely gets mentioned). The forcing from CO2 is logarithmic at the concentrations we are discussing (~5.3 log(CO2/CO2_orig) ). That means that any doubling (from 1x pre-industrial to 2x pre-industrial, or 1x present to 2x present) gives roughly the same forcing. Specifically, 280 to 560 ppm, or 380 to 760ppm are equivalent. 3xCO2 gives ~60% more warming than 2xCO2. It's always easier if people stick to a standard measure, and for good or bad we are stuck with 2xCO2 as the reference. - gavin]Venus UnveiledTodd says:
29 December 2005 at 1:53 PM
What is RealClimate’s take on T. J. Nelson’s “Cold Facts on Global Warming” at http://brneurosci.org/co2.html ?
At first glance the argument seems OK. And it could be argued that I ought to do my own homework so to speak. But better heads than mine know more about what Nelson claims there and about important facts or strong counterarguments he omitted, if any. Hence my question.
[Response: Nelson appears to base his entire argument on the 'fact' that CO2 contributes 4 to 8% of the total greenhouse effect (of 33 deg C), and therefore a doubling of CO2 can only increase the total greenhouse effect proportionatly. Apart from being wrong about the effect of CO2 (around 9 to 25% of the longwave absorbtion depending on how you calculate the overlaps (see our previous post), this is way too linear a calculation to be applicable. In particular, he assumes that water vapour amounts are independent of the temperature (they are not). There are a number of other obvious bloopers (ie. "In fact, the effect of carbon dioxide is roughly logarithmic. Each time carbon dioxide (or some other greenhouse gas) is doubled, the increase in temperature is less than the previous increase". No. Logarithmic means that the effects of doubling are constant). So in toto, it's not too impressive a thesis. See our posts on climate sensitivity (or here) for more considered information. - gavin]Plass and the Surface Budget Fallacy[Response: For Earthlike gravity you lose the logarithmic dependence of radiative forcing on CO2 somewhere around 20% CO2 in a 1 bar background atmosphere. The radiative forcing starts to get steeper after that. This is discussed in Chapter 4 of my Climate Book. Further, once you get past one bar of CO2, the pressure broadening stsrts to make CO2 much more effective as a greenhouse gas. It's the flip side of Mars: Mars has much more CO2 per unit surface area than Earth, but the CO2 there winds up having about the same greenhouse effect because it's at much lower pressure than on Earth -- 7 mb vs 1000 mb. --raypierre]Broadly MisleadingRalph says:
13 January 2010 at 1:29 PM
The CO2 v. temperature relationship is sometimes mentioned in degrees warming for a doubling of CO2. That suggests a logarithmic relationship, which I find counter-intuitive; anyone care to explain that to me?
[Response: The logarithmic relationship is between CO2 concentrations and the forcing and it is something that has been known for decades (if not back to the 19th Century). The dependence arises because of the way that the absorption near the peak spectral line changes as CO2 changes. The consequence is that the forcing for each successive doubling is roughly the same at least up to around 1000ppm, and down to maybe 50 (?) ppm. For much smaller amounts the relationship is linear. - gavin]More on the ArcticThis is a botched attempt to describe the well-known logarithmic radiative forcing of CO2, incorporated in every climate model since the time of Arrhenius. There is no "plateau" where CO2 stops being important. Every time you double CO2, you get another 4 Watts per square meter of radiative forcing, so that the anticipated climate change between present CO2 and doubled CO2 is comparable to that between doubled CO2 and quadrupled CO2. In fact, as one goes to very high CO2 levels (comparable to the Early Earth), the radiative forcing starts to become more, rather than less, sensitive to each further doubling (something that can be inferred from the radiative forcing fits in Caldeira and Kasting’s 1992 paper in Nature).What the IPCC models really sayPaul Biggs says:
23 May 2006 at 1:54 PM
Re; 45
Sorry, I was linking the 2 issues – the estimate of climate sensitivity and the added CO2 released from ecosystems. If the temperature response to CO2 is logarithmic, adding more CO2 will have diminishing effect. I also wonder if the infra-red absorption bands can become saturated?
[Response: The logarithmic effect is already incorporated in radiative transfer models. And a "diminishing effect" does not necesessarily mean a "small effect," if that's what you're getting at. Look at it this way: we all agree that the effect of doubling CO2 will be substantial, and any feedback that accelerates CO2 release will make the day of doubling come sooner, giving ecosystems and society less time to adapt, and requiring tighter emissions targets if one is to avoid doubling. The answer to your question at the end is "no." At least not in any sense that should concern us in the least. The CO2 bands are still not completely saturated even for Venus, insofar as the effect on the top of atmosphere radiation budget goes.Happy Birthday, Charles Darwin!Nylo says:
12 May 2008 at 11:25 AM
Gavin, the forcing by CO2 is measured in ºC for a DOUBLING, which means that it follows an exponentially decreasing trend: when we add 280 ppm we will have doubled, but in order to experience again the same achieved warming we would have to add a further 560 ppm, not a further 280. The more CO2 we already have, the more quickly we need to continue adding CO2 to mantain the same warming. It’s how the physics works. What really counts is how we change the existing concentration of CO2, the percentage of the change, not how much “raw” CO2 we add. Adding 5 ppm was quite more important when the concentration was 180 ppm than now.
[Response: We all know that the forcing is not linear in concentration. But it isn't decreasing, it is increasing logarithmically. And it is certainly not decreasing exponentially. - gavin]And speaking of intelligent design, I feel compelled to remark that the CO2 molecule seems rather admirably designed from the standpoint of regulating climate. It’s a good infrared absorber even in small quantities so you don’t need to much of it, yet the radiative effect is logarithmic in concentration, so you don’t have to tune its concentration too terribly precisely to get a habitable climate.
You mean greenhouse gas concentrations, not emissions.
Of course not. That's quite well established, and accepted by me and everyone.
So what? The entire global warming matter - the thread title and the subject of discussion - has pivoted on how that property of CO2 affects the global climate in real life - in the atmosphere we have, which has a third dimension along which the concentration gradient of CO2 changes with accumulation, and a variety of feedbacks and amplifications, and so forth.
Bait as you will, I will run no more errands, find no more links, for you. You have been sufficiently informed, if you were engaged in honest inquiry, by not only me but several others here.
Yes, I stand corrected on that.You mean greenhouse gas concentrations, not emissions.
Then why in hell are you saying I'm wrong?
Yes, and the feedbacks are very minor.
CO2 radiative forcing is a feedback itself. Now you are talking about a feedback on top of a feedback with at best, my be another 10% to that feedcack, and I'm being generous.
Ever plot the different CO2 radiative forcing curves against each other? I have, and there is very little difference. All well within everyone's stated error. On top of that, they all call them simplified formulas. They are not expected to be 100% correct.
If that's how you see it then fine. You might actually believe your linked evidence is sufficient. I say it isn't.Bait as you will, I will run no more errands, find no more links, for you. You have been sufficiently informed, if you were engaged in honest inquiry, by not only me but several others here.
I'm not saying you are wrong about the logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration and its absorption of radiation. Nobody is. The IPCC agrees with you, the scientists agree with you, Michael Mann agrees with you, everybody agrees with you.
You appear to think, you explicitly say, that is some kind of counter to the assertions that boosting CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will significantly affect the heat energy budget of the earth's climate, causing a general warming and other specific changes.
I do not know why you keep on insisting that, but you do, and that is why I keep saying you are wrong.
They appear to be major - in theory, in combination with the direct effects, possibly catastrophic. So far, the evidence indicates the catastrophe possibility moving closer to the center of the likelihoods.
You do not appear to have considered any of it. You never mention the key factors, nor do you contradict any of the reasoning.
| « Global Lights Out !! | House of Commons Report on the CRU data hack » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
