Notices
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 301 to 362 of 362

Thread: Global Warming

  1. #301  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Of course not. That's quite well established, and accepted by me and everyone.

    Then why in hell are you saying I'm wrong?
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Yes, and the feedbacks are very minor.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    You might actually believe your linked evidence is sufficient. I say it isn't.
    You do not appear to have considered any of it. You never mention the key factors, nor do you contradict any of the reasoning.
    Nice backpeddling, but that is not how your posts have read.

    So you actually agree that the relationship is primarily logarithmic, and the rate of increasing radiative forcing diminished with higher concentration. Good.
     

  2. #302  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    So you actually agree that the relationship is primarily logarithmic, and the rate of increasing radiative forcing diminished with higher concentration. Good.
    Everybody has always agreed with that, including everyone at the IPCC. Everyone. Nothing you have posted on this forum in that specific respect has been denied or contradicted or objected to in any way by anyone. Nothing you have posted in that regard is unknown to any of the researchers in the field, or overlooked, in any manner whatsoever.

    Now that we have established that, you don't need to continue spamming this forum with your graphs and reaffirmations of what everyone knows, and we can proceed with a discussion of the looming hazard we face from this accumulation of CO2 in the actual atmosphere of the real planet earth - an accumulation almost completely anthropogenic, rapidly increasing, and threatening us with the likelihood of wholesale changes in the climate among other ill consequences.
     

  3. #303  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    So you actually agree that the relationship is primarily logarithmic, and the rate of increasing radiative forcing diminished with higher concentration. Good.
    Everybody has always agreed with that, including everyone at the IPCC. Everyone.
    Then why were you saying I was wrong about the logarithmic nature?
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Nothing you have posted on this forum in that specific respect has been denied or contradicted or objected to in any way by anyone. Nothing you have posted in that regard is unknown to any of the researchers in the field, or overlooked, in any manner whatsoever.
    You have repeatedly said I was wrong about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Now that we have established that, you don't need to continue spamming this forum with your graphs and reaffirmations of what everyone knows, and we can proceed with a discussion of the looming hazard we face from this accumulation of CO2 in the actual atmosphere of the real planet earth - an accumulation almost completely anthropogenic, rapidly increasing, and threatening us with the likelihood of wholesale changes in the climate among other ill consequences.
    My God man.

    First you disagree with the logarithmic relationship in an attempt to discredit me, now you agree you were wrong but said you knew all along. You still cannot show my assessment wrong that CO2 does not have as much radiative forcing as you and the other AGW people believe.

    Care to give that one a shot? Care to show the actual methods that prove CO2 to have the forcing assessed to it? You have skirted that issue repeatedly. Your saying I was wrong about the logarithmic relationship was just a waste of time since you now say I was right all along.
     

  4. #304  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    So you actually agree that the relationship is primarily logarithmic, and the rate of increasing radiative forcing diminished with higher concentration. Good.
    Everybody has always agreed with that, including everyone at the IPCC. Everyone.
    Then why were you saying I was wrong about the logarithmic nature?
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Nothing you have posted on this forum in that specific respect has been denied or contradicted or objected to in any way by anyone. Nothing you have posted in that regard is unknown to any of the researchers in the field, or overlooked, in any manner whatsoever.
    You have repeatedly said I was wrong about it.
    Will you please supply a quote of his which supports this contention?
     

  5. #305  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    So you actually agree that the relationship is primarily logarithmic, and the rate of increasing radiative forcing diminished with higher concentration. Good.
    Everybody has always agreed with that, including everyone at the IPCC. Everyone.
    Then why were you saying I was wrong about the logarithmic nature?
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Nothing you have posted on this forum in that specific respect has been denied or contradicted or objected to in any way by anyone. Nothing you have posted in that regard is unknown to any of the researchers in the field, or overlooked, in any manner whatsoever.
    You have repeatedly said I was wrong about it.
    Will you please supply a quote of his which supports this contention?
    On page 18:
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Don't you see my point? I say their constants are all wrong in the formula.
    And you say so based on a type of calculation that has been discredited for sixty years now, by theory and by the evidence.
    Is that good enough?

    I use logarithmic calculations and he says they are discredited. Funny how I use the calculations right out of the IPCC and he says I'm wrong, then says the IPCC is right:
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    So you actually agree that the relationship is primarily logarithmic, and the rate of increasing radiative forcing diminished with higher concentration. Good.
    Everybody has always agreed with that, including everyone at the IPCC. Everyone. Nothing you have posted on this forum in that specific respect has been denied or contradicted or objected to in any way by anyone.
     

  6. #306  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I use logarithmic calculations and he says they are discredited.
    The calculations you used are discredited for what you used them for, which was the complete evaluation of the effect on the Earth's atmospheric heat trapping of increasing the CO2 accumulation in that atmosphere.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    First you disagree with the logarithmic relationship in an attempt to discredit me, now you agree you were wrong but said you knew all along.
    I disagree that the logarithmic relationship answers the question of how further accumulation of CO2 will affect global temperatures. I disagree with your entire employment of that logarithmic relationship in the arguments on this thread. That is not the same thing as disagreeing with the laboratory measurements of the physical properties of CO2 concentrations - I linked to them myself, if you noticed, which I doubt you did.

    My quarrel is not with any real science. My quarrel is with your approach here. I think you are full of shit, that you never bothered to read the links I and others provided or consider the arguments advanced by me and several people here against your naive guesswork, and that your constant accusatory approach (whereby generations of scientists and researchers in multiple fields are teaching unsupported nonsense that has become groupthink among them, while you remain clearsighted and properly sceptical) is a symptom and a problem endemic to a certain political faction in the US.

    That has nothing to do with your little logarithmic relationship, which was the first subject in the first link I provided on this topic here IIRC. The discussion is about what you argue from it, which is garbage fifty years debunked in the real world, and several threads debunked on this forum.
     

  7. #307  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    How about stopping your nit-picking and accusations of what you don't understand, and ask instead?
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I use logarithmic calculations and he says they are discredited.
    The calculations you used are discredited for what you used them for, which was the complete evaluation of the effect on the Earth's atmospheric heat trapping of increasing the CO2 accumulation in that atmosphere.
    That's not how I used them. I never said they were a complete evaluation. Are you lying or are you that ignorant?

    I first used them in this thread to show the difference in forcing between the gasses. To show that actual radiative forcing for each gas is not the same as either RE (radiative efficiency) or GWP (global warming potential). If you cannot understand the difference between these three values, then you are far from equipped to debate this subject.

    Please don't tell me you are that stupid. Go back and see how many times I used "radiative efficiency" and "GWP."
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    First you disagree with the logarithmic relationship in an attempt to discredit me, now you agree you were wrong but said you knew all along.
    I disagree that the logarithmic relationship answers the question of how further accumulation of CO2 will affect global temperatures.
    Yet the formula by James Hansen does just that, and varies only marginally from the one I plotted the graphs with. You will find Hansen's formula used in nearly all of your linked works.

    Tell me. How do they most often reference additional warming? Isn't it by what effect a doubling has? Doesn't matter what formula you use, that applies in a simplistic evaluation inside the error range.

    I even stated there were other formulas, and linked Hansen's, so get off my case about such trivial things. You are time and time again exposing your sheer ignorance. I notice you were not equipped to plot Hansen's formula against mine, or was it because you see there is very little difference and know you would discredit yourself in doing so?
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    I disagree with your entire employment of that logarithmic relationship in the arguments on this thread.
    [/quote]
    Yet all Global Warming activists and deniers agree their is primarily a log relationship. What is the right way then? Why haven't you offered counter arguments? You look so foolish when you can only say I'm wrong, without offering what you say is right.

    Like being alone?
    [quote="iceaura"]
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    That is not the same thing as disagreeing with the laboratory measurements of the physical properties of CO2 concentrations - I linked to them myself, if you noticed, which I doubt you did.
    You linked the same one I already referenced with the other two for CO2 if I recall, except the constant was a different value. The one that is accepted for differential calculations of short variations.

    Yes, laboratory measurements are wrong to use, and I never used a laboratory assessment as it stood then. You are wrong to ASSume I did. The primary difference between the laboratory measurements and actual effect is the constant value for the gas used. Not the log relationship. There are other factors to the formula that slightly change the curve, but not much. Especially not enough to quibble about. On top of that, I had specifically said I disagree with the constant value used.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    My quarrel is not with any real science. My quarrel is with your approach here.
    At least I show I understand the relationships in my own words. All you appear to understand is what other people say. You don't even understand what you are saying I'm wrong about.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    I think you are full of shit, that you never bothered to read the links I and others provided
    I have read most of them believe it or not.

    Key phrase... "I think"... clearly an opinion. Ever think that maybe, just maybe, your opinion of me is wrong? Do you know what having an open mind is?
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    or consider the arguments advanced by me and several people here against your naive guesswork, and that your constant accusatory approach (whereby generations of scientists and researchers in multiple fields are teaching unsupported nonsense that has become groupthink among them, while you remain clearsighted and properly sceptical) is a symptom and a problem endemic to a certain political faction in the US.
    did you mean "group think," "clear sighted" and "skeptical?"

    You are entitled to your own opinion, but as long as you remain closed minded, and not open to other ideas, you will fail to achieve your full potential, or possible any potential.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    That has nothing to do with your little logarithmic relationship, which was the first subject in the first link I provided on this topic here IIRC. The discussion is about what you argue from it, which is garbage fifty years debunked in the real world, and several threads debunked on this forum.
    "here IIRC" ???

    Debunked by whom? The AGW crowd? Now I agree some of the older material is wrong, but other than the glass tube measurements, I don't recall you cited anything else. Please be clear of which of my assessments are debunked. I didn't see anything in your material that debunked mine, as I approach the science. Elaborate please, if you are capable.

    Don't you remember me agreeing long ago the glass tube measurements were wrong? First, they used steam as a heat source for IR radiation. Then on top of that, it is far from an accurate measurement because the gasses are not in proper proportions. It doesn't account for the partial pressure of CO2 or H2O, which do interact. We can forget the others as any interaction would be in the noise range, but it still needs to be in the nitrogen/oxygen mix. The problem now becomes having a long enough tube to test in accurately. That is why CO2 assessments are nothing but educated guesses. As far as I know, the best estimates today effectively take measurements over time, and apply a model and change the variables as needed to suit their expected outcome. This cannot be properly done with so many variables.

    I know what it is. You cannot debate my assessments with any science or math other than links that are effectively hearsay or theories from third parties. You are unequipped to understand the actual interactions, so you drive this debate off course with what must of been an intentional misunderstanding of the logarithmic math, and pointing out spelling errors.

    Are you an English teacher?

    From here on out, I am now going to try to hold my temper. I will not bother giving much thought to your responses that I think is BS on your part. You have trivialized yourself as badly as inow has, and am now not worth responding to, unless you actually add to the debate. Unless you can express ideas in your own words and support with substance, don't expect to see much response from me any more. I want to get back on the actual topic at hand rather than this petty bickering.

    As it stands, I do understand what the formulas represent. The formulas for CH4 and N2O in the IPCC that I referenced work together. They do so because they have a high interaction with each other. If you go back and look at the formulas I references, you will see that for each, the values of the other are input, and that there is a logarithmic component, and that these are for atmospheric radiative effect.

     

  8. #308  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    That's not how I used them. I never said they were a complete evaluation. Are you lying or are you that ignorant?

    I first used them in this thread to show the difference in forcing between the gasses.
    - - -
    I even stated there were other formulas, and linked Hansen's, so get off my case about such trivial things.
    - - -
    You have been using your log relationship to deny the IPCC predicted most likely effects of boosting CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. You have been claiming that the extra warming from more CO2 is just the tail of an already almost saturated log relationship, and too small to matter much. That is your single important reason for repeatedly posting it, and its only serious role in your arguments here.

    And that use of the log relationship is exactly what Callender first, and others afterwards, back in the 1950s, showed to be inadequate and incomplete in dealing with the real atmosphere. This is all in the links I posted, whose content and arguments you have never mentioned.

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    The primary difference between the laboratory measurements and actual effect is the constant value for the gas used. Not the log relationship.
    - - - - -
    , that you never bothered to read the links I and others provided

    I have read most of them believe it or not.
    If you had, you would not be telling me that the primary difference between your approach and the modern analysis is the constant used in your little equation there. You would instead be dealing with the modeling and equations of the effects of increasing CO2 in higher levels of the atmosphere, where it is dry and thin and not saturated, the feedback relationships with water vapor, and other complexities that are the key factors in AGW via CO2.

    So you see I don't believe you have read them or attended to their content, because you keep posting evidence of your lack of acquaintanceship with them. And you keep demanding stuff you could easily have found in them, their reference papers, their hyperlinks, etc, if you had an honest interest.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    From here on out, I am now going to try to hold my temper.
    First admit you are wrong. Then we can admire how you hold your temper - as you have been forcing everyone else to, for months.
     

  9. #309  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    That's not how I used them. I never said they were a complete evaluation. Are you lying or are you that ignorant?

    I first used them in this thread to show the difference in forcing between the gasses.
    - - -
    I even stated there were other formulas, and linked Hansen's, so get off my case about such trivial things.
    - - -
    You have been using your log relationship to deny the IPCC predicted most likely effects of boosting CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. You have been claiming that the extra warming from more CO2 is just the tail of an already almost saturated log relationship, and too small to matter much. That is your single important reason for repeatedly posting it, and its only serious role in your arguments here.

    And that use of the log relationship is exactly what Callender first, and others afterwards, back in the 1950s, showed to be inadequate and incomplete in dealing with the real atmosphere. This is all in the links I posted, whose content and arguments you have never mentioned.
    Sorry Iceaura, the reason that the relationship is as indicated by WC's graphics are not because of the saturation mechanics outlined in the papers you mention. The relationships are a consequence of many layers of low concentration radiation adsorbing and re-emitting gas in conjunction with heat transfer to other molecules with broader spectrum emissivity along with the temperature profile of the atmosphere. The profile WC is using seems to be correct but for reasons you seem unwilling or unable to consider.
     

  10. #310  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    That's not how I used them. I never said they were a complete evaluation. Are you lying or are you that ignorant?

    I first used them in this thread to show the difference in forcing between the gasses.
    - - -
    I even stated there were other formulas, and linked Hansen's, so get off my case about such trivial things.
    - - -
    You have been using your log relationship to deny the IPCC predicted most likely effects of boosting CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. You have been claiming that the extra warming from more CO2 is just the tail of an already almost saturated log relationship, and too small to matter much. That is your single important reason for repeatedly posting it, and its only serious role in your arguments here.

    And that use of the log relationship is exactly what Callender first, and others afterwards, back in the 1950s, showed to be inadequate and incomplete in dealing with the real atmosphere. This is all in the links I posted, whose content and arguments you have never mentioned.
    Sorry Iceaura, the reason that the relationship is as indicated by WC's graphics are not because of the saturation mechanics outlined in the papers you mention. The relationships are a consequence of many layers of low concentration radiation adsorbing and re-emitting gas in conjunction with heat transfer to other molecules with broader spectrum emissivity along with the temperature profile of the atmosphere. The profile WC is using seems to be correct but for reasons you seem unwilling or unable to consider.
    Thanx, but it doesn't matter. No matter what the truth is, he will fabricate fault in anyone who doesn't believes as he does.
     

  11. #311  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Sorry Iceaura, the reason that the relationship is as indicated by WC's graphics
    What relationship?

    The relationship between boosting of atmospheric CO2 and the heat content of the lower atmosphere is not captured by those graphics. That has been known for many years now.

    Several researchers - linked by me in direct response to you, in the past, as you know - discovered previously overlooked complexity in the matter back in the 1950s, and subsequent research both theoretical and physical have borne out the implications - CO2 boosting as we have been engaged in will probably (depending on various feedbacks and factors) have serious effects on the global climate, by trapping large quantities of heat in the lower atmosphere.

    Cobra uses his graphics in an attempt to deny that possibility.
     

  12. #312  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Sorry Iceaura, the reason that the relationship is as indicated by WC's graphics
    What relationship?

    The relationship between boosting of atmospheric CO2 and the heat content of the lower atmosphere is not captured by those graphics. That has been known for many years now.

    Several researchers - linked by me in direct response to you, in the past, as you know - discovered previously overlooked complexity in the matter back in the 1950s, and subsequent research both theoretical and physical have borne out the implications
    They discovered that the atmosphere does not model well in a short tube of gas. They discovered that the system may be more complex but they did not discover what that complexity is. The implications are not borne out, and they are not understood. What is becoming clearer and clearer is that the empirical data correlates well with the relationship WC has presented and there is theoretical support for the observed behavior.

    - CO2 boosting as we have been engaged in will probably (depending on various feedbacks and factors) have serious effects on the global climate, by trapping large quantities of heat in the lower atmosphere.
    Your choice of the word probably says it all.

    Cobra uses his graphics in an attempt to deny that possibility.
    I am quite certain that you have failed to grasp what WC is attempting to describe to you.
     

  13. #313  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Cobra uses his graphics in an attempt to deny that possibility.
    Prove it.
     

  14. #314  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    What is becoming clearer and clearer is that the empirical data correlates well with the relationship WC has presented and there is theoretical support for the observed behavior.
    I leave out a little feedback, and he just doesn't understand that it doesn't matter for most discussions.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I am quite certain that you have failed to grasp what WC is attempting to describe to you.
    He absolutely has failed to grasp it. He's a perfect bot for the AGW crowd.

    Ice, I'll try again. We just went into a discussion about GWP, after I disagreed with CH4 being a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. From page 15:
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    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 see, Free Radical has this wrong. CO2 is a stronger greenhouse gas in comparative levels to CH4. The RE for CH4 is larger because it is at a steeper part of a log curve because it is in a far lower concentration. The GWP is larger because calculates the weight of the volume, the RE, and the lifetime. The RE of CH4 is about 24.3 times stronger than CO2 and has a mass only 36.4% that of CO2.

    This started after this exchange on page 13:
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    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.
    It is commonly accepted that the radiative forcing of a mole of CH4 is 25 times as strong as a mole of CO2. N20 is several fold stronger yet.
    You are wrong. You are talking about the GWP (Global Warming Potential). That is not the same as radiative forcing.
    After these exchanges, I placed my graphs in place, showing the relative differences of the gasses. With or without feedback, the variations remain similar.

    If you go back to page 16 of this thread, I said the following:
    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.
    The SAR values for RE were taken at 364 ppm for CO2, 1775 ppb for CH4, and 314 ppb for N2O. At those points on my graph, I get:

    1.472e-5 for CO2 at 364 ppm. 4.9% lower than the SAR.
    3.663e-4 for CH4 at 1775 ppb. 1.1% lower than the SAR.
    3.014e-3 for N2O at 314 ppb. 0.5% lower than SAR.

    Remember, I made my graphs to reflect AR4 assessments. Not SAR. The constant for CO2 was lowered from SAR to AR4.

    Now the AR4 on pg. 211 lists the RE of CO2 at 1.4e-5, CH4 at 3.7e-4, and N2O at 3.03e-3. I get:

    1.414e-5 for CO2 at 379 ppm. 1% higher than the AR4.
    3.664e-4 for CH4 at 1774 ppb. 1% lower than the AR4.
    3.003e-3 for N2O at 319 ppb. 0.9% lower than AR4.

    Now tell me, why aren't the graphs I used appropriate for this sequence of events? Considering I have a 1% or less inaccuracy from the IPCC, I'd say they were fine for the purpose. Keep in mind, feedback is going to be similar in all. The same formula must be used for comparisons when looking at them individually. Hansen's formula is right, but needs the component Shi uses to combine gasses. My formula is simply Hansen's, removing the feedback components.

    I'll tell you what though. I'll start using James Hansen's complete formula. So little difference between his and mine, I don't care and it has the assumed feedback in it. Tired of hearing you Cry Ice.

    As for Shi's formula for CH4 and N2O. It only works for short delta ranges. The values get impossibly large when you approach the levels of CO2. Neither, and even both combined cannot exceed the warming of CO2 because they block less than half as much of the atmospheric window as CO2 does.
     

  15. #315  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by "cypress'
    Cobra uses his graphics in an attempt to deny that possibility.


    I am quite certain that you have failed to grasp what WC is attempting to describe to you.
    It ain't rocket science.

    Check this out:
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I leave out a little feedback, and he just doesn't understand that it doesn't matter for most discussions.
    Notice that he has no evidence whatsoever for that one.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I'll tell you what though. I'll start using James Hansen's complete formula. So little difference between his and mine, I don't care and it has the assumed feedback in it. Tired of hearing you Cry Ice.
    No matter whose formula you use in that argument, it will remain invalid. You still aren't dealing with the actual atmosphere, and the boosting of CO2 in it.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Cobra uses his graphics in an attempt to deny that possibility.

    Prove it.
    Just quoted the latest repetition of the argument, of the dozens - this one without the pictures.

    Notice there's still nothing about the actual arguments being used by the AGW crowd - there's no mention of them.
     

  16. #316  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura

    Check this out:
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I leave out a little feedback, and he just doesn't understand that it doesn't matter for most discussions.
    Notice that he has no evidence whatsoever for that one.
    Yes, however, he has offered supporting evidence several times in the past.

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I'll tell you what though. I'll start using James Hansen's complete formula. So little difference between his and mine, I don't care and it has the assumed feedback in it. Tired of hearing you Cry Ice.
    No matter whose formula you use in that argument, it will remain invalid. You still aren't dealing with the actual atmosphere, and the boosting of CO2 in it.
    Surely you see yourself in your argument. Surely you recognize that you have no "valid" formula to offer and therefore have no basis to declare his incorrect. The empirical evidence though is on his side of the argument. It corroborates fairly well.

    Notice there's still nothing about the actual arguments being used by the AGW crowd - there's no mention of them.
    I am not following you on this point. Please explain.
     

  17. #317  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    No matter whose formula you use in that argument, it will remain invalid. You still aren't dealing with the actual atmosphere, and the boosting of CO2 in it.
    Surely you see yourself in your argument. Surely you recognize that you have no "valid" formula to offer and therefore have no basis to declare his incorrect. The empirical evidence though is on his side of the argument. It corroborates fairly well.
    No matter how many times I ask for the right formula, he doesn't offer one, but say's I'm wrong. I guess he doesn't accept that Hansen's formula is approximated to add all the feedback into the atmospheric conditions.

    Thanks for trying, but I say we let him remain an ignorant ass and just ignore him. He deserves no better.
     

  18. #318  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Thanks for trying, but I say we let him remain an ignorant ass and just ignore him. He deserves no better.
    Hello... pot? I'd like you to meet the kettle.
     

  19. #319  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Thanks for trying, but I say we let him remain an ignorant ass and just ignore him. He deserves no better.
    Hello... pot? I'd like you to meet the kettle.
    Can you offer the proper formula?
     

  20. #320  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Can you offer the proper formula?
    As stated above:


    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    No matter whose formula you use in that argument, it will remain invalid. You still aren't dealing with the actual atmosphere, and the boosting of CO2 in it.
     

  21. #321  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    long story short global warming is not real! read my links for my support
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
     

  22. #322  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    long story short global warming is not real! read my links for my support
    Regardless of what your link says, thermometers tell a very different story.
     

  23. #323  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    show me the data
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
     

  24. #324  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    show me the data
    http://www.google.com/search?q=instrumental+record
     

  25. #325  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    im actually aware of those precise maps.

    However though

    #1. they fail to show the rapid decline in the past 5 years stopping there data at 2005 while updating other stuff tri-anually suggesting a little bias

    #2. The biggest reason i can not correspond to such an idea as global warming is that co2 levels rise slightly before heat periods.

    #3. You of course have those scandal letters

    #4. We are not living during a extreme warming period if we continue our data out further.

    #5. ICE caps were tremendously larger the previous year compared to a few short years ago?

    shall i go on?
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
     

  26. #326  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    #1. they fail to show the rapid decline in the past 5 years
    2005 is the warmest year ever recorded since the invention of the thermometer.
    This has been the warmest decade on record.
    Calling the SLIGHTLY cooler annual average temps during the last 3-5 a "rapid decline" using the hottest year on record as your baseline is a bit disingenuous.


    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    #2. The biggest reason i can not correspond to such an idea as global warming is that co2 levels rise slightly before heat periods.
    Isn't that the point?


    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    #3. You of course have those scandal letters
    Which were demonstrated to be quote mined, taken wholly out of context, and to have no bearing whatsoever on the science of climate change.


    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    #4. We are not living during a extreme warming period if we continue our data out further.
    Doesn't matter what happened in the past. Your implicit suggestion is that the change is a result of natural influences, yet no natural factor can account for either the amount or the speed of the warming trend in the present day.

    If you disagree, that's fine, but the challenge is for you to define what natural mechanism is causing the warming trend, especially since we've determined it cannot be the sun, it cannot be volcanoes, and it cannot be pretty much any of the things which resulted in warming in the past several millenia.

    You know what can, and what does remarkably accurately (despite Wild_Cobra and Cypress fellating each other when stating the contrary) account for the warming we've been experiencing... Human contributions of CO2. This is basic chemistry which as been understood since the 1800s.

    Seriously... I understand it's complex, but even a young man must know that digging vast stores of energy which have been buried in the ground for millions of years, burning it by the ton, and releasing it into the air is going to have some effect on the earth system. It's that effect which we are here now discussing.


    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    #5. ICE caps were tremendously larger the previous year compared to a few short years ago?
    That is, quite simply, false. The ice caps are melting more robustly and earlier in the year than at any time in recent history.



    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    shall i go on?
    Please do. I enjoy helping people learn and correcting misconceptions where I encounter them.
     

  27. #327  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    #1. they fail to show the rapid decline in the past 5 years
    2005 is the warmest year ever recorded since the invention of the thermometer.
    This has been the warmest decade on record.
    Calling the SLIGHTLY cooler annual average temps during the last 3-5 a "rapid decline" using the hottest year on record as your baseline is a bit disingenuous.
    Surface temperature records are now known to include a warming bias post 1989. We are seeing monthly revelations from researchers closely involved with the data and methods admitting that there are sever problems with the sets. Here is a recent report on the matter. Satellite temperature scans provide a different story that is increasingly preferred over the problematic surface compilations.



    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    #3. You of course have those scandal letters
    Which were demonstrated to be quote mined, taken wholly out of context, and to have no bearing whatsoever on the science of climate change.
    These sorts of things have their greatest impact in how it affects public opinion. On that score your argument falls flat Inow. You personally may actually believe that the emails were quote mined, taken out of context and have no bearing, but the strong majority disagrees with you and increasingly the science community is behaving as if it had strong bearing on the science. All you have to do is read the articles as they come out on this topic to see that your take on this matter is poorly framed.


    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    #4. We are not living during a extreme warming period if we continue our data out further.
    Doesn't matter what happened in the past. Your implicit suggestion is that the change is a result of natural influences, yet no natural factor can account for either the amount or the speed of the warming trend in the present day.
    Actually several recent published reports have proposed several natural influence that explain current trends including ocean oscillations combined with and natural galactic patterns and sun cycles. I guess you are stuck on "man did it". I can certainly see why it is so important for you to use the warming biased surface temperature compilations. When you use other better managed proxies for global temperature changes, your claims look more far fetched.

    If you disagree, that's fine, but the challenge is for you to define what natural mechanism is causing the warming trend, especially since we've determined it cannot be the sun, it cannot be volcanoes, and it cannot be pretty much any of the things which resulted in warming in the past several millenia.
    Determined nothing. claims are easy to make but it is far more difficult to substantiate them. Once again there are a number of factors that your researchers did not consider when attempting to claim natural causes should be dismissed.

    You know what can, and what does remarkably accurately (despite Wild_Cobra and Cypress fellating each other when stating the contrary) account for the warming we've been experiencing... Human contributions of CO2. This is basic chemistry which as been understood since the 1800s.
    There is nothing basic about it. It is so complex that climate researchers commonly lament the fact that they have been unable to balance the earth's heat budget. furthermore the direct and indirect effects of trace constituents in the atmosphere is also not understood. Only climate simulators (GCM's), models implicate CO2 as a major contributor to warming and these models are programmed by people who presume CO2 has a major impact. Should we be surprised when their code tells them what they programmed into the model?

    Seriously... I understand it's complex, but even a young man must know that digging vast stores of energy which have been buried in the ground for millions of years, burning it by the ton, and releasing it into the air is going to have some effect on the earth system. It's that effect which we are here now discussing.
    Sure but if that store of energy is just a drop in a bucket, the impact is small. Empirical data along with improved understanding of long term cycles indicates the effects of increased CO2 is less than a third of what the IPCC has predicted (again those predictions are based on faulty climate models).

    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    #5. ICE caps were tremendously larger the previous year compared to a few short years ago?
    That is, quite simply, false. The ice caps are melting more robustly and earlier in the year than at any time in recent history.
    Perhaps you should look at current data. This year's Arctic melt is a month later than the average since 1978 and the current extent is only ever so slightly below 1978-2000 average. Antarctic ice minimum was again above average as it has been for nearly ten years.

    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    shall i go on?
    Please do. I enjoy helping people learn and correcting misconceptions where I encounter them.
    You seem better suited at generating misconceptions and confusion than clearing them up.
     

  28. #328  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    #2. The biggest reason i can not correspond to such an idea as global warming is that co2 levels rise slightly before heat periods.
    That's very funny. Go back to denialist school.
     

  29. #329  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Perhaps you should look at current data. This year's Arctic melt is a month later than the average since 1978 and the current extent is only ever so slightly below 1978-2000 average.

    BS Cypress. It's you that simply makes broad statements without reference or empirical facts...and it's damn tiresome. The Arctic ice extent was 4th lowest ever measured in that period and more than two standard deviations below (a lot more than "slightly below") the average based on time of year.

    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  30. #330  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You personally may actually believe that the emails were quote mined, taken out of context and have no bearing, but the strong majority disagrees with you and increasingly the science community is behaving as if it had strong bearing on the science. All you have to do is read the articles as they come out on this topic to see that your take on this matter is poorly framed.
    Your lies and spin are really rather annoying. I don't care if you lie to yourself, but stop lying to others.


    http://climateprogress.org/wp-conten...bargoedv21.pdf

    The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, we consider that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. We have suggested that the community consider becoming more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On accusations relating to Freedom of Information, we consider that much of the responsibility should lie with UEA, not CRU.

    In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty--for example, Professor Jones's alleged attempt to "hide the decline"--we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that "global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity"

    More here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/0..._continued.php
    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/c...ry-report.html
    http://climateprogress.org/2010/03/3...st-phil-jones/
    http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2862717.htm
     

  31. #331  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Inow, that discussion is in a different thread.
     

  32. #332  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Perhaps you should look at current data. This year's Arctic melt is a month later than the average since 1978 and the current extent is only ever so slightly below 1978-2000 average.

    BS Cypress. It's you that simply makes broad statements without reference or empirical facts...and it's damn tiresome. The Arctic ice extent was 4th lowest ever measured in that period and more than two standard deviations below (a lot more than "slightly below") the average based on time of year.

    Lynx_Fox, I would urge you to check your information more closely and ensure you get the most recent data.

     

  33. #333  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    You personally may actually believe that the emails were quote mined, taken out of context and have no bearing, but the strong majority disagrees with you and increasingly the science community is behaving as if it had strong bearing on the science. All you have to do is read the articles as they come out on this topic to see that your take on this matter is poorly framed.
    Your lies and spin are really rather annoying. I don't care if you lie to yourself, but stop lying to others.


    http://climateprogress.org/wp-conten...bargoedv21.pdf
    I was not aware that the house of Commons represented a majority.


    Nor do I think a handful cherry-picked of articles properly represent majority view.
     

  34. #334  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Lynx_Fox, I would urge you to check your information more closely and ensure you get the most recent data.
    Yep... It was a recent news event also!
     

  35. #335  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    #2. The biggest reason i can not correspond to such an idea as global warming is that co2 levels rise slightly before heat periods.
    excuse me i meant precisely the opposite thing!

    the ridicule was well deserved. :?

    heat levels rise before co2 levels rise.


    Now would any of you care to tell me what the single green house gas is that makes up 95% of all green house gas's?
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
     

  36. #336  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
     

  37. #337  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Well, I think I have repeatedly said what I think of articles from RealClimate. Still, I would like to point out that the second link repeatedly uses the word "could." That's not very difinative to me. I can go along with the ranges in the first one, but I am even skeptical about that. Let me point out though, that the 9% to 26% greenhouse effect range centers at 17.5%. This is the equivalent of less than 6 C of the greenhouse effect. If I assume for an approximate 365 ppm assuming an approximate time of the model, and modify Hansen's CO2 formula to fit, I get only a 0.84 radiative increase where the IPCC says 1.66 for CO2.

    Nothing ever fits when you look at these formulas. To get the 1.66, the CO2% has to be calculated at 32%.

    Again, the numbers never add up right when you look at these. Even to assume an approximate 12% greater for feedback, the CO2 still has to be 28% of the equation.

    Worse yet, the 9% to 26% comes from RealClimate. Everyone there are AGW believers, not a body of people looking at all factors subjectively.

    Let me add one more thing. The proposed increase caused by CO2 by the AGW crowd is somewhere between 0.6 C and 0.9 C. This is 1.8% to 2.7% of the greenhouse effect.

    Is there anyone here that will claim this cannot be part of a 30 year or so cycle, to influence most of that range?
     

  38. #338  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Can someone explain to me how added CO2 warming has any significant effect of H2O warming?

    If I look at humidity graphs, and extrapolate the data, a 1 C increase in temperature increases the maximum possible humidity by 9.1% at -25 C to -24 C. At 14 C to 15 C, it only increases the maximum possible humidity by 5.3%. At 29 C to 30 C, by 4.9%.

    This would be such a minor increase of feedback considering the primarily logarithmic nature of greenhouse gasses, but does support why the poles see a larger change than tropical regions.
     

  39. #339  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    It dosn't. I would like to know who the scientists is whom proposed this so i can email him and find out more or if i am mistaken becuase really it just sounds like non sense.
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
     

  40. #340  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Is there anyone here that will claim this cannot be part of a 30 year or so cycle, to influence most of that range?
    I'm sorry, you seem to be implying that the input of message board members on this issue carries some weight.

    I'll happily say that this is not part of a 30 year cycle.

    Now what?
     

  41. #341  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Statisticians comment on status of climate change science:
    As members of the ASA’s Climate Change Policy Advisory Committee, we commented on early drafts of the letter and, upon reviewing the final version, advised Morton to sign it. We are well aware that some disagree with the statements in the letter. The views of climate change ’skeptics’ and ‘deniers’ appear in many media, from blogs and videos to op-eds and congressional testimony. We prefer to think of the views of skeptics as part of the scientific spectrum, but nevertheless believe they are a minority who do not represent the mainstream scientific viewpoint.
    Also:

    The leaked emails of Climategate highlight relevant issues to the assessment of climate research, including data handling and documentation. On broader issues of response to skeptics in such areas as the hockey stick reconstruction, the influence of the solar signal, and the interpretation of the post-1998 leveling off of temperatures, we think climate skeptics have raised legitimate points in each case—several times involving statistical methods or the assessment of associated uncertainties—that should be the focus of further research. However, these points do not change our view that the climate is warming, that anthropogenic influences are likely responsible, and that appropriate mitigation measures need to be considered.

    And a point by point response to several current "debates" on the issue:

    http://magazine.amstat.org/2010/03/climatemar10/
     

  42. #342  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Is there anyone here that will claim this cannot be part of a 30 year or so cycle, to influence most of that range?
    I'm sorry, you seem to be implying that the input of message board members on this issue carries some weight.

    I'll happily say that this is not part of a 30 year cycle.

    Now what?
    I think you missed my point. I don't know all the factors, and am challenging someone to show the warming till a few years ago isn't a natural cycle, in part.

    I just know what the AGW crowd keeps saying doesn't add up. I know that solar plays a larger role than they give credit for, and AGW scientists recently acknowledged soot plays a far larger role than previously thought. If any of the last 30 years of measurable warming is man-made, then I would attribute it to soot.

    I am a solid believer that since the sun has quieting, we will be cooling as well. That s assuming the soot doesn't counteract it.
     

  43. #343  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Apologies for missing your point.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I am a solid believer that since the sun has quieting, we will be cooling as well. That s assuming the soot doesn't counteract it.
    I am a solid believer that as we enter winter, we will be cooling.

    Notwithstanding, cycles of warming and cooling are insufficient to explain the overall upward temperature trends. Solar activity is a red herring.



     

  44. #344  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    I am a solid believer that as we enter winter, we will be cooling.
    Ha. Ha...
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Notwithstanding, cycles of warming and cooling are insufficient to explain the overall upward temperature trends. Solar activity is a red herring.
    Solar activity is not a red herring. There has been almost no change in the 11 year average for more than 50 years, till these last couple years. Just watch, time will tell, at least if this solar inactivity continues. CO2 will continue to rise, and if soot doesn't change much, and if the sun stays as low as it has been lately, we can count on an approximate 0.15 C drop in global temperature.
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Yes, notice we have had the lower irradiance starting at about 2005 than any time previous.
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    I have repeatedly argued the likely cause of the steady warming since the 70's was EPA regulations and clearing the skis of heavy smog, that it would have otherwise peaked earlier.

    Are you going to claim this is impossible?

    There are no trends that can be solidly pinned on CO2. there are other factors that easily outweigh it's influence. If CO2 was the cause of the warming from 1976 onward, then why isn't the steady rise before that showing a similar trend?
     

  45. #345  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    wow that first graph is pretty amazing (it looks so in pattern and clear)
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
     

  46. #346  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    wow that first graph is pretty amazing (it looks so in pattern and clear)
    The cycles we see correlate to the 11 year sunspot cycles. What the graph represents is not an actual data. It shows the corrected solar irradiance to 1 AU. When the earth is at it's Aphelion, it's 152,097,701 km, or 1.0167103335 AU from the sun. At it's Perihelion, it's 147,098,074 km, or 0.9832898912 AU. This doesn't seem like much, but that +/- 1.67%, based on 1366 watts annual average, is from 1343.2 to 1388.8 watts. Not so important for most things. most solar irradiance graph we see are adjusted to 1 AU. This is why southern hemisphere climates are more severe than the northern hemisphere though.
     

  47. #347  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    The cycles we see correlate to the 11 year sunspot cycles.
    The underlying warming trend does not.

    The visible cycles of temperature from the sunspot variation also provides evidence against any mysteriously convenient "lags" - there is no time when extra solar input remains invisible until years later.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I have repeatedly argued the likely cause of the steady warming since the 70's was EPA regulations and clearing the skis of heavy smog
    An argument apparently based on the presumption that the EPA governed the smog of the planet.

    The skies over China, India, Indonesia, Mesopotamia, (even rural US, Canada, Mexico) etc, were not cleared - considerably the reverse. Something you yourself invoke as the cause of the soot you also blame for the warming trend, when convenient.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    This is why southern hemisphere climates are more severe than the northern hemisphere though.
    ? They are?
     

  48. #348  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I have repeatedly argued the likely cause of the steady warming since the 70's was EPA regulations and clearing the skis of heavy smog, that it would have otherwise peaked earlier.

    Are you going to claim this is impossible?

    There are no trends that can be solidly pinned on CO2. there are other factors that easily outweigh it's influence. If CO2 was the cause of the warming from 1976 onward, then why isn't the steady rise before that showing a similar trend?
    There are several possibilities, such as the idea that the system can accomodate some fluctuation prior to raching a tipping point.

    No one has argued that CO2 is the sole factor in climate.

    The following article argues well for CO2 as a driver of climate change:

    Connection Between CO2 and Climate Change

    Peter Guttorp, University of Washington, Norwegian Computing Center

    Fifteen years ago, most scientists had not yet convinced themselves that greenhouse gases led to observable climate change. Indeed, the influence of solar activity was still a viable explanation for the observed increase in average global temperatures, thanks largely to a 1991 Science article by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen that showed temperatures were highly correlated with sunspot numbers.A 1995 Science article by David J. Thomson, titled “The Seasons, Global Temperature, and Precession,” provided the first strong evidence in favor of an observable greenhouse gas effect. Also notable is that the work was based primarily on a careful statistical analysis of the temperature series, rather than on climate models. To me, this paper was the first smoking gun that global warming is connected to the increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.There have been many works since to substantiate the connections, but an explanation of Thomson’s paper may be helpful to Amstat News readers.The amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth depends on the angle of Earth’s rotation to the ecliptic (the plane of the orbit) and its distance from the Sun (because the Earth’s orbit is elliptical). The former follows the “tropical” year, the time between two vernal equinoxes, which is 365.2442 days and governs seasons. The distance of the Earth from the sun follows the “anomalistic” year, the time between aphelion (farthest point from the sun) in Earth’s orbit, which is currently 365.2596 days.The interaction between these two cycles so close in time yields long temperature cycles, which result in the quarternary ice ages. The shortest of these cycles is about 26,000 years, very long compared to the instrumental record of temperature.Because these cycles are so close in value, one must use statistical tools to study their influences. Complex demodulation, in effect, removes one of the influencing cycles and looks at the remaining spectrum of a quantity, called the “phase.”

    Phase of the Jones-Wigley Northern Hemisphere temperature series (solid) with average phase from 156 northerly land stations (dashed) and the line expected if the anomalistic year frequency dominates the tropical yearWhen one removes the influence of the tropical year, the phase should be flat if the dominant frequency is that of the tropical year. If the anomalistic year is dominant, we would expect to see a linear phase in the residuals with slope equal to the inverse of the difference between the frequencies (57.3 arc seconds per year). The figure above shows the phase of the Jones-Wigley Northern Hemisphere temperature series (solid line), the average phase for 156 stations above 23°N (dashed line) and the dotted line with a slope equal to the precession constant (the rate at which the Earth’s axis rotates).The analysis shows that between 1880 and 1920 the dominant frequency in the temperature series is the anomalistic one. To explain the phase diagram after 1920, a statistician would look at the “residuals,” the difference between the predicted (dotted) line and the estimated phase. The figure below shows the residuals, together with a fit to the logarithm of atmospheric CO2 levels.

    Since the fit is excellent, we have two possible explanations: Either the CO2 levels are influencing the phase and thus changing the distribution of temperature (i.e., the climate) or there is a common underlying feature driving both the phase change and CO2 levels. No mechanism has been proposed that can do the latter.Graphics reprinted with permission from The American Association for the Advancement of Science
     

  49. #349  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    The cycles we see correlate to the 11 year sunspot cycles.
    The underlying warming trend does not.
    Is anyone arguing otherwise?
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The visible cycles of temperature from the sunspot variation also provides evidence against any mysteriously convenient "lags" - there is no time when extra solar input remains invisible until years later.
    Again, your point? You are arguing against things nobody is claiming. As for lag, that has to do with latent energy absorbed in the oceans. The 11 year cycle itself is too small to worry about. It is withing the error range of anything we can quantify.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I have repeatedly argued the likely cause of the steady warming since the 70's was EPA regulations and clearing the skis of heavy smog
    An argument apparently based on the presumption that the EPA governed the smog of the planet.
    It's not a presumption so much as to show the AGW claim isn't solid, and the changes can be accounted for other ways.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The skies over China, India, Indonesia, Mesopotamia, (even rural US, Canada, Mexico) etc, were not cleared - considerably the reverse. Something you yourself invoke as the cause of the soot you also blame for the warming trend, when convenient.
    I'm getting tired of you lack of comprehension.

    Smog and soot are two different things.
     

  50. #350  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    The following article argues well for CO2 as a driver of climate change:
    No it doesn't. If it covered more aspects in their statistical analysis, I might agree.

    Correlation does not equal causation. What so many people refuse to accept is that there are other possibilities. Like it or not, we have know long term solar variations. Energy changes don't just magically disappear. We know the sun has increased by at least 0.18% in long term average intensity since the Maunder Minimum. I have every right to reject any premise that ignores this fact.
     

  51. #351  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    We know the sun has increased by at least 0.18% in long term average intensity since the Maunder Minimum. I have every right to reject any premise that ignores this fact.
    You have no right to reject "premises" - you mean arguments and analyses - that take that fact into account.

    As those of the IPCC, for one, do.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    It's not a presumption so much as to show the AGW claim isn't solid, and the changes can be accounted for other ways.
    Well since its presumptions are obviously false, it doesn't show anything of the kind, right?
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    As for lag, that has to do with latent energy absorbed in the oceans.
    There is no such lag in the sunspot cycle effects. They affect the temps almost immediately, visibly. You have to account for the invisibility of the effects of the solar increases you claim are "lagging" - latent heat absorbed by the ocean does not cover up the immediate effects of the solar boost you claim installed that latent heat, nor does it explain why the lag and release imitates the warming patterns expected from the measured CO2 boost.

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Correlation does not equal causation
    It's better evidence than lack of correlation.
     

  52. #352  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    I see it is pointless to argue with you. When you claim there is no such thing as lag in such a large system, you are no longer relevant to any scientific discussion.
     

  53. #353  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Read more closely, Wild_Cobra. The point is that this presumed lag of yours simply cannot and does not explain the warming trend in the annual average global temperatures we've been experiencing.
     

  54. #354  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Read more closely, Wild_Cobra. The point is that this presumed lag of yours simply cannot and does not explain the warming trend in the annual average global temperatures we've been experiencing.
    The way I read it is in essence that he says the oceans do not store energy. He says no lag, which is dead wrong. Besides, I am not saying any one thing accounts for the variations, yet you guys seem stuck on CO2.
     

  55. #355  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    The way I read it is in essence that he says the oceans do not store energy.
    This is contrary to the numerous clarifications he has provided you in this thread and others. While you might argue that he was a little lazy/sloppy with his word choice in the single post above, his meaning and intent has been quite clear and consistent throughout these discussions, and you are not demonstrating an accurate comprehension of his intended point.
     

  56. #356  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    The way I read it is in essence that he says the oceans do not store energy.
    This is contrary to the numerous clarifications he has provided you in this thread and others. While you might argue that he was a little lazy/sloppy with his word choice in the single post above, his meaning and intent has been quite clear and consistent throughout these discussions, and you are not demonstrating an accurate comprehension of his intended point.
    I know not by your perception, because you also disagree that the stored energy lag can be decades in length.

    We've already had this lag discussion. Remember?

    The science is not settled. I am baffled that so many people who claim they understand science think it is.
     

  57. #357  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    ipcc is a criminal organization! i don't know how anyone could base there beliefs on a disgusting organization like that!
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
     

  58. #358  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Erm... Yeah. Righto, then.
     

  59. #359  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by An inconvenient lie
    ipcc is a criminal organization! i don't know how anyone could base there beliefs on a disgusting organization like that!
    They're politicians. No more criminal than politicians and lie for their motives.

    Bottom line people... They are a political body!
     

  60. #360  
    Forum Sophomore An inconvenient lie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    florida orlando/daytona area
    Posts
    130
    entirely not to mention they reflect many communist ideals
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...alwarming.html
    Global warming is an inconvenient lie!

    Student
     

  61. #361  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Being only sixteen years old is not an excuse for holding dumb ideas.
    Wise up! With an IQ of 169 you should be able to figure out for yourself why claiming the IPCC is a criminal organisation is even dumber than packing your ass full of semtex and handing the remote trigger to your worst enemy.
     

  62. #362  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,306
    That's about enough of that.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •