November 23rd, 2009, 09:40 AM
So, let's say that global warming isn't actually caused by humans. What then? To paraphrase a NASA scientist, what makes us so arrogant to assume that our current climate is the way the climate should stay for the rest of eternity?
Why should we do anything about global warming, when we know the Earth is a dynamic place, and we can't count on things remaining the same forever?
What if...the Earth started cooling...would we still blame ourselves?
November 23rd, 2009, 10:18 AM
Who assumes that? No serious person I've ever heard. That appears to be a pretty blatant strawman. Everyone knows that the earth's climate will change. Nobody who is not a batshit crazy moron suggests otherwise.Originally Posted by Gen1GT
The issue is that no natural forcing agent can account for the change we are currently experiencing, nor can any natural mechanisms explain the speed with which it is occurring. Oddly enough, when we factor human (anthropogenic) contributions into the mix, we get a clear view which aligns with the reality around us... Fancy that.
Either way... Nobody is saying that the climate should remain the same for all eternity. That's pretty damned stupid.
Well, a mass extinction event worries me a bit... especially if humanity is included and it's something we can adjust our behavior to delay or avoid. The earth will be fine... We as a species (or the hundreds of thousands of others)? Maybe not.
It's about climate change, not global warming. Some of the change will result in warming, and some in cooling, and still some in much more extreme weather events... It's not just "global warming," it's about "climate change."
Now, it's also not about "blame." It's about properly accounting for the variables in the system and understanding what has resulted in that change. Hiding our heads in the sand and trying to pretend it's not a result of human activity isn't going to help us to mitigate the issue.
I'm sure the majority of climate scientists realize the climate changes naturally, but I'm not sure the same number of politicians realize the same.
What always happens after mass extinctions? ...rapid mass evolution.
"It's about climate change?" So you're saying carbon dioxide both heats and cools the planet?
Even if our climate is changing faster than it has in recorded history, it's still changing at a glacial pace. It's not like an increase in ocean levels are going to create a tidal wave on the shores of our continents.
I guess what I'm saying here, is that I'm not yet convinced that climate change is a bad thing.
How far under water will the Netherlands have to be to convince you that climate change is a bad thing?
November 23rd, 2009, 11:06 AM
That's wrong, and you either haven't studied the various geosciences in play, don't understand them, or are someone who just believes the popular theory.
The idea that man is the cause of our reported warming cannot be validated, and the solar connection is definitely there for half or more of it. When you speak of ice melt, that is primarily at the norther pole, which is primarily cause by soot from Asia, which in turn warms the ocean by reduction of albedo. Being floating ice, there is a zero effect of sea level. As for glaciers, there are more growing than shrinking, including Greenland. To have a massive sea level rise, we need Greenland and Antarctica to have severe melts. Not in the works.
Now I assume is southern Argentina, Chili, or Australia started emitting soot as prolific as Asia does, we could see some massive melts in Antarctica. Then I would be seriously concerned.
We need to get Asia to use scrubbers like we use! It's the soot causing problems, not CO2!
CO2 will never be the cause of it unless we manage to get high enough levels to start harming the respiration of life.
Please, do tell.It's about climate change, not global warming. Some of the change will result in warming, and some in cooling, and still some in much more extreme weather events... It's not just "global warming," it's about "climate change."
How does CO2 account for any cooling. It's the soot!. Soot in the atmosphere reduces sunlight to earth even though it has a low albedo, it warning too high in the atmosphere. Causes cooling. Soot on the ground decreases albedo and increases warming, especially on snow and ace that normally reflect most the sun's energy.
Then please properly account for the changes in solar activity, changes in EPA regulations, Henry's Law, The Carbon Cycle, black soot, and ENSO. There are more, but these are the most important things to learn.
I just love the false impressions that RealClimate gives. Have any one article you want me to show wrong?
How about the warming by CO2 in a chamber. One big problem with that is the IR emissions of CO2 as it warms gives off the same spectra as CO2 absorbs, making it warmer than it should be. In a real atmosphere, the heat initially received is shared with the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere which has little IR emissions to re-trap. A gas tube gives false results. Even as they lay out, the 2x and 4x of CO2 isn't anything like alarmists say.
RealClimate is a master of cherry picking facts to support anthropogenic warming.
Are you joking?How far under water will the Netherlands have to be to convince you that climate change is a bad thing?
Much of the Netherlands has been below sea level before any man made global warming can be claimed. 60% of the population lives on 27% of the land that is below sea level. they have reclaimed what is effectively swamp land, and as it dries out, it sinks in elevation. Like much of New Orleans has done.
No way you can blame their situation on sea level rises. Besides, sea level rise has only been about 8" in the last century. How much of that do you suspect is erosion, dumping soil into the sea, displacing the water? Now in reality, I dismiss this as being insignificant, and there is no real global average ice melt ion the last 100 years either.
Well, we have a 20 cm increase in sea level over the last 100 years, which is a 0.0056% increase in level. This can be achieved by about 0.05 C increase in average ocean temperature! Remember, water decreases in density as it warms, and it doesn't take much to expand the water by 0.0056%.
Now consider this. With the oceans covering 71% of the earths surface, and the sun increasing in intensity by at least 0.2% since 1900, how much does a volume of 1.3 billion km and a surface area of 263 million km have an effect as the temperature rises? Well, sea water has an albedo of .08 if I remember right, and the sun warms the upper surface rather nicely. This means it reflects 8% of the solar radiation and absorbs 92%.
Rather than going much deeper than this, let me point out that the surface temperature has increased by about 0.04C in the last 100 years. The deep average to 3 km has increased by almost as much. I will contend that most the sea rise is due to the extra 0.2% solar energy warming the ocean, making it expand.
From Global warming: How do we know the earth is getting warmer?:
From GLOBAL WARMING AGAIN:
No. I am saying that climate is a complex system, and that the changes will result in other changes (such as with oceanic currents). Some areas will, in fact, experience more events of cooling and ice, while others will experience warming. The global yearly average is one of warming, however, so let's be clear on that.
But we haven't been warming recently, and will start cooling soon if the sun remains in the docile condition its in.No. I am saying that climate is a complex system, and that the changes will result in other changes (such as with oceanic currents). Some areas will, in fact, experience more events of cooling and ice, while others will experience warming. The global yearly average is one of warming, however, so let's be clear on that.
November 23rd, 2009, 06:09 PM
Monthly and yearly variations in measured mean global surface temperatures far exceed the changes that are proposed for any known forcing agent natural or not . Interestingly, nobody attributes those variations to anthropogenic causes. Furthermore the long term increases seen between 1900 and 2000 far exceed those atributable to human caused greenhouse gasses. It is only after speculating that undemonstrated positive feedback factors are in play that you can get the data to correlate. You could just as easily speculate on a natural but undemonstrated positive feedback mechanism. Only metaphysical and political factors can account for our preocupation with human factors to explain long term trends given that the short term variations are so much larger and just as misunderstood.
It seems much more logical to suspect that there are natural forcing agents far stronger than we are aware and these forcing agents not only acount for short term but also long term variations in global temperatures. When you have to cite undocumented positive feedback to make your model work but you refuse to allow for the posibility of undocumented natural causes it starts to feel rigged.
Much less than half of it, if any.A series of falsehoods. None of those assertions is factually accurate.
Yes we have, as your links to ocean temps show.
True, and irrelevant. The trend is what is at issue, not the presence of variation.No. The opposite is true - the current puzzle, referred to as a "travesty" in those emails that the Exxon shills are ballyhooing, is the lack of expected levels of atmospheric warming given the huge anthropogenic boost in CO2 - various explanations have been offered, and the matter remains undecided.
OK. Like what? Some very bright people ahve been working very hard to figure out what these "natural forcing agents" might be, with no luck so far.
They have also failed to answer the question of what, if some natural force drove the temp increases we've seen, happened to the expected forcing effect of the CO2 - there it is, a huge boost in the concentration, and there the temps are, in the very patterns expected (primarily winter nights, polar regions, etc), so what prevented the one from causing the other?
Are you sure about that iceaura? Data I saw a bit ago indicated irradiance from the sun was up by about 2W/m3 between 1950 and 2000 vs. the 19th century.Much less than half of it, if any.
Well not so much the trend as the pattern. An accurate model must be able to track the patterns. The fact that our models can't account for monthly and yearly temperature swings on the order of 0.1-0.3 C indicates that we don't even understand forcing that is 10-100 times more influential than the forcing being attributed to man made greenhouse gasses. If we don't understand those influences and since they dwarf the possible influence we seem to be worried about, how can we know that those unknown influences don't also account for long term (40 + year) patterns?True, and irrelevant. The trend is what is at issue, not the presence of variation.
No sorry, I happen to know quite a bit about radiant heat transfer in stratified gasses. I don't need any research paper for this one; just walk me through the equations that demonstrate the direct effects of trace gas (CO2, methane, etc.) radiant forcing. Let me give you a hint, you will loose this argument.No. The opposite is true - the current puzzle, referred to as a "travesty" in those emails that the Exxon shills are ballyhooing, is the lack of expected levels of atmospheric warming given the huge anthropogenic boost in CO2 - various explanations have been offered, and the matter remains undecided.
Direct forcing from man made sources is low but not zero. The rising concentrations have a modest direct impact on radiant forcing that in turn would have a modest impact on global surface temperatures. This is likely masked by other factors that are much stronger. The only way GH gasses can be a problem is if there is a positive feedback mechanism. I cannot say if this theory is correct or not.OK. Like what? Some very bright people ahve been working very hard to figure out what these "natural forcing agents" might be, with no luck so far.
They have also failed to answer the question of what, if some natural force drove the temp increases we've seen, happened to the expected forcing effect of the CO2 - there it is, a huge boost in the concentration, and there the temps are, in the very patterns expected (primarily winter nights, polar regions, etc), so what prevented the one from causing the other?
However, this positive feedback mechanism model was proposed after theoretical work was completed and showed that radiant forcing from direct causes was not significant enough to produce the observed patterns. This would normally indicate that some other cause was in play, but not this time. Prior to this work, empirical models correlated to measured temperature increases were worked into the simulations to obtain the projections we have all been pummeled with. When the theoretical results failed to match the models, rather than adjusting the models, they decided to modify the theory instead. Why they did that I cannot say.
As for warming in the polar regions, I am suspicious of it because there are so few sensors and the satellites can't measure the polar regions to confirm the allegations. I have not seen the other patterns you claim.
Yawn. I wonder how many times we'll need to repeat this before people realize that it's not the sun.Are you sure about that iceaura? Data I saw a bit ago indicated irradiance from the sun was up by about 2W/m3 between 1950 and 2000 vs. the 19th century.Much less than half of it, if any.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=212900#212900
Yawn, again.
http://environment.nationalgeographi...y-article.html
http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/inde...education_toc/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/
Not an accurate model of an underlying trend.
[quote="cypress" Are you sure about that iceaura? Data I saw a bit ago indicated irradiance from the sun was up by about 2W/m3 between 1950 and 2000 vs. the 19th century. [/quote] In addition to inow's links, there's the observation that the warming trend has been most dramatic in polar regions, at night, and in the winter. The opposite of what would be expected from stronger solar flux.
You mentioned something about tracking patterns?
Now all you have to do is learn about the role of all that in the climate - come on back when you've read up a bit.
How would a constant driver like that be "masked"? Are you claiming it will stop existing if it's smaller than other forces, ones already averaged in to the normal climate? That there will be no trend over time?There are dozens of positive (and negative) feedback mechanisms - that's the whole problem with predicting or analyzing climate. One big one is water evaporation - a small boost from the CO2 leads to a small boost in water vapor, which also traps infrared.
Does anyone have the equations they can post that show the relationship between CO2 and greenhouse heating? Also, does anyone have any similar equations showing greenhouse heating in a chamber lacking any CO2? Thanks...
Learn to read.Are you joking?How far under water will the Netherlands have to be to convince you that climate change is a bad thing?
Much of the Netherlands has been below sea level before any man made global warming can be claimed.
Below sea level is not the same thing as under water. Do you understand the distinction?
Edit: The thread you provided corroborates my claim that solar irradiance is about 2 w/m2 increased (1366 vs 1364) over last century. Here is another source for this data.Yawn. I wonder how many times we'll need to repeat this before people realize that it's not the sun.Are you sure about that iceaura? Data I saw a bit ago indicated irradiance from the sun was up by about 2W/m3 between 1950 and 2000 vs. the 19th century.Much less than half of it, if any.
http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=212900#212900
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/p...irradiance.txt
So let's be clear.... Solar irradiance is up about 2W/m2 while radiant forcing by increases in greenhouse gasses is estimated at 0.5 to 1 W/m2 (even less depending on the method).
You can repeat the claim all you want but you can't hide from the data.
End Edit:
The same argument is made for radiant forcing. The magnitude is similar. Neither effects alone are sufficient. This is the point you are missing. However temperature swings much greater than the current trend have occurred in the past. Back then and now the sun experiences cycles. Why is this so hard to understand?
I find it interesting that you choose to discard one argument but accept the other. Meanwhile it is established that solar irradiance has been about 2 of 1360 or so watts higher per square meter in the 20th century. The estimated direct impact of radiant forcing is about 0.5-1 Watt/sq M or half of that.
I don't recall claiming that the ice pack has remained constant. Your rebuttal is only barely related. With global temperatures and sea temperatures up, it stands to reason that ice would retreat. My comments were around measurement of polar average temperatures relative to the rest of the globe. Can you demonstrate that the mean surface and near surface temperatures of both polar regions deviate to a higher degree from long term mean than the rest of the globe?Yawn, again.
http://environment.nationalgeographi...y-article.html
http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/inde...education_toc/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/extremeice/
I'm going to respond to your points one at a time. I'll get back to the others later.Not an accurate model of an underlying trend.
I am well versed in experimental statistical analysis and understand well how to extract meaningful trends from raw data and assign them to one or a few of many input variables. Can you explain to me how we might extract long term trends and assign the appropriate factors to each? How can we be certain that we have assigned the correct slope to increases in CO2 and methane, etc? How can we know that 100% of the long term increase should be assigned to radiant forcing vs. 10%?
We disagree, and it also depends on the timeframes you use. There is not a 100% correlation to any one cause. However, if you look at reconstruced proxy data of the sun vs. temperature, they do correlate rather well over more than 400 years. The increase in solar radiation over these last 400 years is also between 0.2% to 0.3% Even a part obn the IPCC report acknowledges this.Much less than half of it, if any.
Now tell me, if you use 288 kelvin as the average temperature, what does a 0.2% increase in heat do?
Really?" Have you ever searched for any of this yourself, or do you only read propaganda?A series of falsehoods. None of those assertions is factually accurate.
One of several articles from NASA on soot:
Black and White: Soot on Ice
The Greenland glacier scare is a falsehood propagated from Global Warming Alarmist. One reason the glaciers are retreating faster is they are moving faster, and have less time to stabilize their new shape as they flow. Greenland, and other places are gaining more ice in the middle than they are losing through breaking up. Take a look at this:
"Being floating ice, there is a zero effect of sea level."
Is this false also?
Sorry I didn't indicate that I meant the last 4 years.Yes we have, as your links to ocean temps show.
Yes, and the long term trend does not support CO2 as the cause. Why always cherry pick select years? Why not look at 1610 to date? We have the data for it:True, and irrelevant. The trend is what is at issue, not the presence of variation.
Solar Irradiance Reconstruction.
IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology
Data Contribution Series # 2004-035.
NOAA/NGDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.
I graphed the data with an 11 year average to smooth the solar cycle, and assumed a possible 75 year smoothing for ocean capacity. This NOAA data has an average 0.2% increase from 1700 to 2000:
Compare it to any temperature graph you like. How about this one:
Big oil has nothing to do with falsifying anything. Get past the propaganda, look at the facts please.No. The opposite is true - the current puzzle, referred to as a "travesty" in those emails that the Exxon shills are ballyhooing, is the lack of expected levels of atmospheric warming given the huge anthropogenic boost in CO2 - various explanations have been offered, and the matter remains undecided.
Why do the ignore the sun?OK. Like what? Some very bright people ahve been working very hard to figure out what these "natural forcing agents" might be, with no luck so far.
Expected force of CO2? CO2 has been over hyped, and given more credit than it deserves. Scientists tell us it accounts for 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect. Now I believe it is 10% to 15%, but for the purpose of argument, I will use those numbers. Now I forget if I based my numbers on a 33C or 32C greenhouse effect, or average 14C or 15C global average, but there would be an insignificant difference to these graphs:
Even at a presumed 26%, CO2 only has a climate influence of 0.44C. Don't trust my graphs? Compare them to Al Gore's:
Funny... I don't recall "Photobucket" being a peer-reviewed source. Interesting how things have changed.
Snce you find his information unworthy of consideration, you can easily point out where wild cobra erred right?Funny... I don't recall "Photobucket" being a peer-reviewed source. Interesting how things have changed.
"The analysis shows that global warming since 1985"
OMG...
Please don't tell me you rely on only short term data. Too many other factors to filter out. 22 years is a joke. Besides, that warming is claimed until 2004. Now look at this:
source: Construction of a Composite Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Time Series from 1978 to present
Looks like a pretty fast flow. Must be getting a great deal of pressure from higher than normal snowfall at the source.
So?
I like it how they source the IPCC... A political body. Tell me they don't have an agenda...
Why do they ignore the places glaciers are growing?
OK, would you please show me how I plotted the accepted data wrong? I did that work myself.Funny... I don't recall "Photobucket" being a peer-reviewed source. Interesting how things have changed.
Peer review in any political area cannot be trusted, in fact, it supports propaganda when peers like what they see.
If you are to accept only peer reviewed data, then that tells me you rely on others to tell you what to think rather than being able to parse the data and facts for yourself. If that's the case, what credentials do you have to debate on this topic? This is not a race to see who can find the most easter eggs.
I am beginning to wonder if he understands science well enough. I really doubt he can.Snce you find his information unworthy of consideration, you can easily point out where wild cobra erred right?Funny... I don't recall "Photobucket" being a peer-reviewed source. Interesting how things have changed.
Wild Cobra provided some reasonable estimates of greenhouse heating. Not the formulas mind you. He and I, I'm sure will be happy to walk you through the methods if you want. The formulas are quite complicated and not something easily explained. To properly address all the factors requires a physical model and numerous iterations something best left to computer simulation. Shall we begin?
This is the same data I used for my graph. Here's another one that goes from 843 to 1961:
Reconstructed Solar Irradiance Data
November 25th, 2009, 08:16 AM
Based on the data and information provided, temperature trends correlate much better with natural events than with anthropogenic sources . It appears that humans may not be influencing climate change to any significant degree. Documented natural variations appear to be on the order of 2 to 15 times stronger than the estimated direct effects of radiant forcing. Furthermore the effects are diminishing exponentially with concentration so that further increases have far less impact.
Should we completely realign the world economy only to have a small and insignificant impact? I say we should not. I'm guessing that global warming advocates have about 2 more years to make a credible case. I very much doubt CO2 radiant forcing has much impact and the global warming case will collapse, taking much of of the credibility science used to enjoy with it.
November 25th, 2009, 09:41 AM
Sorry. Wrong... YET again. Do you lie on purpose, or are you just misinformed?
The scientific consensus is that solar variations do not play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change.
http://solarphysics.livingreviews.or...s/lrsp-2007-2/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
Please note... I am not citing wiki, but the references contained and summarized within."long-term climate change may appear to track the amplitude of the solar activity cycles," but that "Solar radiative forcing of climate is reduced by a factor of 5 when the background component is omitted from historical reconstructions of total solar irradiance ...This suggests that general circulation model (GCM) simulations of twentieth century warming may overestimate the role of solar irradiance variability." More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in September 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, with little likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time.[11][48] Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007, find that there "is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half of the last century," but that "over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."[49]
A paper by Benestad and Schmidt [50] concludes that "the most likely contribution from solar forcing a global warming is 7 ± 1% for the 20th century and is negligible for warming since 1980." This paper specifically criticise the methodology and contradict the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[51] who claim that solar variability is a major, if not dominant climate forcing.
November 25th, 2009, 02:24 PM
No. You are wrong. Why don't you explain it to us?Sorry. Wrong... YET again. Do you lie on purpose, or are you just misinformed?
Consensus is not science. Can you explain your point, or just have more easter eggs than the rest of us?
Please note... I am not citing wiki, but the references contained and summarized within.[/quote]
Good... Wiki isn't always right, nor are their sources always right.
Let me start by saying that smog from industrialized pollution has a dramatic cooling effect, and with clean air regulations, the sun was able to give it's full force again.
Gavin Schmidt is an interesting pundit. He has a good scientific background, but does everything he can to propagate the myth of Anthropogenic Global Warming. He has his own site called Realclimate. He recently coauthored a paper with the data that proves that solar forces account for most of the global temperature changes, but manages to make them less meaningful. This article was just published in July:
Solar trends and global warming
Now I will select a past work of Gavin's work for one item:
The Lure of Solar Forcing
OK, what does that means that if we have a 15 C global average temperature?The sun provides 99.998% of the energy to the Earth’s climate (the rest coming from geothermal heat sources).
Let's start here. 15 C is 288.15 Kelvin (K). 99.998% means that the sun accounts for 288.144237 K of that temperature, and geothermal forces account for 0.005763 K. The Kelvin and Celsius scales both have the same slope. Kelvin simply equals Celsius + 273.15.
OK now, what percentage of change makes a 1 degree change in temperature... Small... 1/288 is a 0.35% change, so it takes about 1/3rd of 1% to make a 1 degree change in temperature.
I'll take numbers from the recnt Solar trends and global warming article.
What does this mean? Well, according to Gavin's own work, solar irradiance was 1365 or lower in 1900 and 1366 or higher in 2000. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is 0.073%. Enough to make a 0.21 C direct change in temperature. Now if we go to the claims since 1700, we start at 1363 for 1700 and go to just above 1366 for 2000. That's a 0.22% increase, or a 0.63 C increase.
Heat applied and measured temperature of any object is proportional, as long as it doesn't go through phase changes.
There are factors that change short term reading, but the claim of increased CO2 since the 1700's cannot account for our increased temperature when solar activity clearly accounts for at least 0.6 C of that change since 1700.
Keep in mind. It appears our solar activity has peaked. Most scientists agree (excluding bought and paid for climatologists) that we are now in a cooling phase for at least the next two decades.
I have a serious question which I need answered to consider you as not wasting my time. Based on the following known facts (within error and memory range), why is radiative forcing under-rated:
The solar output is about 1366 watts per meter squared above the atmosphere. For climate calculations, we use the disk area rather than surface area and end up with about 235 average watts per meter squared once we remove the energy reflected off the atmosphere, and the day-night cycle.
The IPCC acknowledges a 0.2% increase in solar activity since 1700 (1750?).
The IPCC has an approximate 0.16 watt increase in radiative forcing for this time-frame for solar radiation increases.
1.002 x 235 is 235.47, or a 0.47 watt increase.
OK, please tell me. What did the IPCC do with the remaining 0.31 watts? How did they make it magically disappear?
Can you tell me, or do I need to expose their trickery?
For a group of liars, their data sure lines up well with reality.
Who do you think you're going to fool inow? Here we are talking about long term (1500 years) empirical correlations between sun energy output proxies and global temperature proxies that fit very nicely. We compare the same temperature proxy to CO2 proxies and the data fits very poorly. Just follow the thread backward including the provided links. You have no hope of addressing what the data shows so you throw us this 15 year sea level trend that has no relevance to the point.
Will anybody fall for this red herring?
In your previous post, your response to the observation that the data correlates well with sun activity is to ignore the data, accuse me of a lie, and offer a link to a group of politically motivated researchers attempting to defend their theory by hand waving and sweeping the correlation under the rug without ever addressing the reality that it does correlates very well. Valid data does not lie. When something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we generally conclude it is a duck unless you can get more personal gain by pretending it is a wolf.
Can you show us where and why the data does not correlate?
That's right, cannot win the current argument so change the argument.For a group of liars, their data sure lines up well with reality.
How about it.
What did the IPCC do with that extra 0.31 watts?
Must I go over this again? I see you cannot grasp the sciences involved and resort to propaganda you can link.
The temperature increase of the ocean over the last 100 years expands the volume by 0.0056%. We have 1.3 billion cubic km of ocean with a 261 million square km. This means we have an average depth of 3.6 km. Now any clue how much 3.6 km increases if you multiply it by 1.000056?
Lets see...
3.6 km x 1.000056 = 3.600202 km
3.600202 km - 3.6 km = 0.000202 km, or 20.2 cm.
Please, you really need to understand the science not to fall for the trickery the alarmists use.
Uhh huh... Mmm'kay.
What do you expect?Uhh huh... Mmm'kay.
You want to participate in a discussion the becomes more and more obvious you have no clue of. All you do is offer links of propaganda that I have seen before. It's getting very frustrating. Please at least take the time to understand what you are reading. Do so by verifying the science before you blindly quote something.
I deal with facts and plausible theory. Not the propaganda that is out there to support the Cap and Trade get rich scheme.
Again I ask you.
Where is the missing solar power the IPCC refuses to account for?
Let me know when I need to furnish you the answer.
Wild Cobra, I suspect even inow realizes he is in it over his head. His persistent failure to address even your simpler questions is not likely missed on the other readers. Your points are on the mark and clearly described. I doubt there is much more to be done. inow seems to be a prisoner of his own mind, he seems so afraid he might be taken in by you that he can't be taken out.
I think you're right.
Why is it too much to ask of him what 288 K x 1.002 equals?
I guess since he cannot answer that one, I may as well show the model I have. That data we both found, 1610 to 2000, has a 0.24% increase from 1700 to 2000. The IPCC however uses 1750 to 2004 which is a 0.18% increase. That is how they get the 0.12 watt radiative forcing increase for the sun.
Model modified from wiki: Greenhouse Effect:
Please note that the direct radiative forcing from the change in solar energy is 0.12 watts. However, when you take the extra energy that hits the surface, and is added heat to the greenhouse effect, the total increase is 0.93 watts. Funny how the IPCC conveniently left out the indirect radiative forcing caused by the sun, and added it to greenhouse gas heating... Just an inconvenient truth for them I guess... The IPCC cannot claim a 1.66 watt increase with this pesky fact of calculation. This reduces it to only a 0.85 watt increase for CO2. This means CO2 is only half as effective as they claim. Even less in reality. They recently acknowledged that Black Carbon has a greater effect than reported in the AR4.
1) you are not accounting for sunspot cycles, aerosols, etc.
2) And if it were so, you are overlooking the location - the radiation increase you describe is at the upper boundary of the the atmosphere, whereas the warming is near the surface where the greenhouse effect is concentrated. The increase would be less than a tenth of that at the surface - 2/10 of a watt per m2, or less than half of the direct greenhouse contribution even by the most biased assumptions.
3) direct measurements show a century of decrease, not increase, in the solar flux at the surface (pollution, such as jet plane contrails, is sometimes blamed)
4) The pattern of warming - polar, winter, and night showing the greatest increases - is not predicted by solar flux as a cause. Those are times of low solar flux.
5) Your confining of greenhouse effects to initial direct radiant forcing ignores major contributors to global warming, such as feedback water vapor increases.
6) Greenhouse effects would be enhanced, not swamped or damped, by increased solar irradiance
Your map seems to show a greater area and lrager volume of ice loss on land than ice gain on land, in Greenland.
No. Almost all the greenhouse effect from water vapor is also credited to CO2, without which water would not evaporate in near the present quantity, for example. Much of the increase in methane is also due to CO2 driving, as well.
Not to mention that water vapor is a feedback, not a forcing... and that it only stays in the atmosphere for roughly 10-14 days before it comes back down to the earth in this nifty little phenomenon some of us like to call "rain."
Let's get into the nuances after we address the previous open questions. You have not explained how it is that sun activity correlates to global mean temperature proxies while CO2 concentration does not and yet you have a prior commitment to CO2 as the cause of temperature change.1) you are not accounting for sunspot cycles, aerosols, etc.
2) And if it were so, you are overlooking the location - the radiation increase you describe is at the upper boundary of the the atmosphere, whereas the warming is near the surface where the greenhouse effect is concentrated. The increase would be less than a tenth of that at the surface - 2/10 of a watt per m2, or less than half of the direct greenhouse contribution even by the most biased assumptions.
3) direct measurements show a century of decrease, not increase, in the solar flux at the surface (pollution, such as jet plane contrails, is sometimes blamed)
4) The pattern of warming - polar, winter, and night showing the greatest increases - is not predicted by solar flux as a cause. Those are times of low solar flux.
5) Your confining of greenhouse effects to initial direct radiant forcing ignores major contributors to global warming, such as feedback water vapor increases.
6) Greenhouse effects would be enhanced, not swamped or damped, by increased solar irradiance
Should we conclude that your belief is based on a hunch? Or can you mathematically show that these nuances cancel the effects of natural variations that quite clearly drove temperature increases multiple times in the past to a greater amount than what we are now experiencing. But this time, according to you, it is different. By your way of thinking, suddenly natural causes can not drive temperature change to any degree.
Truly there is one good way to account for your counterintuitive belief. Ideology. Contrast that to Wild Cobra and me who don't have a prior commitment to one cause. We look at the data and information available and select the explanation that best fits available facts. When new information is available we look to see if the explanation should be adjusted. The latest information is strongly pointing to natural cycles.
So lets address the empirical correlations first and then you can adjust the proposed energy budget WC has presented to factor in the effects you think are missing. Be sure to bring your formulas and a calculator.
You might also start by addressing WC's question to inow.
Why should we have to explain something which is not aligned with reality?
http://www.grist.org/article/histori...rature-change/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...perplexed.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-...g-warming.html
No, we should conclude that you're a moron who seems incapable of accurately representing science.
Can you show me where these sites address the correlation Cobra provided above? That was the question asked. Quite typically you avoid the question. Your sites answer different questions. The first even admits that prior correlations between temperature and CO2 shows that temperature drives CO2, not the other way around. CO2 is less soluble in sea water with increasing temperature so the correlation is very easy to explain.Why should we have to explain something which is not aligned with reality?
http://www.grist.org/article/histori...rature-change/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...perplexed.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-...g-warming.html
Do you actually believe other readers don't recognize what you are doing?
How would you describe someone who persistently refuses to answer simple and direct questions, and instead builds straw man arguments?No, we should conclude that you're a moron who seems incapable of accurately representing science.
I would describe him as a poster named, "Cypress."
OK Iceaura, please tell me, do you find fault in my changing of the model?
I corrected who the quote belongs to... but I do agree with Cypress.
The fact is that the change in radiative forcing caused by the sun is far higher than the IPCC, or any of you alarmists will acknowledge.
I showed in my last posting, the model, how the extra radiative forcing is conveniently lost.
That's a different part of the complex understanding. Sunspot activity itself is not something that changes the radiation on earth, but it's the same internal solar cycles that cause sunspots that also cause solar temperature, and therefore more solar radiation. Sunspots are a relatively accurate indicator we can use to approximate solar radiation intensities.
Aerosols... a completely different story. Most increase the albedo of the atmosphere, causing cooling. I will contend that the unregulated output of pollution prior to the EPA formation kept natural warming from being seen a couple decades earlier. Once we started cleaning our atmospheric emissions up, in the 70's, the sun was able to warm the earth to the levels it should have been able to earlier.
Pollution stays mostly in the troposphere. Only some specific gasses mix into the upper atmosphere.
Why do you assume an increase is localized? It is proportional to the other incoming radiation. Are you claiming it has a mind and says "oh, my buddies are already going there, I need to go elsewhere?" Other atmospheric conditions can change the percentage of energy to various areas, but lets focus on one thing at a time.
"Direct greenhouse?" The greenhouse effect is a feedback of solar heat. Any increase in solar heat increases the greenhouse effect in a near proportional manner.
Now I'm not sure I follow your point that <1/10th. Will you explain where or how you get this number please.
I think no matter what you mean, you are wrong. All energy must be accounted for. You may allow the IPCC to fix the books, but I will not. Let's start that only about 17.2% of the energy in watts per meter are used for greenhouse calculation after you account for energy reflected off the atmosphere. That is why an approximate 1367 watts of solar radiation becomes 235 watts in the model. Now in the model, I used a 0.18% increase. That is why the 1750 levels for the 235 would reduce by 0.42 watts with an approximate 3 watt decrease from the sun.
You have to tell me how you have direct measurement for a century. At this point I see you are full of crap. We have only had the means to make direct solar measurement for 30 years now.
Correct, for the north pole. I attribute that to the soot on the ice from Asian power plants, lacking modern pollution controls. Please go back and open those links I have in earlier postings. While you are at it, do some homework for yourself instead of relying on propaganda links. Look up the albedo of snow and ice when it is clean and dirty, specifically, find the albedo of them clean vs. with soot.
Do you know what albedo is?
This feedback increases with any factor that increases temperature. Think of the greenhouse effect as a feedback also, and all these feedbacks are in approximate proportion.
Correct. My numbers show an increase of 0.93 watts of radiative forcing of greenhouse gasses because of the 0.42 increase in solar radiation in the model. More energy into the feedback system means more feedback.
Maybe, it's hard to tell by that graph. The original article it was attributed says otherwise, but why split hairs? The net result is close to zero when you look at the whole continent than the panic the photos if ice breaking up make people assume.Your map seems to show a greater area and lrager volume of ice loss on land than ice gain on land, in Greenland.
No. Under the assumption CO2 is needed to warm enough for making water vapor, CO2 levels have never been below about 180 ppm anyway. At this point, CO2 already warms the atmosphere by more than 85% of today's warming by CO2.No. Almost all the greenhouse effect from water vapor is also credited to CO2, without which water would not evaporate in near the present quantity, for example.
Sure, by supporting more plant life. More life = more death = more rotting...
If otherwise, please explain.
CO2 is also only a feedback, and far less a greenhouse gas than water. Besides, there is always humidity in the atmosphere, and it is humidity that causes the greenhouse effect, not the clouds. They cause albedo, or cooling.
Your 10-14 days is not important in such arguments because it is raining someplace 24/7 and being evaporated someplace 24/7. The quantity in the atmosphere remains relatively stable.
Then please explain to us how we are wrong, without links of propaganda. In your own words. Show us you understand.Why should we have to explain something which is not aligned with reality?
http://www.grist.org/article/histori...rature-change/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...perplexed.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-...g-warming.html
Are you looking in a mirror?No, we should conclude that you're a moron who seems incapable of accurately representing science.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=10613389Mr. MICHAEL GRIFFIN (Administrator, NASA): I have no doubt that global - that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.
I'm aware that global warming exists. I understand that the bulk of scientific evidence accumulated supports the claim that we've had about a one degree centigrade rise in temperature over the last century to within an accuracy of 20 percent. I'm also aware of recent findings that appear to have nailed down — pretty well nailed down the conclusion that much of that is man made.
Whether that is a longterm concern or not, I can't say.And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.
Gen1GT; The above is your reference for NASA.
Since it's my opinion, the entire (ENTIRE), man caused global warming scenario, is based and controlled by politics and/or government, for a variety of easily explained reasons, nothing with the regards to climate change will happen, at least in our lifetimes or probably the next 200k years to come, requiring the attention now being given the theory.So, let's say that global warming isn't actually caused by humans. What then?
What then?; In those reasons for actions and by politics/Government, are two basic things, aside from TAX COLLECTION. 1- Dependency or for the importers of energy raw products and 2- The natural desire of society to keep all things clean and usable, air, water and so on, none of which has anything to do with weather changes.
It's called fear of the unknown, based on ignorance and the desire to maintain faith in something larger than themselves (Scientist/Government), not unlike religion. We can't predict tomorrows weather any more than what will be 100-1000 or 100k years from now, so some will maintain this faith, in those they trust in for those unknown possibilities.Why should we do anything about global warming, when we know the Earth is a dynamic place, and we can't count on things remaining the same forever?
As you alluded to in another post, the planet and environment has drastically changed dozens of times, one of which allowed our ancestors to live that allowed us to evolve. It will change again (unknown point in time) and if nothing else takes out humanity before then, they will either adapt or die out.
This current 'Man Caused Global Warming' started from 'Global Cooling' and so long as weather is not perfect in every spot on the earth, 24/7/365, to some it's going to because of the HUMANS, that live on it. Never mind the Sun, which HAS to be a factor or all the other things living on the planet (which cannot talk back). Some of these extremist will tell you, they would like to eliminate ALL CO2, from the atmosphere which is in fact the beginning of our lifeblood (oxygen) which all plant life requires, from that atmosphere, to produce our oxygen. Disturb that 21% of Oxygen in our atmosphere, either way and a few degrees up or down will make no difference, at least to humans.What if...the Earth started cooling...would we still blame ourselves?
My opinions anyway, to your original opening post...
Propaganda? No sir, it was evidence that CO2 is highly related to temperature. Arguing with you on this topic is like arguing with a creationist about evolution... I swear.Then please explain to us how we are wrong, without links of propaganda.Why should we have to explain something which is not aligned with reality?
http://www.grist.org/article/histori...rature-change/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...perplexed.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-...g-warming.html
I think you make a pretty damn good post here.
Do you have a understanding of the geosciences involved and an opinion of to what degree warming is natural and man-made?
I personally think about 2/3rd to be solar, 1/6 black carbon on ice, and 1/6 to be CO2. These are not firm numbers, and land use and other factors have a small degree as well.
On the contrary, all I ask is that you explain how I am wrong without using links. If you use a link, at least use one that correlates the data with the supporting science behind it.Propaganda? No sir, it was evidence that CO2 is highly related to temperature. Arguing with you on this topic is like arguing with a creationist about evolution... I swear.
I am getting impatient with all these links that are just statements with no extrapolation based in the sciences, that can be seen how they derive their results.
If you expect me to change my point of view, give me facts. Not hearsay.
You know what CO2 correlates the best with? it's not atmospheric temperature!
Historically Temperature drives CO2 which makes it tangential and irrelevant to what you are trying to show (you are trying to demonstrate that CO2 drives temperature). You are having difficulty with this argument because your argument is weak and in this case plain wrong. Generally when someone engaged in an argument is not making any headway, it is because they are wrong. Do you even consider the possibility that you are wrong on these points?Propaganda? No sir, it was evidence that CO2 is highly related to temperature. Arguing with you on this topic is like arguing with a creationist about evolution... I swear.Then please explain to us how we are wrong, without links of propaganda.Why should we have to explain something which is not aligned with reality?
http://www.grist.org/article/histori...rature-change/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...perplexed.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-...g-warming.html
Do you have a understanding of the geosciences involved and an opinion of to what degree warming is natural and man-made?
I personally think about 2/3rd to be solar, 1/6 black carbon on ice, and 1/6 to be CO2. These are not firm numbers, and land use and other factors have a small degree as well.
Wild Cobra; There are probably 100 variables on what causes change in the environment, then in turn weather on a global level. Solar, I believe solar activity, is probably the greatest, but only relative to what's between it and us, degree of our magnetic field, and the four dynamics of the atmosphere, probably more that a few times degree of space dust debris, as the solar system travels around the Galaxy Core, every 250M years or so. You also need to remember the Earth itself generates heat, at least for whats on the surface.
Your thinking in terms of heat retention, which moisture* may be the greatest cause, where virtually no heat can escape or enter and CO2 or other elements (not much caused by man) retain or prevent very little from escaping. Looking at the historical records of estimated CO2 levels, we are at about the bottom of the scale, 385PPM today, recently bouncing around 250-385. Dropping from around 3000PPM, 65 Million years ago and 4000PPM at the end of the last major ice age 240MYA.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.htm
http://nov55.com/rws.html*I predict that further research will reveal some other cause for the warming we have experienced since the 1970's -- for instance, a change in some feature of the sun's activity. In the meantime, a high priority research effort should be the study of changes in precipitation systems with changes in temperature -- especially how they confer moisture characteristics to the atmosphere as air is continuously recycled through them.
This article, also explains many other fascists of natural GW/C, by Roy Spenser (PhD) and by the way another former, award winning, NASA employee. He explains many areas, where I would come from.
Roy W. Spencer received his PhD in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. He has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville since 2001, before which we was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. Dr. Spencer is the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite. His research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.
Sorry... Wrong, yet again. You are either confused, or you know that CO2 is a radiative forcing in the present day and your are just lying. Either way, you are wrong. In short, CO2 was mostly a feedback in the past when it was released naturally due to rising temperatures, but in the present it is being released by the metric ton by humans, and is very clearly a forcing agent. CO2 causes temperature rise AND warming causes CO2 outgassing from oceans, and since you continue to suggest otherwise shows why I dismiss your posts so readily.CO2 is also only a feedback, and far less a greenhouse gas than water.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Now, water has a larger impact on temperature change, but since it is a feedback and it only stays in the atmosphere for 10-14 days before it rains back down it is considered differently than CO2, which stays in the atmosphere for centuries/millenia and only accumulates to higher concentrations with each passing day (Note though that the relationship between carbon dioxide and radiative forcing is logarithmic so that increased concentrations have a progressively smaller warming effect).The perturbation to radiative climate forcing which has the largest magnitude and the least scientific uncertainty is the forcing related to changes in long-lived and well mixed greenhouse gases, in particular carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and halogenated compounds (mainly CFCs).
Now, this is not to say that CO2 cannot lead to feedback effects as it has in the past, but your comment that it is itself a not a forcing (that it is only a feedback) is simply and plainly wrong, and does not apply to present day conditions.
My own words are not what is most relevant here. I am supporting my contentions with links to references and citations. For you to suggest that this is somehow a bad thing only shows just how clueless you are. I'm serious. My arguments are being supported by MULTIPLE peer-reviewed sources and you're here dismissing ALL of them as "propaganda?" You cannot be taken seriously.
I don't care how many of your own words you share in this thread. Send your results for peer-review and when they are published you are free to use them as evidence against the human cause of climate change, or evidence for the sun being the prominent factor in the recent warming trend.
Until then, you're essentially just a blathering idiot who is blindly contradicting the decades worth of work which has already been done and which has been repeatedly verified... work which empirically shows the exact opposite of what you are here asserting to be true.
Yes, no kidding they are "not firm numbers." What you personally think is absolutely irrelevant if your thinking contradicts known evidence (see chart below for actual evidence showing the fallacious nature of your comment). You may as well be arguing that you "personally think" that the warming trend is caused by the farts of pink unicorns. Such a comment rests on precisely the same academic footing as the one from you I've just quoted above.
Again, the facts have been presented to you. You are simply ignoring them, and dismissing peer-reviewed articles in the highest caliber journals (like Nature, Science, Proceedings of the Royal Society, and others) as "hearsay" and "just statements."
You have no credibility for that reason alone. You are either a troll or an idiot, frankly... and potentially a bit of both. I'm sharing with you verified and validated evidence which has been peer-reviewed. You are sharing with me screenshots from your Excel program which you've posted on photobucket... and you have the audacity to suggest that YOU are growing impatient with ME? The mind just boggles.
No, actually you're wrong, too. "Historically" humans weren't pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by the metric ton. "Historically," CO2 was released naturally in response to warming. However, the past century and a half is completely different than ANYTHING we've experienced "historically."
There is no "historical" example where carbon was dug out of the ground where it had been sequestered for millenia only to burn it and release it back into the atmosphere. That is what we are doing now, so relying on "historical" mechanisms alone to describe modern day phenomenon shows why it is your argument which does not hold up to scrutiny.
CO2 is a radiative forcing agent, and we are releasing tons of it to the atmosphere every single day. It truly is that simple.
I know how you guys simply despise links which make clear why you are wrong, but just in case there are any spectators reading this who wish to live in a reality-based world, I will share these which make clear why the points you are arguing are simply incorrect.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm
http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/
http://www.grist.org/article/histori...rature-change/
If we take your words at face value, then actually you agree with me, and I am technically correct.No, actually you're wrong, too. "Historically" humans weren't pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by the metric ton. "Historically," CO2 was released naturally in response to warming. However, the past century and a half is completely different than ANYTHING we've experienced "historically."
My argument makes no allowance for modern day behavior. It is neutral on that point, and therefore there is no scrutiny to hold it up to.There is no "historical" example where carbon was dug out of the ground where it had been sequestered for millenia only to burn it and release it back into the atmosphere. That is what we are doing now, so relying on "historical" mechanisms alone to describe modern day phenomenon shows why it is your argument which does not hold up to scrutiny.
However, I accept your point that things are different this time around and those differences should be considered. As a point of clarification, both Wild Cobra and I, from the beginning, have accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has the theoretical potential to influence global temperature. We just wonder how much influence does it have.
Right, I'm trying to hold my breath to prevent even more from being released...aww I can't do it.CO2 is a radiative forcing agent, and we are releasing tons of it to the atmosphere every single day. It truly is that simple.
The trouble with your links is not that they are wrong inow, since generally they are correct for what they show.I know how you guys simply despise links which make clear why you are wrong,
The issue is that they don't address the question properly, or they don't address the question being asked, or the study is either purposely or accidentally too limiting and therefore comes to the wrong conclusion. This type of thing is extremely common in peer-reviewed scientific reports. Of course you should be getting a sense of that by now.but just in case there are any spectators reading this who wish to live in a reality-based world, I will share these which make clear why the points you are arguing are simply incorrect.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm
http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/
http://www.grist.org/article/histori...rature-change/
Now we all agree that CO2 has the potential to influence global temperatures. We agree that historically it has not driven temperature the way that some claim it now is. We agree that CO2 concentration is increasing because of human activity that has not occurred in the past.
The challenge that WC and I have been trying to get you to address is to accurately and clearly demonstrate how much of the warming trend from 1800 to 1998 was due to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
That of course is a difficult question. Perhaps we can start by agreeing that the number is not likely less than 0.05C. At what point (when measured in degrees C) is it an intolerable problem? Surely you would not say 0.1 degree is a problem. Would you say it is 0.5 or 5? Consider this, today global temperature is perhaps 0.7 degrees above the 1800's mean but about 1C less than the estimated medieval maximum.
Yes, I completely agree. I listed what I can illustrate to be the strongest factors, then acknowledged others ("land use and other factors") exist.
True, but it is insignificant. Between the tidal forces of the magma and oceans, and the radioactive elements, it is about 0.002% of the heat.
I acknowledge that the water stores heat, but I am only looking at levels after those hotter periods. I am a firm believer that Henry's Law has far more to do with CO2 levels than what we put in the atmosphere. As the oceans warm due to warning, the carbon cycle equilibrium changes. It takes very little temperature increase for the oceans to reduce their CO2 balance. I am in agreement with this finding in the article:
You might also be surprised to find out that the direct effect of this imbalance (often called a 'radiative forcing') from the extra CO2, by itself, would have very little effect on the Earth's temperature. If everything else in the climate system remained the same, a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (probably late in this century) would cause little more than 1 deg. F of surface warming. The effect is so small because, even at CO2 doubling, the fraction of our atmosphere that carbon dioxide occupies is still less than 1 part in 1,000.Good article. Thanx. If you have followed my argument with inow, you can see I am getting frustrated that he cannot explain in his own words any facts on the subject. I have seen either this article or a very similar one before. I just don't believe in having a debate that becomes "who can find the most Easter eggs."
Okay... in my own words. Your claims are directly contradicted by the evidence. I have shared the evidence, and yet you continue with your ridiculous assertions. Ergo, you're a waste of bandwidth on this topic and little more.
There... all in my own words... as per your request.
As for your "easter eggs" comment... My sources were explicitly about the topic I was supporting... no need for digging. By example, the article in Nature which states clearly in the title that the sun cannot possibly explain the current warming trend.
Sorry... Wrong, yet again.CO2 is also only a feedback, and far less a greenhouse gas than water.
blah blah blah...Mostly a feed back in the past, but not now?
WTF?
Ever look at a Carbon Cycle model? Our output varies by model, but it ranges from about 5.5 GtC to 8 GtC annually. Nature outputs over 210!
Wake up and smell the reality. Man's output of CO2 is under 5% of the annual release. How can this not any longer be a feedback to solar energy.
Hint. Zero starting heat = zero feedback. Am I to assume that you believe CO2 causes radiative forcing without a heat to feed off of?
No. I do not suggest otherwise. It is obvious you don't understand what I say. I am saying that CO2 does not cause the amount of heat that you alarmists claim. I am saying that that because of warming of the oceans, the balance of Henry's law is disrupted. If there was no ocean warming, the atmosphere would equalize to levels far lass than they are today. I will assume a maximum of 300 ppm today if we had no warming.
Interesting. Supporting the IPCC conclusions with a link that uses the IPCC data...
Total Fail!
I give you an "F"!
Question...
What do you get if you use 0 ppm in the CO2 calculation the IPCC gives?
I already responded to this.
At least you are acknowledging the logarithmic nature of CO2.
Please stop telling me things I know, or that I have already proven a useless argument.
What can you say to convince me I'm wrong?
Because it is propaganda.
My own words are not what is most relevant here. I am supporting my contentions with links to references and citations. For you to suggest that this is somehow a bad thing only shows just how clueless you are. I'm serious. My arguments are being supported by MULTIPLE peer-reviewed sources and you're here dismissing ALL of them as "propaganda?" You cannot be taken seriously.
They only talk about results without showing their data and methodology.
I say they are lying, and if you cannot understand the data and methodology yourself, then Who are you to say they are right?
I am claiming you do not understand the sciences, and therefore, are not qualified to say they are right.
If I am wrong, prove so.
I see.
You don't care for facts.
OK...
That is because they are wrong.
Yes! They are wrong.
When I can show with simple methods that they are wrong, and you cannot comprehend such simple facts, what does that say about you?
I just cannot quantify precision to my numbers. Solar is absolutely, no question what so ever, at least 50% of the warming from 1700 to present!
Yes, no kidding they are "not firm numbers." What you personally think is absolutely irrelevant if your thinking contradicts known evidence (see chart below for actual evidence showing the fallacious nature of your comment).
Academia has been wrong on subjects in the past, are wrong on this one, and will be wrong on other subjects in the future.
I suggest you stop putting so much faith in other peoples results, and learn to do the work yourself.
Stop lying.Again, the facts have been presented to you.
You are posting other peoples hearsay.
Show me how the results are derived from the data.
Yes, I am.
I have given credible evidence they are wrong, yet you are too ignorant on the topic to see the truth.
No, I have credibility because I can do the science.
Can you?
You looking in a mirror again?
Absolutely, and you are obviously too ignorant to understand you lame your remarks are becoming.I'm sharing with you verified and validated evidence which has been peer-reviewed. You are sharing with me screenshots from your Excel program which you've posted on photobucket... and you have the audacity to suggest that YOU are growing impatient with ME? The mind just boggles.
Stop posting propaganda, and explain how I am wrong in your own words, if you are capable.
I still want Inow to tell me what happened to that missing solar energy.
Inow...
Have a link for that?
I'll accept a link that explains the missing energy, because I have never seen one before. Therefore, I'm confident you cannot explain it in your own words.
If the solar radiation increases by 0.18% since 1750, causing a 0.42 watt increase for climate models, why does the IPCC only acknowledge 0.12 watts?
Where did the other 0.3 watts go?
Like I said... A waste of bandwidth.
It's beginning to look like it's more than the weather that is turning against the body of science who seem to have let themselves be guided to much by ideology and not enough by facts.
Cap and Trade may be the first victim
Peer-review process take a big hit
inow, the credibility of your sources are taking a beating.
Uh huh. Mmm'kay.
We understand.
You are incapable of explaining things without using other peoples words.
This has been obvious for some time. I would think you would jump at the chance to put me in my place, but since you cannot, it supports my being right even more.
What it represents is my lack of patience with people who are blind and deaf to evidence which counters their core assertions... My treating you like a climate change denial troll and choosing not to waste a whole lot of time diving down your obviously false rabbit hole has nothing whatsoever to do with implicitly supporting the veracity of your claims.
You will not change your mind regardless of what evidence I share with you precisely because you consistently dismiss said evidence as "propaganda."
We're done here.
I suspected you would choose not to address this post. Thanks for your time inow.If we take your words at face value, then actually you agree with me, and I am technically correct.No, actually you're wrong, too. "Historically" humans weren't pumping CO2 into the atmosphere by the metric ton. "Historically," CO2 was released naturally in response to warming. However, the past century and a half is completely different than ANYTHING we've experienced "historically."
My argument makes no allowance for modern day behavior. It is neutral on that point, and therefore there is no scrutiny to hold it up to.There is no "historical" example where carbon was dug out of the ground where it had been sequestered for millenia only to burn it and release it back into the atmosphere. That is what we are doing now, so relying on "historical" mechanisms alone to describe modern day phenomenon shows why it is your argument which does not hold up to scrutiny.
However, I accept your point that things are different this time around and those differences should be considered. As a point of clarification, both Wild Cobra and I, from the beginning, have accepted that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has the theoretical potential to influence global temperature. We just wonder how much influence does it have.
Right, I'm trying to hold my breath to prevent even more from being released...aww I can't do it.CO2 is a radiative forcing agent, and we are releasing tons of it to the atmosphere every single day. It truly is that simple.
The trouble with your links is not that they are wrong inow, since generally they are correct for what they show.I know how you guys simply despise links which make clear why you are wrong,
The issue is that they don't address the question properly, or they don't address the question being asked, or the study is either purposely or accidentally too limiting and therefore comes to the wrong conclusion. This type of thing is extremely common in peer-reviewed scientific reports. Of course you should be getting a sense of that by now.but just in case there are any spectators reading this who wish to live in a reality-based world, I will share these which make clear why the points you are arguing are simply incorrect.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm
http://www.grist.org/article/co2-doesnt-lead-it-lags/
http://www.grist.org/article/histori...rature-change/
Now we all agree that CO2 has the potential to influence global temperatures. We agree that historically it has not driven temperature the way that some claim it now is. We agree that CO2 concentration is increasing because of human activity that has not occurred in the past.
The challenge that WC and I have been trying to get you to address is to accurately and clearly demonstrate how much of the warming trend from 1800 to 1998 was due to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
That of course is a difficult question. Perhaps we can start by agreeing that the number is not likely less than 0.05C. At what point (when measured in degrees C) is it an intolerable problem? Surely you would not say 0.1 degree is a problem. Would you say it is 0.5 or 5? Consider this, today global temperature is perhaps 0.7 degrees above the 1800's mean but about 1C less than the estimated medieval maximum.
There was nothing but a bunch of hand waving and red herrings in your post, and it didn't warrant response.
Having interacted with you in other arenas in this forum, having read how you ignore valid rebuttals and criticisms of your points, and seeing how immune you are to facts and evidence... I've decided not to waste my time with you, either.
Why don't you just "man-up" and admit you don't know what you're talking about?
It is clear that inow does a very poor job of rebutting our arguments, perhaps I should take over his role, would you mind Wild Cobra, I think I could make a few valid arguments and at least keep up. Are you in?Why don't you just "man-up" and admit you don't know what you're talking about?
That might be interesting...It is clear that inow does a very poor job of rebutting our arguments, perhaps I should take over his role, would you mind Wild Cobra, I think I could make a few valid arguments and at least keep up. Are you in?Why don't you just "man-up" and admit you don't know what you're talking about?
You are trying to make big deal out of something that fails to account for the observed warming trend, either in amount or in pattern.
It's a standard plant physiologist's rule of thumb I picked up in college, for the percentage of solar radiation that gets through the upper atmosphere and is available for photosynthesis, solar power generation, etc. It's an approximation of an average value for temperate regions. The calculation starts from 1350 w/m2, accounts for spherically curved impinging surface to get about a third of that, figures something like 2/3 absorption by atmosphere etc, averages day and night, ends up with a little over a tenth.
How does soot heat the night air more than it heats the day air? Heat winter air in the no-sun regions proportionately more than summer air over glaciers? Heat nightime temperate regions, which are not covered with sooty ice? Heat island regions' night air measurements, which are not surrounded by soot at any time?If that were true, it would still make the CO2 responsible for most of the water vapor in the air - it would freeze out, in a snowball scenario, otherwise.And by heating peatlands and marginal methane hydrates, that kind of thing - greenhouse stuff.
According to the isotope analysis from Mauna Loa's sampling, in the middle of the ocean, the extra carbon in the atmosphere is from fossil fuel combustion.
Not at all. Think about it. Even the IPCC acknowledges a minimum of a 0.15% increase in solar radiation since the Maunder Minimum. From Chapter 2 Page 190 of AR4:You are trying to make big deal out of something that fails to account for the observed warming trend, either in amount or in pattern.
I have demonstrated that they do not account for it. I used 0.18% by the NASA data I have for the time period of 1750 to 2004. If we take that data from the Maunder Minima, it shows more than a 0.24% increase.Maunder Minimum total irradiance was reduced in the range of 0.15% to 0.3% below contemporary solar minima.
Why is this so difficult to understand? The IPCC claims a 0.12 watt increase and that is accounted for using a common greenhouse effect mode for the direct radiative forcing. The 67 - 66.88 = 0.12. Notice however that the solar radiation, if you apply it linear to the fuel for the greenhouse effect, you have an additional 0.81 watts (452 - 451.9 = 0.81). From observation, this may appear as added heat from added CO2. It is however because of the increased solar radiation. This gives a total of 0.93 watts for solar radiation increasing by 0.18%. Not the 0.12 watts in the IPCC AR4 report.
Well, the 1/10th is correct for plant life. The 235 watts is the same thing used for global warming calculation. With no atmosphere to reflect some solar radiation, it would be 1/4 the incoming value. The 235 is about 17% rather than 10%. Now since you speak of plant life, it is about 12% of what reaches the surface after what the atmosphere absorbs. Also remember, the plants themselves reflect some of the solar energy. Could be where that 10% applies. Since we are talking the total surface and atmospheric energy, we use the approximate 17% value.It's a standard plant physiologist's rule of thumb I picked up in college, for the percentage of solar radiation that gets through the upper atmosphere and is available for photosynthesis, solar power generation, etc. It's an approximation of an average value for temperate regions. The calculation starts from 1350 w/m2, accounts for spherically curved impinging surface to get about a third of that, figures something like 2/3 absorption by atmosphere etc, averages day and night, ends up with a little over a tenth.
It doesn't heat the air. It collects on the snow and ice. Now a surface that would normally reflect something like 85% of the incoming solar radiation is absorbing more than 50% of it, melting the ice. The ice caps are melting faster and exposing millions of square kilometers of ocean to the sun that would normally be covered. After the ice melts, the oceans absorb the extra heat. They absorb 92% of the incoming solar radiation. The total effect is a slow warming of the waters and temperature of the earth, This warming of the water also releases CO2. It's a long term problem, but real.How does soot heat the night air more than it heats the day air? Heat winter air in the no-sun regions proportionately more than summer air over glaciers? Heat nightime temperate regions, which are not covered with sooty ice? Heat island regions' night air measurements, which are not surrounded by soot at any time?
How do you figure? We always have water in the air. Both by clouds and absorbed. The air can simply hold more water vapor when it is warmer than cooler. I would argue that water actually regulates itself, because more water = more clouds = more albedo and less heat. This creates a slow cycle self sustaining oscillation of high and low cloud cover.If that were true, it would still make the CO2 responsible for most of the water vapor in the air - it would freeze out, in a snowball scenario, otherwise.
No natural heat does the same thing....And by heating peatlands and marginal methane hydrates, that kind of thing - greenhouse stuff.
Sorry, when you look farther into the carbon cycle and how long CO2 remains in the ocean, the data cannot support that. This idea is because of the ratio of carbon 14. Thing is, as long lived as CO2 is in the ocean, it also lacks natural atmospheric ratios of 14C. Natural CO2 in the atmosphere has 14C. CO2 from oil based fuels have no measurable 14C. It's like carbon dating a live polar bear or penguin. You will probably get 20,000+ years. That is because accurate carbon dating relies on carbon from the atmosphere. The incoming solar radiation changes Nitrogen 14 to Carbon 14, which has a half-life of 5730 years if I remember right. Penguins and polar bears eat fish, which the start of their food chain is algae, plankton, etc. which gets CO2 from the sea water itself, in the water for who knows how many thousands of years, decaying. Depleted of 14C to the point, you cannot accept the out gassing of oceans to determine if natural or fossil sourced.According to the isotope analysis from Mauna Loa's sampling, in the middle of the ocean, the extra carbon in the atmosphere is from fossil fuel combustion.
I would suggest anyone advocating this idea be ignored. They either are not qualified to make those assessments, or they are intentionally misleading you. Some studies include 13C values, but there are really too many assumptions made there as well, from a little known ocean ecosystem.
Another factor that skews this data is that 12CO2 is lighter than both 13CO2 and 14CO2. It makes the 12CO2 outgass from the ocean more than the other two.
Something I forgot to include:
IPCC Ignores Studies of Soot’s Effect on Global Warming
2007 IPCC AR4 radiative forcing:
NASA/GISS radiative forcing, Hansen et. al. 2005:
Funny how the IPCC gives Black Carbon/soot (BC) a 0.1 watt radiative forcing, but Hansen, who is on the Global Warming Alarmist bandwagon, gives Black Carbon a 0.8 watt radiative forcing.
Thing is, he can lie to the public, but would be fired for lying to his employer.
One thing seldom spoke of by alarmists is the energy imbalance. In a perfect model, the energy that escapes the earth is equal to the energy the earth receives. This is not the case however.
Consider these articles that I quot parts from:
The Global Warming Hypothesis and Ocean Heat
A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. The current hypothesis on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), presented by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is no exception to this principle. Indeed, it is the job of scientists to expose the weaknesses of this hypothesis as it undergoes peer review. This paper will examine one key criterion for falsification: ocean heat.Earth's Energy Out of BalanceFor any given area on the ocean’s surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it! Considering the enormous depth and global surface area of the ocean (70.5%), it is apparent that its heat capacity is greater than the atmosphere by many orders of magnitude. Consequently, as Hansen, et. al. have concluded, the ocean must be regarded as the main reservoir of atmospheric heat and the primary driver of climate fluctuations.
Now we have had this lag of balance, which is normal in a system trying to achieve equilibrium. Thing is, as the oceans warm:Earth's average global temperatures have not increased enough since 1880 to account for the total energy imbalance. Although some of the excess heat has gone to melt snow and ice and to warm the land surface, much of the energy imbalance that has accumulated since 1880 has been stored in the ocean and has not made its presence felt. Instead, the scientists say that in addition to the 0.6-0.7°C warming that has happened over the past century or so, an additional 0.6°C increase in average global temperatures remains "in the pipeline," even if greenhouse gas concentrations and other climate-warming influences immediately stopped increasing.
Please note that if we increase temperature from 5 C to 6 C, we our absorption reduced from about 0.052 to about 0.05. An approximate 4% loss of absorption. If the oceans warmed by 1C, they could release 4% of their 39,000+ GtC of Carbon, or 1500 GtC of it. Now it wouldn't be that high because of how Henry's Law works, but now consider an approximate 0.5 C increase. This would be close to a 90 ppm increase since there is approximately 2 GtC per ppm in the atmosphere.
Isn't it about 100 ppm the atmosphere has increased since the Maunder Minima?
The warmer the water, the less CO2 the oceans hold. They outgas it to the atmosphere. If all our climate systems were in balance, most the anthropogenic CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean.
There is another fallacy to that argument that I forgot till now.
The CO2 is primarily absorbed (sinked) in the Arctic and Antarctic waters, and primarily expelled (sourced) in the tropical waters. How can these scientist make such a claim when the transit time of the Thermohaline circulation is about 1600 years?
Seems they are either lying, or unqualified to make such a determination.
No, the much more likely option is a third which you did not mention. Your incredulity regarding their methods does not ipso facto imply their research is based on lies.
Then enlighten us, or stop being a troublemaker. All I see is a troll in you. Have anything of substance to offer?
There isn't any significant incoming solar radiation during the winter nights at high latitudes - the very times and places when the warming trend is most pronounced,
Except that you would be wrong - more water in warmer air does not equal more clouds, for starters.
Without the CO2 blanket, the air cools and the water precipitates - condensing as clouds and refelcting more energy away, falling as rain or snow that the colder air does not evaporate or sublimate as readily, and in various ways vanishing from the atmosphere, taking its greenhouse contribution with it.
Water vapor is contingent - it doesn't support itself in the atmosphere at our temps. (That is good - or positive feedback would boil the oceans dry) The more stable CO2 heating holds the water airborne through its phases and fluctuations.
I do not think you have bothered to check on the C14 ratios in the surface layers of the ocean - the fraction most readily affected by atmospheric warming. Nor has there been any great increase in upwelling, or warming of upwelling water, over the centuries of CO2 accumulation.
At any rate, the people at Mauna Loa claim to have allowed for all that (and used other isotopes etc, as well), and they've been doing this for a long time.
The ones I read and run into are very concerned about it - they talk about it all the time. It's the mechanism of disaster: the killer of coral, the driver of hurricanes, the squelcher of the Gulf Stream, etc etc etc etc.
That doesn't address the questions quoted.
Solar has nothing to do with it in the winter months. The fact is, with less ice from more summer melting, the surrounding water keeps it from getting as cold as it used to. Think about it. The close you live to the ocean, the cooler the summers are and the warmer the winters, the closer you are to the water.There isn't any significant incoming solar radiation during the winter nights at high latitudes - the very times and places when the warming trend is most pronounced,
Now actually, CO2 plays a larger roll percentage wise for the temperature because there is less moisture in cold air. It still only contributes to a small portion of the warming.
Please, stop using a thinking process of one step. What happens when that extra water travels for miles and mixes with cooler air? More water, more clouds, more precipitation, etc.Except that you would be wrong - more water in warmer air does not equal more clouds, for starters.
This will happen with or without CO2 in the air.
LOL...
You really don't understand the logarithmic nature of greenhouse gasses, do you. That is an absolutely wrong assessment...
I search for information to support your viewpoint and couldn't find any. Links please.
Then the nature of greenhouse gasses, there is a saturation point where no more measurable warming occurs.
My best guess without looking it up is that 100% humidity with positive feedback would allow for maybe a 4 C rise in global temperature. Heating from water vapor is already near saturation. Not anywhere close to a boil.
Please, I need to see a reference to that. You act as if oxygen and nitrogen cannot hold H2O without the aid of CO2.
I search for information to support your viewpoint and couldn't find any. Links please.
Huh?I do not think you have bothered to check on the C14 ratios in the surface layers of the ocean - the fraction most readily affected by atmospheric warming. Nor has there been any great increase in upwelling, or warming of upwelling water, over the centuries of CO2 accumulation.
You mean the sea surface is most readily affected, or that the 14C is by warming?
14C is an indication of solar variance. Now since the 40's, the natural 14C levels are disturbed with nuclear testing. Have your sites considered the levels from nuclear testing?
Please explain how this can be accomplished, to actually determine the levels. How do you rule out not only the Hawaiian volcanoes, but the underwater volcanic activity also. How similar is volcanic CO2 to fossil fuel CO2? I refuse to accept these measurements unless you can show me the method that gets past all the things that hinder accurate sampling.
Besides. It doesn't matter how much is natural and how much is anthropogenic. What matters is that the carbon cycle is not in balance.
Again, I search for information to support your viewpoint and couldn't find any. Links please.
other isotopes? For CO2, there is only 12C, 13C, 14C, 16O, and 18O. Therefore, I searched for 18O variances, couldn't find any info.
Please give me an article or something, in case I missed something. Again, I search for information to support your viewpoint and couldn't find any. Links please.
Those are extreme hype.The ones I read and run into are very concerned about it - they talk about it all the time. It's the mechanism of disaster: the killer of coral, the driver of hurricanes, the squelcher of the Gulf Stream, etc etc etc etc.
What I mean is that the oceans are collecting more heat than they are releasing in IR and latent heat in evaporation. They are not only releasing CO2 from the heat, but some say we still have at least 0.6C of atmospheric warming coming even if all other warming factors stop increasing.
Iceaura. Here's a piece I suggest you read:
STABLE ISOTOPE GEOCHEMISTRY APPLIED TO PALEOCLIMATOLOGICAL AND GREENHOUSE GAS PROBLEMS
last part:
The implication of the ~5 year lifetime is that ~135 GT C (~18%) of the atmospheric CO2 is exchanged each year. The isotopic mass balance calculations show that at least 96% of the current atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from non-fossil-fuel sources, i.e. natural marine and juvenile sources. Hence for the atmospheric CO2 budget marine equilibration and degassing and juvenile degassing from e.g. volcanic sources must be much more important, and burning of fossil-fuel and biogenic materials much less important, than hitherto assumed.
Apparently I was unclear.
The observation is: the measured warming has been most pronounced - the largest amount above the past averages - at night and during the winter at higher latitudes. The strongest effects of whatever is causing the warming trend are measured during winter nights at high latitude. This is a time and place of little or no sunlight, on the ocean or inland.
Higher latitudes in the Norther hemisphere have less ocean, btw, proportionately, than lower ones.
But not before it travels those miles and miles, and not before it finds that cooler air. And so we have stronger rains, thicker clouds, in certain places maybe - but not larger areas of cloud cover, or more time spent raining all over, or even larger areas of rain, necessarily. Cf Australia, for ten or fifteen years now.
With the CO2 warming, there is an extra boost covering for the frequent net losses of the water cycle. Without it, the greenhouse energy trapped by the water vapor does not replace that water vapor - the air freeze dries, and the less water in it the cooler it gets and the less it can pick up, right down to freezing at higher latitudes and the spread of that freezing (which cuts off the evaporation almost completely) southward over the planet. The earth at its natural 255 or whatever it is without greenhouse effects has little surface water - it's all frozen.
Not with overall positive feedback, by definition. You are assuming a more realistic situation, in which the feedback is negative overall (short term temp boosts are not maintained by their evaporated water) and decelerating with concentration locally ("logarithmic" in stable circumstances) - approaching some kind of asymptote, at best.
Those two statements conflict. Water vapor is nowhere near 100% saturation, and a four degree rise is readily available (and frequently encountered) over broad areas of the ocean. So even the ocean air is nowhere near temperature saturated - showing that the water vapor in it is not sustaining itself.
This is one of the alarmist points - it covers the lack of atmospheric warming we see occasionally, despite rising C02 levels.
Fascinating. Apparently the following research results are impossible, because they pretend to distinguish exchanged atmospheric fossil fuel C from natural shallow water C in the ocean:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GC000264.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../321058a0.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...ci;256/5053/74
The dgr13C value of the dissolved inorganic carbon in the surface waters of the Pacific Ocean has decreased by about 0.4 per mil between 1970 and 1990. This decrease has resulted from the uptake of atmospheric CO2 derived from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. The net amounts of CO2 taken up by the oceans and released from the biosphere between 1970 and 1990 have been determined from the changes in three measured values: the concentration of atmospheric CO2, the dgr13C of atmospheric CO2 and the dgr13C value of dissolved inorganic carbon in the ocean. The calculated average net oceanic CO2 uptake is 2.1 gigatons of carbon per year. This amount implies that the ocean is the dominant net sink for anthropogenically produced CO2 and that there has been no significant net CO2 released from the biosphere during the last 20 years.
I don't have all the answers, plus I don't know if you are stating the facts correctly. There is another possible factor, ans after doing the math, think the most probable. Since the soot on ice increases the emissivity, the ice will radiate what little heat it has faster, keeping the air from getting as cold as normal. A black body calculator will show the following:Apparently I was unclear.
The observation is: the measured warming has been most pronounced - the largest amount above the past averages - at night and during the winter at higher latitudes. The strongest effects of whatever is causing the warming trend are measured during winter nights at high latitude. This is a time and place of little or no sunlight, on the ocean or inland.
Higher latitudes in the Norther hemisphere have less ocean, btw, proportionately, than lower ones.
Clean ice cap, -15C 0.15 emissivity radiates 37.7749 W/m²
Dirty ice cap, -15C 0.40 emissivity radiates 100.733 W/m²
The dirty ice loses it's heat faster, more energy for the greenhouses effect, even in the absence of sunlight.
You can argue it all you want. More water = more clouds. Period. How can you think it doesn't?But not before it travels those miles and miles, and not before it finds that cooler air. And so we have stronger rains, thicker clouds, in certain places maybe - but not larger areas of cloud cover, or more time spent raining all over, or even larger areas of rain, necessarily.
Huh?
There is always plenty of water in the air to keep the greenhouse effect going on. The air is never 0 humidity, in fact, air averages more than 26 x H2O than CO2. Your point is preposterous. Consider that at 10% humidity and -25C, air still has 0.1 grams per cubic meter of water in it. Water is not only a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, but there is still more of it in the air than CO2.With the CO2 warming, there is an extra boost covering for the frequent net losses of the water cycle.
Could you show me a reference please. I don't believe you. It doesn't make sense.
You don't have a clue to what I am assuming.Not with overall positive feedback, by definition. You are assuming a more realistic situation, in which the feedback is negative overall (short term temp boosts are not maintained by their evaporated water) and decelerating with concentration locally ("logarithmic" in stable circumstances) - approaching some kind of asymptote, at best.
Did I edit and paste wrong? Not sure why you used my words twice.Those two statements conflict.
Not the water vapor, the greenhouse effect caused by water vapor. My point is increasing it to 100% humidity will cause little added heat.
Not by the greenhouse effect of CO2 or H2O.
Whatever is causing that heat, it's not what you assume. Look at any spectral chart showing the relative coverage. There is little areas that are not already at 100% heating potential.
Again, I mean greenhouse effect saturation. Not vapor saturation.
Can you get off the assumption that CO2 causes warming, and consider that maybe warming causes CO2?This is one of the alarmist points - it covers the lack of atmospheric warming we see occasionally, despite rising C02 levels.
Fascinating. Apparently the following research results are impossible, because they pretend to distinguish exchanged atmospheric fossil fuel C from natural shallow water C in the ocean:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GC000264.shtmlJust how do they know what δ13C levels should be? what do they have as a control sample?
They are just making educated guesses. Other things can influence the ratios bedsides fossil fuels.
Again, we cannot be sure if the isotope changes are not from something else.
Anyway, it doesn't matter. Why do you alarmists get hooked up into which is absorbed by how much? What matters is that the sinking of CO2 is less than it should be. The equilibrium is changing. The ocean is holding less and less than it did as it warms.
Let me try to explain it this way. Ler's start with the wiki carbon cycle model:
Please note it starts with 750 GtC in the atmosphere and 39120 GtC in the ocean. This totals 39870 GtC. 1.88% of it is in the atmosphere and 98.12% is in the ocean. This is a 52.16:1 ratio.
Next year, we add 8 GtC and the ocean absorbs 2 of it. We Now have 39878 GtC with 1.90% of it in the atmosphere (756 GtC) and 98.10% in the ocean (39112 GtC). This is a 51.75:1 ratio.
Another year, we add 8 GtC and the ocean absorbs 2 of it. We Now have 39886 GtC with 1.91% of it in the atmosphere (762 GtC) and 98.09% in the ocean (39124 GtC) . This is a 51.34:1 ratio.
Another year, we add 8 GtC and the ocean absorbs 2 of it. We Now have 39894 GtC with 1.93% of it in the atmosphere (768 GtC) and 98.07% in the ocean (39126 GtC). This is a 50.95:1 ratio.
See, as the temperature increases, the ocean holds less and less, percentage wise. If man did not add any CO2 at all, the percentages would still change with temperature. CO2 would change as follows:
Start 39870 GtC, 750 (1.88%) in the air, 39120 (98.12%) in the ocean,
First year, 39870 GtC, 755.8 (1.90%) in the air, 39114.2 (98.10%) in the ocean
Next year, 39870 GtC, 761.7 (1.91%) in the air, 39108.3 (98.09%) in the ocean
Next year, 39870 GtC, 767.5 (1.93%) in the air, 39102.5 (98.07%) in the ocean
Please note that the ratios also change like the first four examples and the ocean is now a net source, of 6 GtC annual. That's what warming does.
Look at it as quantity and ratios. Not simple addition and subtraction. Solubility of CO2 increases as water cools and decreases as water warms.
Losing heat to radiation faster would cool things faster after sundown and early winter, the opposite of the observations.
It's hard to get hold of technical papers when you're me, but the phenomenon is taken for granted by almost everyone who comments, pro or con, on anthro warming effects:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/277/5324/364
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/easterling.htm
http://www.startribune.com/local/11828691.htmlIt has been known for years that DTR has been decreasing in many regions due to minimum (or night-time) temperatures increasing faster than maximum (daytime) temperatures (Karl 1993).
Greenhouse sceptics have over many years often drawn attention to the fact that most of the century long 0.6 degrees C "Global Warming" is in fact at night and at high latitudes and hence is fairly benign ( Balling 1992, Michaels 1992).
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_...explainer.html
Because other factors affect the Earth's temperature and because the science of global warming is not exact, some groups, who disagree with efforts to reduce emissions, have discounted not only the phenomenon itself, but also its effects on the environment.
"While the planet is indeed warming - probably due in no small part to industrial greenhouse gas emissions - the warming has been modest, benign, and largely confined to northern latitudes during winter nights," Jerry Taylor, director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute, wrote in a 2004 commentary. "There are good reasons to expect that warming pattern to continue. And that warming pattern does not threaten to usher in the convulsive climatic events we are warned about in the press or in the movie theaters. In fact, some scientists and economists can make a pretty good case that global warming will prove a net plus to both the economy and the global environment."Because clouds are condensed water vapor, and greater heat means less condensation. Over Australia, for example, we see less cloud and less rain in hotter weather these past years, despite "more water".
That's because of CO2. Unlike CO2, H2O condenses out of the air when the air cools for any reason - such as nightfall, or winter, or convection. The remaining vapor does not produce enough greenhouse effect to re-evaporate and resupply the missing vapor - the net is a declining water vapor concentration over time, which feeds back until the air is dry and the surface water frozen on this planet, with its baseline 255K from solar alone.
Exactly. Think about it - even just four degree temp boosts over the ocean, within your claim of water's natural greenhouse range, do not sustain themselves by picking up water vapor. The extra water vapor they pick up is lost, condensing out and dropping the concentration back to what the the CO2 can cover for, and the temps return to that equilibrium range. The water vapor concentrations greater than those observed are not self-sustaining - and so of course neither are the ones observed, without CO2 help.
btw: Four degrees would be dramatic, not little.
And I mean vapor saturation, which is not self sustaining - its greenhouse effect alone will not keep it in the air.
I think both. So does Mauna Loa's analysis, which does the good science thing and deduces the relative contribution to the measured accumulation. Their conclusion is that fossil fuel combustion is the major supply.
Not true. The mass of the ice means very little change in temperature is needed to affect greater atmospheric temperatures.Losing heat to radiation faster would cool things faster after sundown and early winter, the opposite of the observations.
Opinions based on data not shown.It's hard to get hold of technical papers when you're me, but the phenomenon is taken for granted by almost everyone who comments, pro or con, on anthro warming effects:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/277/5324/364
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/easterling.htm
http://www.startribune.com/local/11828691.htmlIt has been known for years that DTR has been decreasing in many regions due to minimum (or night-time) temperatures increasing faster than maximum (daytime) temperatures (Karl 1993).
Greenhouse sceptics have over many years often drawn attention to the fact that most of the century long 0.6 degrees C "Global Warming" is in fact at night and at high latitudes and hence is fairly benign ( Balling 1992, Michaels 1992).
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_...explainer.html
Because other factors affect the Earth's temperature and because the science of global warming is not exact, some groups, who disagree with efforts to reduce emissions, have discounted not only the phenomenon itself, but also its effects on the environment.
Give me a break, especially when the IPCC is involved in preparing some data.
Funny how after 2004, the warmong has not continued.
Will you please stop with short term trends that may have other factors influencing temperature.Because clouds are condensed water vapor, and greater heat means less condensation. Over Australia, for example, we see less cloud and less rain in hotter weather these past years, despite "more water".
Not all of it condenses out.That's because of CO2. Unlike CO2, H2O condenses out of the air when the air cools for any reason - such as nightfall, or winter, or convection.
255 K with no gas on the earth. I'll buy that. As for the way you treat vapor, hell no. It doesn't apply like that everywhere.
OK, I have only your word. Besides, over the ocean, we can expect the air to be 100% humidity at times.and a four degree rise is readily available (and frequently encountered) over broad areas of the ocean.
I'm getting lost in these quotes. However, the area immediately above water can easily be at 100% humidity. Think about the impact of that before you blame CO2.
Then we are not arguing the same thing. Are you saying that varpor saturation has less impact than a 30% increase in CO2?And I mean vapor saturation, which is not self sustaining - its greenhouse effect alone will not keep it in the air.
I hope not. That would be ridiculous.
Just how can they determine that when their samples are tainted by volcanic CO2, another variation of 13C/14C ratios?I think both. So does Mauna Loa's analysis, which does the good science thing and deduces the relative contribution to the measured accumulation. Their conclusion is that fossil fuel combustion is the major supply.
What's wrong. No argument against this?
This is really important, and well understood in the sciences, how temperatue affect the solubility equilibrium. Care to attempt to show me wrong:
Let me try to explain it this way. Let's start with the wiki carbon cycle model:
Please note it starts with 750 GtC in the atmosphere and 39120 GtC in the ocean. This totals 39870 GtC. 1.88% of it is in the atmosphere and 98.12% is in the ocean. This is a 52.16:1 ratio.
Next year, we add 8 GtC and the ocean absorbs 2 of it. We Now have 39878 GtC with 1.90% of it in the atmosphere (756 GtC) and 98.10% in the ocean (39112 GtC). This is a 51.75:1 ratio.
Another year, we add 8 GtC and the ocean absorbs 2 of it. We Now have 39886 GtC with 1.91% of it in the atmosphere (762 GtC) and 98.09% in the ocean (39124 GtC) . This is a 51.34:1 ratio.
Another year, we add 8 GtC and the ocean absorbs 2 of it. We Now have 39894 GtC with 1.93% of it in the atmosphere (768 GtC) and 98.07% in the ocean (39126 GtC). This is a 50.95:1 ratio.
See, as the temperature increases, the ocean holds less and less, percentage wise. If man did not add any CO2 at all, the percentages would still change with temperature. CO2 would change as follows:
Start 39870 GtC, 750 (1.88%) in the air, 39120 (98.12%) in the ocean,
First year, 39870 GtC, 755.8 (1.90%) in the air, 39114.2 (98.10%) in the ocean
Next year, 39870 GtC, 761.7 (1.91%) in the air, 39108.3 (98.09%) in the ocean
Next year, 39870 GtC, 767.5 (1.93%) in the air, 39102.5 (98.07%) in the ocean
Please note that the ratios also change like the first four examples and the ocean is now a net source, of 6 GtC annual. That's what warming does.
Look at it as quantity and ratios. Not simple addition and subtraction. Solubility of CO2 increases as water cools and decreases as water warms.
? No idea what you are talking about, with that.
You have only my word that the temperature of the air over the ocean can rise by four degrees on occasion?
I don't know what your argument is. Nice picture, though.
But lots of it does. And in that cycle, heat is lost to space from the vapor in the atmosphere, lost to chemical reactions, etc - so that there is a net loss in the cycle, and the greenhouse heat from the water vapor remaining is not enough to re-evaporate the condensed water.
So the water vapor concentration declines over time, and the climate cools, to snowball as it happens - without the boost from some CO2.
First you claim that the ocean surface CO2 coming out of solution cannot be distinguished from fossil fuel combustion product. Then you claim that volcanic emission residue cannot be distinguished from fossil fuel combustion residue, in any way. All scientific reports and studies in which those reporting seem to think they can spot fossil fuel carbon and use standard techniques to do so, are asserted by you to be deluded.
Am I correct in that assessment of your claims?
Well Ice, if you don't understand mass and temperature, and the other things I explain, and can only say "nice pic" then why am I wasting my time with you?
You do not understand the sciences enough to say I am wrong. How do you like being a Lemming, believing what other people say, without understanding what they tell you to believe?
Bye. I am not a teacher. It would take too long to bring you up to speed. If you know anyone who can debate at my level, please find them.
Ice, You have one more chance with me. If you cannot understand the simple pic of the Carbon Cycle, and the numbers I presented, that's OK. Just know, I see it as wasting my time.
Consider how the ratio changes with temperature. Consider how the percentage stays the same when there is no temperature change. Now lets assume there is no ocean warming. That the ocean maintains the 1.88% in the atmosphere and 98.12% in the ocean. Here's what happens with 100 years of an added 8 GtC carbon in the atmosphere:
Start 39870 GtC, 750 (1.88%) in the air, 39120 in the ocean, about 380 ppm
First year, 39878 GtC, 750.2 in the air, 39127.9 in the ocean, about 380.08 ppm
Next year, 39886 GtC, 750.3 in the air, 39135.7 in the ocean, about 380.15 ppm
third year, 39892 GtC, 750.5 in the air, 39143.5 in the ocean, about 380.23 ppm
100 years later, 40670 GtC, 765 in the air, 39905 in the ocean, about 388 ppm
Please study Henry's Law and solubility of gasses in liquids as temperatures change.
If you continue to not understand and debate relevant points I bring up, I will ignore you as I am Inow now. I show why you points can be wrong, and you don't see or acknowledge that. There are certain well understood sciences like solubility and how temperature affects solubility that really are key factors. It cannot be dismissed.
Okay. Now what?
The parallels with your argumentative style and theirs are overwhelming.
Possible but the estimate is by proxy because we've only been able do direct measurements since the 1970s. Even if entirely true, it narrows the range to less than 0.1% of irradiance fluxation and could at the most explain 20% of current warming.Are you sure about that iceaura? Data I saw a bit ago indicated irradiance from the sun was up by about 2W/m3 between 1950 and 2000 vs. the 19th century.Much less than half of it, if any.
No scientist doubts that changes in solar irradiance are directly linked to climate change--No one. The doubt is that it explains the current warming because there are no hypothesis that shows a large enough solar irradiance changes--while there's a perfectly good robust hypothese that does explain the changed surface temp: increased green house gases.
Are you saying science is a popularity contest?
Energy calculations are simple and well understood. The science of Dendrochronology and the use of Beryllium 10 are both far better understood than quantifying the greenhouse effect of CO2. The two sciences I mentioned, and others, are used as proxies to determine past solar irradiation. The IPCC claims they are not well understood, when in fact they are understood better than the greenhouse effect.
In the interest of transparency, let's just look at what they say about proxy data for solar irradiation, shall we?
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/466.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/254.htmEstimates of natural forcing have now been included in simulations over the period of the instrumental temperature record. Natural climate variability (forced and/or internally generated) on its own is generally insufficient to explain the observed changes in temperature over the last few decades. However, for all but the most recent two decades, the accuracy of the estimates of forcing may be limited, being based entirely on proxy data for solar irradiance and on limited surface data for volcanoes. There are some indications that solar irradiance fluctuations have indirect effects in addition to direct radiative heating, for example due to the substantially stronger variation in the UV band and its effect on ozone, or hypothesised changes in cloud cover (see Chapter 6). These mechanisms remain particularly uncertain and currently are not incorporated in most efforts to simulate the climate effect of solar irradiance variations, as no quantitative estimates of their magnitude are currently available.
More on solar irradiance here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/244.htmIn addition to different forcing mechanisms of anthropogenic origin, two natural forcings have also been considered: solar irradiance variations and stratospheric aerosols of volcanic origin. The Lean et al. (1995) and Hoyt and Schatten (1993) estimates of direct solar forcing due to variation in total solar irradiance are shown. Differences between the solar irradiance constructions are due to use of different proxy parameters for the solar irradiance variations.
<...>
The temporal evolution of the stratospheric aerosol content together with the small solar irradiance variations during the last few (two to four) decades indicates that the natural forcing has been negative over the past two and possibly even the past four decades. In contrast, the positive forcing due to well-mixed greenhouse gases has increased rapidly over the past four decades.
Now, the reader can decide for themselves if your disparaging remarks regarding the IPCC comments on uncertainties in solar irradiation proxies are warranted.
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
My God man. I am arguing the IPCC is wrong, and rather than showing me evidence, you give three quotes from the IPCC!
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
Uh huh. You're quite ridiculous, you know that? I was offering the context of the comments made by the IPCC... the same comments you were disparaging in an attempt to poison the well.LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
My God man. I am arguing the IPCC is wrong, and rather than showing me evidence, you give three quotes from the IPCC!
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
Lol is not an argument, but it is representative of how people ought to respond to yours.
That's right, 20-50% of temperature changes due to direct effects. However, the data correlates very well. By inference one suspects parallel or add on effects. contrast this with CO2 warming which has about half the direct effects and yet those who argue for CO2 as a root cause have to bring in a multitude of positive feedback to get the magnitude they are looking for, all of which would be in play for solar heating so if CO2 warming includes add on effects, those effects would be in play for solar warming. Given that the two both require add on effects, I would go with the effect that correlates with the data best.Possible but the estimate is by proxy because we've only been able do direct measurements since the 1970s. Even if entirely true, it narrows the range to less than 0.1% of irradiance fluxation and could at the most explain 20% of current warming.Are you sure about that iceaura? Data I saw a bit ago indicated irradiance from the sun was up by about 2W/m3 between 1950 and 2000 vs. the 19th century.Much less than half of it, if any.
No scientist doubts that changes in solar irradiance are directly linked to climate change--No one. The doubt is that it explains the current warming because there are no hypothesis that shows a large enough solar irradiance changes--while there's a perfectly good robust hypothese that does explain the changed surface temp: increased green house gases.
The empirical data is a terrible match with the constant CO2 rise. Only the faked hockey stick temperature chart correlated to CO2 concentration. There was a reason Mann and Jones and the others fabricated the data the way they did.
Since both causes require add on effects, I would go with the cause that matches the data.
inow, generally you would need to provide a source independent of the IPCC and the scientists they draw from to corroborate their view and demonstrated precisely where WC is in error. As it is, quoting from the IPCC directly ad evidence that WC is wrong makes it clear that you have a prior commitment that the IPCC is correct. You are treating the IPCC as if they are GOD to you.Uh huh. You're quite ridiculous, you know that? I was offering the context of the comments made by the IPCC... the same comments you were disparaging in an attempt to poison the well.LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
My God man. I am arguing the IPCC is wrong, and rather than showing me evidence, you give three quotes from the IPCC!
LOL...
LOL...
LOL...
Lol is not an argument, but it is representative of how people ought to respond to yours.
Wow, that's fascinating, but simply untrue. Is there a reason you are misrepresenting what actually happened? Are you lying, or are you just misinformed?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
The argument from deniers:
Two Canadian investigators, McKitrick and McIntyre, re-did the study using Mann’s data and methods and found dozens of errors. When they corrected the errors, they came up with sharply differing results. It turns out that Mann and his associates used a non-standard formula to analyze his data, and this particular formula will turn anything into a hockey stick---including trendless data generated by computer. (Source: The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming by Michael Crichton
What the science says:
Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
Debates continue even now over the statistical methods used in Mann's initial study. However since 1998, there have been at least ten proxy studies, analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes, ice cores, etc. Here is a visual summary (courtesy of Global Warming Art) of the various results (solid black is actual observed temperatures):
The results all confirm the same general conclusion: although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.
Sorry, wrong yet again. Wild_Cobra made a post which tried to poison the well using comments from the IPCC as his tool when doing so. I simply shared those comments from the IPCC in context so the reader could read them directly and decide for themselves whether or not WCs implication was valid.
I wasn't rebutting any argument of WC when I shared that, nor was I suggesting that the IPCC was some infallible entity or god. I was just saying, "Since WC brought it up, here's what they actually said." Nice try, though. I'll give you an A for effort, but an F for relevance and validity.
Now, would you like to try using "LOL" as an argument? I've heard it works wonders with kindergartners.
Why doesn't the Hockey Stick graph include Vostok data?
Graphed of data from NASA/GISS:
Please note data just before 1900 to 2000 is too new to be locked into the ice.
Let me get this straight... because you've failed epically everywhere else, you are now dismissing the fact that over 13 paleoclimatic data sources from many different parts of the globe using independent and distinct techniques ALL show the same trend just because one sample from Vostok was not included? Really? You just cannot be taken seriously anymore.
The various studies differ in methodology, and in the underlying paleoclimate proxy data utilized, but all reconstruct the same basic pattern of cool "Little Ice Age", warmer "Medieval Warm Period", and still warmer late 20th and 21st century temperatures.
I haven't failed anywhere. I don't care about the validity of the Hockey Stick graph enough anyway. I was just showing another record. The arguments against the Hockey Stick are good, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't prove anything.Let me get this straight... because you've failed epically everywhere else, you are now dismissing the fact that over 13 paleoclimatic data sources from different parts of the globe ALL show the same trend just because one sample from Vostok was not included? Really? You just cannot be taken seriously anymore.
Care to explain why I am wrong with the CO2 and temperature?
inow, your problem is that you change my words and then go on to answer a differents question. You are the liar when you misrepresent what I said. Find a valid temperature proxy that covers the previous 2000 years and show me that it correlates with CO2 concentration better than it correlates to sun activity. It is absolutely true that only the faked data construct known as the hockey stick correlates well with CO2 concentration.Wow, that's fascinating, but simply untrue. Is there a reason you are misrepresenting what actually happened? Are you lying, or are you just misinformed?
Notice also the purpose in puting so many proxies on one chart, Namely to obscure the temperature variations throughout the years. to make it seem like they track CO2 better than they actually do.
I give up trying to make any sense of you inow.
That's nothing but a red herring. We all know that CO2 contributions to the atmosphere by humans en masse only began around the industrial revolution, and the temperature change resulting from those contributions only became noticeable in the 20th century.
No. I proved you wrong above. You do know... right... that simply repeating an invalid assertion over and over again without adding any new information or support does not suddenly make that assertion valid? You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face and until your fingers are red from typing, but the claim you've just made is demonstrably false, and I offered said demonstration already above.
Yeah... That just must be it. Idiot.
December 7th, 2009, 01:08 AM
Based on a study commissioned by the United Nations, global warming is projected to increase the average tempature by 3.5 degrees over the next century. According to the IPCC (Inter-govermental Panel on Climate Change) the likely result would be that sea levels would rise by between 0.09 and 0.88 meters. While lots of the experts disagree on the details, even if the entire Greenland Ice Sheet melted and West Antartic Ice Sheet fell into the sea, its projected that the sea level would rise roughly 10 meters. While this would definitely cause big problems, especially in low lying coastal areas, it doesn't appear possible that it would "flood the rest of the world". Check out the Earth Observatory website by NASA for more details.
| « Should we give up on trying to stop global warming | About global warming! » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
