Notices
Results 1 to 88 of 88

Thread: General Circulation Models: The best evidence for AGW?

  1. #1 General Circulation Models: The best evidence for AGW? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    It is often claimed that GCMs are the best validation for AGW primarily caused by greenhouse gas discharge. Do you concur, or is there better evidence favoring this explanation. What is the role of GCMs and what confidence should be placed in them?

    This thread is based on a related discussion in a previous topic.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Request this thread be merged with the ten or twelve others active right now.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Request this thread be merged with the ten or twelve others active right now.
    It would probably be better to have each aspect of warming having it's own thread.

    Cypress, as for this aspect of AGW, I know so little. love to learn more though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Request this thread be merged with the ten or twelve others active right now.
    A well thought out explanation could quickly address the questions. I have not seen this addressed very well yet. The other threads have too many issues intermixed making it difficult to explore a particular issue. Perhaps you should request that all physics topics be merged into one thread too since they are related.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    It must be the case that GCM's do provide the best evidence to support the idea of AGW by excessive emissions of CO2 and other GHGm since the combined wisdom here did not offer alternatives. However these models are computer simulations and only output the combination of the assumptions made by the programmers and the data input operators. They are expert opinions in mathematical form. How is that evidence? And how accurate is expert opinion about future climate?

    In another thread some forecast experts showed how a very simple forecast model is 7.7 times more accurate than GCM's when run from the 1800's through current years. Shouldn't we use the most accurate forecasting tool?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    In another thread some forecast experts showed how a very simple forecast model is 7.7 times more accurate than GCM's when run from the 1800's through current years. Shouldn't we use the most accurate forecasting tool?
    Maybe we should pay more attention to The Farmers Almanac.

    They have been the most accurate at forcasting long term weather for decades. Funny thing is, part of their predictions include watching the sun's activity....

    Farmers Almanac

    Weather prediction has always been a major feature of the Farmers' Almanac. The Almanac Publishing Company claims readers of the Farmers’ Almanac have attributed an 80 to 85 percent accuracy rate to the publication’s annual forecasts.

    Predictions for each edition are made as far as two years in advance. The Farmers’ Almanac publishers are highly secretive about the method used to make its predictions, only stating publicly that it is a "top secret mathematical and astronomical formula, that relies on sunspot activity, tidal action, planetary position and many other factors." The identity of the Farmers’ Almanac weather forecaster is also a secret. The Almanac’s forecaster is referred to by the pseudonym Caleb Weatherbee.
    They rely on nature....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It is often claimed that GCMs are the best validation for AGW primarily caused by greenhouse gas discharge.
    It is? news to me. By whom?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Exactly. It's also claimed that unsupported assertions are little more than hearsay, and can be safely dismissed as rubbish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    It is often claimed that GCMs are the best validation for AGW primarily caused by greenhouse gas discharge.
    It is? news to me. By whom?
    If they are not then we are left with evidence that climate warming attributable to CO2 is between -0.1 and +0.4 C to date. Then consider the physics of radiant heat transfer in mixed gasses and we get a maximum theoretical multiplier of 2 as CO2 increases to saturation. This gives us a maximum impact of about .8C. From this we can conclude CO2 is not a problem.

    However, we have you and others claiming it is a serious problem. What evidence do you have for claiming it is a problem? The answer is "Forecasts based on GCM's" indicate significantly higher impacts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    So, instead of relying purely on hearsay, you've decided to jump right into evasion and distraction, still failing to offer a single example. Nice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    General Circulation Models
    The climate models that GISS has developed and operates include several atmospheric general circulation models (AGCMs). Such computer models numerically solve fundamental equations describing the conservation of mass, energy, momentum, etc. for each atmospheric gridbox, while taking into account the transfer of those quantities between gridboxes. They also consider, often in parameterized form, the physical processes within the boxes, including sources and sinks of these quantities. Examples of GCMs in current use at GISS are the GISS Model E (see Schmidt et al 2006); GISS Model II (Hansen et al. 1983, 1984); the GISS Middle Atmosphere Model for use in studying stratospheric processes (Rind et al. 1987a, 1987b); and the GISS Atmosphere-Ocean Model (GR) (Russell et al. 1995), amongst others.
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/modeling/gcms.html

    It is often claimed that GCMs are the best validation for AGW primarily caused by greenhouse gas discharge. Do you concur, or is there better evidence favoring this explanation. What is the role of GCMs and what confidence should be placed in them?
    cypress; I'm not sure where your getting AGW validation. Please inform me....If the 'Stratosphere' (second layer of atmosphere), ocean or wind currents are involved with weather patterns, I believe they are, how would these relate the GHGas, that mankind could change. I would like to see some model, any guess to work with, that links several of the variables into one scenario, but I don't think that's the intended goal....



    Request this thread be merged with the ten or twelve others active right now.
    It would probably be better to have each aspect of warming having it's own thread.
    I don't have any suggestion, but this locking threads is getting out of hand. I wouldn't mind simply deleting threads, but too often, I'm seeing new posters or other than you three posting and getting left out by the locking. Maybe merging would work, but then most the locked threads, have come from newer members...simply asking questions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    It is often claimed that GCMs are the best validation for AGW primarily caused by greenhouse gas discharge. Do you concur, or is there better evidence favoring this explanation. What is the role of GCMs and what confidence should be placed in them?
    cypress; I'm not sure where your getting AGW validation. Please inform me....
    As far as I know there is no validation that human activities are or have warmed the planet.

    This paper here. provides some good information on GCM's and the paper following it answers iceaura's question. I posted this previously, I don't suppose either iceaura or inow read them before. I doubt they will read them this time either.

    http://kestencgreen.com/gas-2009-validity.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Yes,
    Perhaps a non-peer reviewed paper published in a non-atmospheric science journal and put together by two Professors of Marketing who've never researched weather or climate shouldn't get the credit you attribute to them.

    In another thread some forecast experts showed how a very simple forecast model is 7.7 times more accurate than GCM's when run from the 1800's through current years.
    Which ones?

    Cypress, not sure what you mean by "Validation." I think you're just tossing the term out there.

    The GCMs aren't going to validate anything. Most do however, represent the current body of knowledge through their underlying physics which includes just about every known effect. They give some confidence about forecasting the future because of their successful demonstrated ability to simulate the past. Because of the complexity of natural systems these types of simulations are most robust and in some cases the best and only way to examine and understand the relationship between the many factors embedded in the models.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Yes,
    Perhaps a non-peer reviewed paper published in a non-atmospheric science journal and put together by two Professors of Marketing who've never researched weather or climate shouldn't get the credit you attribute to them.
    The article in the Journal referenced and linked to the peer-reviewed and published paper on the same subject written by these two experts in forecasting methods. A GCM is a form of forecasting tool. They are more than qualified to discuss the topic as evidenced by the published paper.

    In another thread some forecast experts showed how a very simple forecast model is 7.7 times more accurate than GCM's when run from the 1800's through current years.
    Which ones?

    Reread the article and papers linked. They describe how a very simple model is 7.7 times as accurate as the GCM's selected by a group of climatologists.

    Cypress, not sure what you mean by "Validation." I think you're just tossing the term out there.

    The GCMs aren't going to validate anything. Most do however, represent the current body of knowledge through their underlying physics which includes just about every known effect. They give some confidence about forecasting the future because of their successful demonstrated ability to simulate the past. Because of the complexity of natural systems these types of simulations are most robust and in some cases the best and only way to examine and understand the relationship between the many factors embedded in the models.
    But they are far less successful (7.7 times less) than a very simple forecast model. The article describes why complex systems that are not understood are best modeled by simple tools primarily because complex ones most often take in the character of the bias of the designers and not real systems. Read the articles again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Yes,
    Perhaps a non-peer reviewed paper published in a non-atmospheric science journal and put together by two Professors of Marketing who've never researched weather or climate shouldn't get the credit you attribute to them.
    The article in the Journal referenced and linked to the peer-reviewed and published paper on the same subject written by these two experts in forecasting methods. A GCM is a form of forecasting tool. They are more than qualified to discuss the topic as evidenced by the published paper.
    Than why didn't you provide it? You continue to toss grenades into these discussions even when referencing specific things without providing them or relavent links. We have no idea which article you are referring to and aren't going to take the time to do your work for you.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    This paper here. provides some good information on GCM's and the paper following it answers iceaura's question.
    neither paper linked in that post has anything to do with my question.

    I read the second one, btw, without learning much; the first one was too muddled to plow through at that length, and I think I've read it before, maybe a synopsis or something.

    The question was who in the relevant scientific fields had been using GCMs to validate AGW via greenhouse gas accumulation. That question remains unaddressed.

    btw: I thought the fact that the second paper there chose to compare their benchmark method with the 1992 linear ICCP projection was sort of a clue that the agenda was more important than the science to those guys. WTF? 1992? the linear projection? By the time they started throwing in Rachel Carson and DDT, Henry Malthus and population, and so forth, the shallow political nature of the project was obvious.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    If they are not then we are left with evidence that climate warming attributable to CO2 is between -0.1 and +0.4 C to date. Then consider the physics of radiant heat transfer in mixed gasses and we get a maximum theoretical multiplier of 2 as CO2 increases to saturation. This gives us a maximum impact of about .8C. From this we can conclude CO2 is not a problem.
    Others get different results, using sounder methods and assumptions, and conclude that CO2 might be a very serious problem, the current CO2 boost being more than 1C with more to come, and so forth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Yes,
    Perhaps a non-peer reviewed paper published in a non-atmospheric science journal and put together by two Professors of Marketing who've never researched weather or climate shouldn't get the credit you attribute to them.
    The article in the Journal referenced and linked to the peer-reviewed and published paper on the same subject written by these two experts in forecasting methods. A GCM is a form of forecasting tool. They are more than qualified to discuss the topic as evidenced by the published paper.
    Than why didn't you provide it? You continue to toss grenades into these discussions even when referencing specific things without providing them or relavent links. We have no idea which article you are referring to and aren't going to take the time to do your work for you.
    The journal article is easier to read and provides a summary of the longer paper. I can't make you read the sources. Clearly you did not read the material or you would not have said what you did.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I have no idea about which "longer paper" you are talking about.

    Be specific. 2nd request.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Having now reread the two papers I provided, I don't understand how they fail to address your concerns, and I don't see how a reader can't see how the articles contradict your claims about the purpose and efficacy of GCM. I can only conclude you have not and will not read the papers and the internal link/reference to the other article.

    It's ok I realize I can't make you read them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Having now reread the two papers I provided, I don't understand how they fail to address your concerns, and I don't see how a reader can't see how the articles contradict your claims
    You also thought one of them answered my question, which neither one addresses.

    So - - -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Having now reread the two papers I provided, I don't understand how they fail to address your concerns, and I don't see how a reader can't see how the articles contradict your claims
    You also thought one of them answered my question, which neither one addresses.

    So - - -
    But it did, and I continue to be surprised that you can't/won't see it. The articles clearly indicate the level of faith placed in these models used as strong evidence for AGW and identifies those who hold these beliefs. It goes on to explain why these models are not good evidence for AGW as well.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    But it did, and I continue to be surprised that you can't/won't see it.
    Barring some kind of explanation of where you found it, in those articles, anything about using a climate model of any kind to validate anything remains invisible to me. It would be an odd endeavor - models are usually validated by research and data comparison, not the reverse - but I suppose it's possible if very carefully and conservatively done, in some limited cases.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    By the time they started throwing in Rachel Carson and DDT, Henry Malthus and population, and so forth, the shallow political nature of the project was obvious.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    If they are not then we are left with evidence that climate warming attributable to CO2 is between -0.1 and +0.4 C to date. Then consider the physics of radiant heat transfer in mixed gasses and we get a maximum theoretical multiplier of 2 as CO2 increases to saturation. This gives us a maximum impact of about .8C. From this we can conclude CO2 is not a problem.
    Others get different results, using sounder methods and assumptions, and conclude that CO2 might be a very serious problem, the current CO2 boost being more than 1C with more to come, and so forth.
    As near as I can tell these supposed "sounder methods and assumptions" are GCM's. But even you seem to finally admit that they are not good evidence for AGW. Certainly these articles provide strong evidence that they are in fact poor predictors of global mean temperatures being 7.7 times less accurate than a very simple model of stasis from previous year. The authors describe GCM's as nothing more than opinions encoded in software.

    If these "sounder methods and assumptions" are not GCM's then what are they?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    But even you seem to finally admit that they are not good evidence for AGW
    They aren't evidence of anything, except the ability to build a model.

    Do you have a point?
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    If these "sounder methods and assumptions" are not GCM's then what are they?
    WTF are you talking about?
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Certainly these articles provide strong evidence that they are in fact poor predictors of global mean temperatures being 7.7 times less accurate than a very simple model of stasis from previous year.
    All I saw was a couple of asshats discovering that if they drew a straight line on the graph of yearly average temps it would fail to predict the temp of any given year as well as assuming a relationship with the previous year's temperature would, on average.

    Then they told me this deep property of the universe was also illustrated by the fact that banning DDT is blamed by the ignorant for causing a lot of malaria deaths.

    Underwhelmed and unshocked, I am.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Still waiting to hear from you iceaura, what you consider to be, in your words "sounder methods and assumptions"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Still waiting to hear from you iceaura, what you consider to be, in your words "sounder methods and assumptions"
    Measurements of water and air temperature (and ground temp). Measurements of water acidity, isotope analysis of water, plant material analysis such as tree ring and stomatal density , biological profiles of landscapes and lakebed sediments and the like, ice and soil and permafrost and lakebed sediment cores including pollen etc, physical traces of storm events and water levels and solar radiation effects, historical records of various types including ship logs and sunspot logs and the like, weather station records, physical measurements of the atmosphere over time via satellite and weather balloon and so forth, etc etc etc and so forth.

    Comparisons of the patterns of these with the possible causes, looking for correlation and mechanism and agreement with observation.

    All the stuff that went into the IPCC reports, for starters.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Still waiting to hear from you iceaura, what you consider to be, in your words "sounder methods and assumptions"
    Measurements of water and air temperature (and ground temp). Measurements of water acidity, isotope analysis of water, plant material analysis such as tree ring and stomatal density , biological profiles of landscapes and lakebed sediments and the like, ice and soil and permafrost and lakebed sediment cores including pollen etc, physical traces of storm events and water levels and solar radiation effects, historical records of various types including ship logs and sunspot logs and the like, weather station records, physical measurements of the atmosphere over time via satellite and weather balloon and so forth, etc etc etc and so forth.

    Comparisons of the patterns of these with the possible causes, looking for correlation and mechanism and agreement with observation.

    All the stuff that went into the IPCC reports, for starters.
    And from all that we get from this evidence is exactly what I described before. .35-.37C from the mid seventies till 2002 is not accounted for by traditional measures of sun activity and other traditional effects. We could assign all of it to CO2 but there are other effects we have not considered.

    Nearly all of it can be accounted for by ocean oscillations and changes in cloud cover that follow sun activity and reductions in aerosol emissions according to recent published papers I provided over the last month and you and your friends have not been able to contradict. This leaves us with very little effect for CO2.

    What part of this data you mention provides the basis for the IPCC to make predictions into the future of the 2-3C effect they claim CO2 will have given that to date it has not had nearly the effect they would predict? The consensus seems to be that CO2 has had an effect in the range of 0.1 - 0.4C so far and given that the concentration is now at 400 ppm, its theoretical total effect is 70% of what it will ever be.

    Let me help answer this question for you.... The IPCC relies on GCM's.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    And from all that we get from this evidence is exactly what I described before. .35-.37C from the mid seventies till 2002 is not accounted for by traditional measures of sun activity and other traditional effects. We could assign all of it to CO2 but there are other effects we have not considered.
    There are no "traditional" measures and effects.

    The problem with solar variation and the like is that they don't match observation, either in pattern or magnitude.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The consensus seems to be that CO2 has had an effect in the range of 0.1 - 0.4C so far and given that the concentration is now at 400 ppm, its theoretical total effect is 70% of what it will ever be.
    So all that stuff from mr cobra about "lags" - you were the guy who was claiming there weren't any?

    "You"is not 'we". We - the rest of the world of people considering this stuff - have considered your assertions over many years and found them dubious and not supported by the research or the patterns of event. I, watching the progress of your arguments here, am struck by how much you rely on argument from ignorance - you just thought of something, like clouds, therefore others must not have considered it?
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Let me help answer this question for you.... The IPCC relies on GCM's.
    not for evidence. Do you know what "evidence" is?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    And from all that we get from this evidence is exactly what I described before. .35-.37C from the mid seventies till 2002 is not accounted for by traditional measures of sun activity and other traditional effects. We could assign all of it to CO2 but there are other effects we have not considered.
    There are no "traditional" measures and effects.

    The problem with solar variation and the like is that they don't match observation, either in pattern or magnitude.
    That's news to me. Sun irradiance is well documented and the effects are known empiriacly by historical repeatibility of cause and effect. There have been numerous presentations of this on several threads.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The consensus seems to be that CO2 has had an effect in the range of 0.1 - 0.4C so far and given that the concentration is now at 400 ppm, its theoretical total effect is 70% of what it will ever be.
    So all that stuff from mr cobra about "lags" - you were the guy who was claiming there weren't any?
    Lag is a well known and understood physical behavior that is factored into the stated results. To avoid argument, I presented the consensus range which minimizes following effects. Some analyses have the CO2 effect as low as -0.1C.

    "You"is not 'we". We - the rest of the world of people considering this stuff - have considered your assertions over many years and found them dubious and not supported by the research or the patterns of event.
    Actually this is far from settled. Both public and scientific community opinion is quite split. I understand that many, including you find it dubious and even believe that it is not supported by research, but you are incorrect. It is supported by research. I have provided several examples of this research.

    I, watching the progress of your arguments here, am struck by how much you rely on argument from ignorance - you just thought of something, like clouds, therefore others must not have considered it?
    No, the points I make have support in physical principles, research and by evidence. When I speculate I make it clear that it is speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Let me help answer this question for you.... The IPCC relies on GCM's.
    not for evidence. Do you know what "evidence" is?
    I certainly do. Tell me what evidence is there that CO2 and follow on effects will result in elevation of global temperatures by the 2-4C predicted by the IPCC?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    "You"is not 'we". We - the rest of the world of people considering this stuff - have considered your assertions over many years and found them dubious and not supported by the research or the patterns of event.
    Actually this is far from settled. Both public and scientific community opinion is quite split.
    Umm... No.


    Almost every scientific institution in the world with national or international standing recognizes the reality of anthropogenically-forced climate change:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change


    None of these institutions dispute it. A few are noncomittal.

    97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. See: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    "You"is not 'we". We - the rest of the world of people considering this stuff - have considered your assertions over many years and found them dubious and not supported by the research or the patterns of event.
    Actually this is far from settled. Both public and scientific community opinion is quite split.
    Umm... No.

    Almost every scientific institution in the world with national or international standing recognizes the reality of anthropogenically-forced climate change:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change


    None of these institutions dispute it. A few are noncomittal.
    That doesn't change the fact that the science community as a whole is split on the point above. Your survey addressed a different question. Even if the impact is as I describe (0.1-0.4C), that is confirmation that there is a human component so when framed as in Wiki, I would also respond there is an effect. The dispute about the degree of impact. Wiki does not address this point and your response has failed to make your intended point.

    97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. See: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
    You should read your source material more carefully. What they agreed is that they "think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."

    The word "significant" is not defined and can be interpreted widely. Primarly is not a synonym for "significant contributing factor". You have changed the meaning dramatically.

    I wonder how many of the respondents would agree with the IPCC assessment of a +/-3C impact and I wonder what evidence they would offer to support that prediction.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Almost every scientific institution in the world with national or international standing recognizes the reality of anthropogenically-forced climate change:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change


    None of these institutions dispute it. A few are noncomittal.
    So? I don't deny antropogenic changes either. I don't think anyone does. We just disagree on how strong the effect is.

    Parse carefully...
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation. See: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
    Facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts. There could be several reasons for this, including there are no growing job aspects for those who don't create jobs for the Cap and Trade industry, or Alternate Fuels industry. Working scientists have better things to do that repeat what others say.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Okay. Righto, then. Carry on, gentlemen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Okay. Righto, then. Carry on, gentlemen.
    Inow, in the site feedback section you described a characteristic of yourself that I took to mean you would respond to the best of your ability to requests for elaboration from other posters. I suppose you didn't intend that anyone hold you to that claim.

    Can you summarize for us what evidence supports the prediction by the IPCC that AGW will bias global temperatures by +2-4C as CO2 concentration rises to 560 ppmv. I contend that they use GCM's to make this prediction and there is no physical principle or empirical evidence to support this claim. I claim that the empirical evidence gives us at most 0.1-0.4C warming possibly attributable to CO2 for the rise to 390ppmv and the theoretical impact is now about 70% of the total theoretical impact for a rise to 560ppmv.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Okay. Righto, then. Carry on, gentlemen.
    Inow, in the site feedback section you described a characteristic of yourself that I took to mean you would respond to the best of your ability to requests for elaboration from other posters. I suppose you didn't intend that anyone hold you to that claim.

    Can you summarize for us what evidence supports the prediction by the IPCC that AGW will bias global temperatures by +2-4C as CO2 concentration rises to 560 ppmv. I contend that they use GCM's to make this prediction and there is no physical principle or empirical evidence to support this claim. I claim that the empirical evidence gives us at most 0.1-0.4C warming possibly attributable to CO2 for the rise to 390ppmv and the theoretical impact is now about 70% of the total theoretical impact for a rise to 560ppmv.
    I completely agree with you Cypress. I am pretty sure the IPCC purposely misleads it's intended readers. Wiki: Greenhouse Gasses accuarately shows changes attributed by the IPCC. From preindustrial to 365 ppm, they attribute a 1.46 watt radiative forcing. There is also a 1.53 watt forcing attributed to 383 ppm. If you graph these two points, they intersect with zero. We all know that forcing from CO2 is not linear. It's logarithmic. However, world leaders and even scientists reading these reports take them at face value without checking for innacuracies. It would take using the same linear rather than logarithmic projection to get the 2 to 4 dgree range when converting forcing temperature.

    It is impossible, even by IPCC numbers projected rationally (logarithmically), to get that range.

    Anyone thinging I am wrong about wiki accurately reflecting the IPCC, follow the sources cited.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    We all know that forcing from CO2 is not linear. It's logarithmic.
    It's not logarithmic either. It's some more complicated shape.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    That's news to me. Sun irradiance is well documented and the effects are known empiriacly by historical repeatibility of cause and effect.
    The technology for measuring solarirradiance is recent invention. The historical records are proxies, of varying reliability. The known effects don't match the data record. We have greater warming at the poles, at night, and in winter.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Lag is a well known and understood physical behavior that is factored into the stated results.
    What behavior is that, exactly, regarding CO2? I've got mr cobra telling me that there is a thirty year lag in the effects of sunlight on the ocean, with no mechanism visible. I see no reason CO2 cannot have invisible lags of the most convenient duration.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Tell me what evidence is there that CO2 and follow on effects will result in elevation of global temperatures by the 2-4C predicted by the IPCC?
    The evidence the argument is based on is the various temp records and CO2 measurements made by researchers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    btw:
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    From preindustrial to 365 ppm, they attribute a 1.46 watt radiative forcing. There is also a 1.53 watt forcing attributed to 383 ppm. If you graph these two points, they intersect with zero.
    ? Does not compute.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    btw:
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    From preindustrial to 365 ppm, they attribute a 1.46 watt radiative forcing. There is also a 1.53 watt forcing attributed to 383 ppm. If you graph these two points, they intersect with zero.
    ? Does not compute.
    1.46/365 ~ 1.53/383

    x = ppm
    y = forcing
    b = 0
    m = 0.004
    y = mx+b

    0.004(365) = 1.46

    0.004(383) = 1.532 (1.53 for 3 significant digits)

    A linear slope. not logarithmic.

    There are three formulas I have seen used to show the warming associated with CO2. Each has a primary logarithmic function. No formula used will allow the above linear math to occur, where 1.46 watts at 365 ppm and also allow 383 ppm to equal 1.53 watts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Ah yes, that is indeed suspect.

    But there is one possible explanatory out: the 1.53 is presented as approximate.

    And another - extraordinary coincidence:

    My intuition is rebelling against the notion of a simple logarithmic function describing the heat trapping of CO2 X atmospheric concentration. Wouldn't you expect some kind of sigmoid ? If so, coincidence could match the slopes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Can you summarize for us what evidence supports the prediction by the IPCC that AGW will bias global temperatures by +2-4C as CO2 concentration rises to 560 ppmv. I contend that they use GCM's to make this prediction and there is no physical principle or empirical evidence to support this claim. I claim that the empirical evidence gives us at most 0.1-0.4C warming possibly attributable to CO2 for the rise to 390ppmv and the theoretical impact is now about 70% of the total theoretical impact for a rise to 560ppmv.
    Even Svante Arrhenius readjusted his claim on the doubling of CO2 from 4 C to 5 C to 1.6 C a hundred years ago, maybe more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Wouldn't you expect some kind of sigmoid ? If so, coincidence could match the slopes.
    Absolutely no. I have looked into this for years, and only seen three logarithmic formulas. There would be no zero crossing by linearizing any two given non-zero points. There may be more, but nothing like a sigmoid.

    Here are the only formulas for carbon dioxide I have seen:

    F = a(ln(C/C0)); a = 5.35

    F= a(ln(C/C0)) + ß (C - C0); a = 4.841, ß = 0.0906

    F= a(g(C)-g(C0))
    where g(C)= ln(1+1.2C+0.005C^2 +1.4 x 10-6C^3); a = 3.35

    F is forcing in watts/square meter. C and C0 is CO2 in ppm.

    But there is one possible explanatory out: the 1.53 is presented as approximate.
    I challenge you to use near values to the 1.46 and 1.53 and see if you can use fit those within any of the formulas, even ajdusting the "a" value. Afterall, I am one that disagree with value "a" anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Geo
    Geo is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I contend that they use GCM's to make this prediction and there is no physical principle or empirical evidence to support this claim.
    What are computer models based on then?
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I claim that the empirical evidence gives us at most 0.1-0.4C warming possibly attributable to CO2 for the rise to 390ppmv and the theoretical impact is now about 70% of the total theoretical impact for a rise to 560ppmv.
    If CO2 warms the air this will allow it to hold more water vapour. Has a model of cloud formation and dispersal been developed yet?

    Does the IPCC add water vapour to CO2 radiative forcing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo
    Has a model of cloud formation and dispersal been developed yet?
    Since the 1960's.
    Most climate models are fairly robust in simulating clouds, particularly of the large scale. Smaller convective processes are largely parametrized using methods similar to regional weather models. They are pretty good as simulating seasonal rainfall and are even able to model individual hurricanes with reasonable seasonal frequencies that run close to reality etc.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo
    Has a model of cloud formation and dispersal been developed yet?
    Since the 1960's.
    Most climate models are fairly robust in simulating clouds, particularly of the large scale. Smaller convective processes are largely parametrized using methods similar to regional weather models. They are pretty good as simulating seasonal rainfall and are even able to model individual hurricanes with reasonable seasonal frequencies that run close to reality etc.
    But isn't it also true that clouds are the biggest source of uncertainty in the models, even though: "(t)here is no indication anywhere that any kind of cloud processes will stop greenhouse gas driven warming, and this includes observations of the past as well as modelling experiments."

    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...ave-clouds.php
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Wouldn't you expect some kind of sigmoid ? If so, coincidence could match the slopes.
    Absolutely no. I have looked into this for years, and only seen three logarithmic formulas.
    Those formulas appear to be for mixtures of dry gas at some standard pressure and temperature, without terms for the substrate's properties, without specific adjustments for day/night differences, etc. - as if intended to be used in evaluating window insulation or something. The second formula produces much different estimates than the other two, in our range.

    If I am correct in taking C as "new concentration" and Co as "original concentration", the commonly accepted warming of 33C or so from the preindustrial 280 ppm doesn't fall out either (from the third equation). So everybody is using some much different formula or procedure for calculating CO2's warming effects, and always has been - from before the AGW controversy.

    I see no problem with a realistic estimation of CO2 in the atmosphere producing much different numbers - even curve shapes - than those.

    Again, flagging linearity as dubious seems reasonable to me. But I wouldn't take the numbers from those equations as good predictions or estimates either.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Wouldn't you expect some kind of sigmoid ? If so, coincidence could match the slopes.
    Absolutely no. I have looked into this for years, and only seen three logarithmic formulas.
    Those formulas appear to be for mixtures of dry gas at some standard pressure and temperature, without terms for the substrate's properties, without specific adjustments for day/night differences, etc. - as if intended to be used in evaluating window insulation or something. The second formula produces much different estimates than the other two, in our range.
    These three formulas can be found in the IPCC TAR. I forget where but they are the accepted formulas by them. They produce the same curves you see anywhere for CO2 radiative forcing. Each, just slightly different. The first I think is used just to get ballpark differences in forcing over small changes. The second and third, I could only guess what feedbacks they are adding. The third appears to be spot on for the charts Al Gore uses in "An Inconvienent Truth."
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    If I am correct in taking C as "new concentration" and Co as "original concentration", the commonly accepted warming of 33C or so from the preindustrial 280 ppm doesn't fall out either (from the third equation). So everybody is using some much different formula or procedure for calculating CO2's warming effects, and always has been - from before the AGW controversy.
    That's how I read and have used C and Co. I haven't seen what the differences are suppose to be, but I think the last two assume feedbacks. What I don't like about the first one is that you cannot input zero ppm to equal 0 forcing because it's a ratio formula. ratio to 0 is infinity.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    I see no problem with a realistic estimation of CO2 in the atmosphere producing much different numbers - even curve shapes - than those.
    It depends on your model. I think this is part of the unsettled science. I think it's a "pick and choose" for what works best for a desired model.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Again, flagging linearity as dubious seems reasonable to me. But I wouldn't take the numbers from those equations as good predictions or estimates either.
    Well, I accept variations. I personally think they should be a little different, but the science over the last 100+ years is logarithmic. As long as the logarithmic part is the primary part, I accept them. Afterall, this isn't an exact science yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Just looked it up.

    TAR Table 6.2, page 358:

    The first row for CO2 lists an expression with a form similar to IPCC (1990) but with newer values of the constants.

    The second row for CO2 is a more complete and updated expression similar in form to that of Shi (1992).

    The third row expression for CO2 is from WMO (1999), based in turn on Hansen et al. (1988).

    I guess pick your poison....

    Here's an interesting read on the topic:

    Greenhouse Warming Reduced

    Don't let the title throw you. I think refers to the IPCC reducing the CO2 waming from SAR to TAR by changing the 6.3 "a" value to 5.35, but I just started reading it.

    Snipit:

    It is well recognised that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is such that its infra red absorption is close to saturation, particularly with the most prominent absorption band (15mm). Further absorption with increase of concentration is considered to take place around the fringes of this band and in minor bands. The relationship between absorption and concentration at current levels in the atmosphere is very nearly logarithmic, a relationship established in the time of Arrhenius (1896) and used by him in his paper.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    You're using formulas from 20 years ago. Have you confirmed that those are still recognized as accurate in recent reports?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Okay. Righto, then. Carry on, gentlemen.
    Inow, in the site feedback section you described a characteristic of yourself that I took to mean you would respond to the best of your ability to requests for elaboration from other posters. I suppose you didn't intend that anyone hold you to that claim.

    Can you summarize for us what evidence supports the prediction by the IPCC that AGW will bias global temperatures by +2-4C as CO2 concentration rises to 560 ppmv. I contend that they use GCM's to make this prediction and there is no physical principle or empirical evidence to support this claim. I claim that the empirical evidence gives us at most 0.1-0.4C warming possibly attributable to CO2 for the rise to 390ppmv and the theoretical impact is now about 70% of the total theoretical impact for a rise to 560ppmv.
    inow, when are you going to answer a question asked of you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    The first row for CO2 lists an expression with a form similar to IPCC (1990) but with newer values of the constants.

    The second row for CO2 is a more complete and updated expression similar in form to that of Shi (1992).

    The third row expression for CO2 is from WMO (1999), based in turn on Hansen et al. (1988).
    The first two don't take you to 0 ppm - so they can't have been used to calculate the 33C baseline preindustrial boost.

    The third gives you the wrong number - nowhere near the 33C of Wikipedia and everyone else.

    And the first two disagree with each other significantly in our temp range.

    So the standard calculations are not being made with those formulas alone.

    btw: while I was looking around for the actual formulas used, I ran into a couple of interesting and informative (but alas equation free) essays on the questions here. The notion that the air will not warm with more CO2 because the first bit absorbs all the radiation was one of the very first objections to warming via CO2 - the controversy then was over what ended the ice ages, and CO2 warming appeared to not work therefore. The flaw in the reasoning was not discovered for many years, and it has a name now: the "saturation fallacy".
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ument-part-ii/
    via this fine little narrative:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura

    btw: while I was looking around for the actual formulas used, I ran into a couple of interesting and informative (but alas equation free) essays on the questions here. The notion that the air will not warm with more CO2 because the first bit absorbs all the radiation was one of the very first objections to warming via CO2 - the controversy then was over what ended the ice ages, and CO2 warming appeared to not work therefore. The flaw in the reasoning was not discovered for many years, and it has a name now: the "saturation fallacy".
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...ument-part-ii/
    via this fine little narrative:
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
    I have read both those articles in the past. Something you may not have realized is that the realclimate one is a very weak argument. Look carefully at this:



    Please note that each major division on the y axis is a power of 10 difference. Your factor of four does so very little. Also not I have always said "near sartuated," "near saturation," etc. unless I made a error in my wording. I don't think I ever implied saturation, by yes, I make mistakes and might have.

    Now look at these:

    The RealClimate graph:



    Please not, it appears the 1x CO2 transmits 66.4%. This means it absorbs 33.6%. The 2 x then absorbs 36.4% and the 4 x 40.4%. I don't see anything to suggest even a 1.5 C increase for a doubling of CO2. If we assume the 1 x represents 6 C of greenhouse effect due to CO2, the the 2 x is 6.5 C, and the 4 x . I see only a 0.5 C increase per doubling. The 4 x would be 7.25 C. Even that doesn't fit right, but the numbers are small. RealClimate is real good at confusing the facts.

    Flipped:



    Al Gores:



    Mine, fitting the greenhouse effect by assumed CO2 percentage:



    Please note. Al Gore's graph, and the RealClimate both have a continuing almost linear rise. This I will contend is the proper responce for a 100% gas in tube experiment, where losing capured heat bact to radiation, re-radiates at the frequency of absorption. I will contend that the squared and cubed functions of formula 3 do not apply in a well mixed gas. My formula is an adaptation of the first, that allows a zero crossing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Please not that each major division on the y axis is a power of 10 difference. Your factor of four does so very little.
    And that little does so much, as explained in the essay.

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Now look at these:
    As I suspected, you are treating the atmosphere as if it were a short tube of gas with your equations. That is what is described as the "saturation fallacy", and the problem with it informally described and handled in those two essays.

    Apparently you have not actually read those two essays. I recommend them, equation free though they are, especially the historical narrative - it includes the timeline of the saturation fallacy, and the names of the scientists who noticed the problem with it and recalculated the warming effect of CO2 boosting - thereby becoming the first "alarmists".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Please not that each major division on the y axis is a power of 10 difference. Your factor of four does so very little.
    And that little does so much, as explained in the essay.

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Now look at these:
    As I suspected, you are treating the atmosphere as if it were a short tube of gas with your equations. That is what is described as the "saturation fallacy", and the problem with it informally described and handled in those two essays.

    Apparently you have not actually read those two essays. I recommend them, equation free though they are, especially the historical narrative - it includes the timeline of the saturation fallacy, and the names of the scientists who noticed the problem with it and recalculated the warming effect of CO2 boosting - thereby becoming the first "alarmists".
    I have read them. I didn't re-read tem again, but have in the past. I simply say they are wrong. Did you read Dr. Glassmans works? I suggest you do if you haven't.

    Rocket Scientist’s Journal

    Don't let the title throw you off. This guy knows his stuff. If you have disagreements or questions, politely post them, and he will likely respond.

    Challenge him. Give him time, it likely wont be overnight. Probably a week.

    And my last posting...

    I accidently hit submit instead of preview, and added more that you may not have seen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Did you read Dr. Glassmans works?
    I got three garbage assertions into one of them and decided I'd had enough of that for one day. He makes some blunders - stuff that is wrong just on the reasoning.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I simply say they are wrong.
    What they do is put your error (the saturation fallacy) in context - the early climate analyzers made the same mistake, in the context not of global warming but explaining the ice ages, and it took a while to catch it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Did you read Dr. Glassmans works?
    I got three garbage assertions into one of them and decided I'd had enough of that for one day. He makes some blunders - stuff that is wrong just on the reasoning.
    He doesn't make any blunders that I can see. If so, please explain it. I would suggest you are dismissing a brilliant man because of bias, not merit.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I simply say they are wrong.
    What they do is put your error (the saturation fallacy) in context - the early climate analyzers made the same mistake, in the context not of global warming but explaining the ice ages, and it took a while to catch it.
    I'm not saying the general science is wrong, I guess I shouldn't have been so short.

    Let me address part 2 of the Angstrom article.

    I will not say the explaination is wrong. However, go back and look at the spectral graph. At the 1 x CO2 line, it's inconsistant as to where it's placed, and the graph is in rather poor detail. I will approximate the best I can.

    If we adjust the left side to about 13.5 microns and the right to 16.8, everything between is at saturation. Farther left to about 13 and right to about 17.5, only the peaks of the transitions are at saturation.

    The 4 x CO2 line is incorrectly placed. It should be placed at the 0.25 level so that 4 x = 1. This part of spectral science is linear. The Real(crap)Climate article places the 4 x CO2 line at about 0.2, or at about 5 x CO2. If you don't believe me, look it up, or play with the gas cell simulator at Spectralcalc. Just a 25% error.

    Lets now look at where 4 x should intersect.

    The feft side values should be about 13.2 and 12.8 The right side 17.1 and 17.7. Yes, i know there are spikes that appear in bith, but I'm not concerned about them for this illistration. If we average each side and give a width for both sets, we get a width change from 3.9 to 4.4, or about a 13% increase. Looking at their second graph, it appears the width increases from about 4 to about 5.5. Tell me they are using deceoptive tactics.

    If CO2 is resulting in 26% of the 32 C greenhouse effect for 280 ppm, that equals 8.32 C. An additional 13% would increase the CO2 effect to 9.4 C, or a 1.08 C increase for quadripling CO2. Granted, the spikes and levels below saturation will change some to, but so little to add to the 13%. If you thing so, I'd like to see justification to get past 15%, because most the rest of it is under 1/10th the power levels, and much under 1% the power levels we are already looking at.

    Real(nonsense)Climate does a real good job of convincing people who do not verify. They use slick wording. Sure, what I did isn't real accurate, especially since I took it off a hard to read graph.

    Now lets look at the transmission through a tube. As I already pointed out, gas tube experiments are not compatable experiments to simulate a mixed atmosphere. this is especially true sing the gas we are concerned with is such a small percentage. We are finally approaching 0.04% CO2. How anyone can sonsider a 100% CO2 experiment to have any relavance... I just shake my head. The increased CO2 is effectively insulated from leaving the CO2, because any IR regenerated from the heating is at the same spectral lines that CO2 absorbs. Without 99%+ other gasses in the mix, you get highly erroneous positive feedback.

    The article also talks about Angstrom and Koch, as to the fallacy of their experiments. Another nice sounding argument, but how many people on my side of the fence use these argument?

    Back to the glass tube experiment. As I pointed out, the 1 x CO2 absorbs 33.6%. The 2 x absorbs 36.4% and the 4 x 40.4%. Lets go back to the assumption that 26% of the greenhouse effect is by CO2, at 280 ppm, for a 32 C greenhouse effect. We have 8.32 C for CO2, the remaining 21.68 by water and other forces. Changing the absorption from 33.6% to 40.4% is a 20.2% increase. That brings our 8.32 C to 10 C, or a 1.68 C increase for 4 x CO2. That would be 0.84 C for doubling (if purely log). This would equate to about a 0.4 C increase for our increased CO2 since industrialization. However, we get the 0.4 C with excessive positive feedback.

    Now in the real we assume a small positive feedback from increased ability to absorb water. this is true, however, if you look at a table that compares water absorption to temperature, you will find that this is still a insignificant value. At our temperatures, water vapor can increase by about 6% to 8% per C. When we talk about this as a positive feedback, it's OK as long as we keep that in perspective. If we assume a 0.4 C increase by CO2, then we can only assume a maximum 3% increase in water vapor, which is mostly saturates, so we get far under 3% more forcing from the increased water. If we assume water at 70% of the 32 C, that would be 22.4C. If we assume a full (impossible) 3% increase, we can account for another 0.67 C. However, less than 10% of the operating H2O spectra is not saturated already. 0.3% would be more reasonable with a 0.067 C increase.

    What are we forgetting, and others who like to speak of this positive feedback?

    Clouds...

    More water makes for more clouds. The science here too is in dispute, but it is safe to say that there would be a greater cloud density. This becomes a negative feedback.

    Now please note that I used the maximum claimed 26% for CO2 as its influence for the greenhouse effect. I believe it to be far lower, but I was able to make my points about the Real(bogus)Climate article being nothing but propaganda with the high values used.

    I suggest that you not dismiss Dr. Glassman's work based on a RealClimate srticle when I can so easily show problems in their works.

    I didn't proof-read this, so I hope I didn't make any stupid mistakes. If so, call me on it. I will correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I suggest that you not dismiss Dr. Glassman's work based on a RealClimate srticle when I can so easily show problems in their works
    I dismissed Glasman based on your quotes from him in another thread. Even a quick scan showed that he reasons poorly, and asserts falsely in consequence, in those quotes, and I pulled out three quick examples there.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I didn't proof-read this, so I hope I didn't make any stupid mistakes. If so, call me on it. I will correct.
    Your numbers don't matter - you are missing the point. The flaw is that all this tube and saturation analysis overlooks the fact that the atmosphere is miles high and the upper reaches thin, next to space,and dry. The historical narrative I linked supplies the names of the researchers who first noticed that this fact introduces complications, and they turn out to be critical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I suggest that you not dismiss Dr. Glassman's work based on a RealClimate srticle when I can so easily show problems in their works
    I dismissed Glasman based on your quotes from him in another thread. Even a quick scan showed that he reasons poorly, and asserts falsely in consequence, in those quotes, and I pulled out three quick examples there.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I didn't proof-read this, so I hope I didn't make any stupid mistakes. If so, call me on it. I will correct.
    Your numbers don't matter - you are missing the point. The flaw is that all this tube and saturation analysis overlooks the fact that the atmosphere is miles high and the upper reaches thin, next to space,and dry. The historical narrative I linked supplies the names of the researchers who first noticed that this fact introduces complications, and they turn out to be critical.
    Excuses, excuses...

    I guess I should have pointed out the red herrings better in your favored RealClimate site.

    Funny, I dismiss RealClimate after reading the articles. You won't even give the articles by Glassman a chance. I wonder who the biased one is?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Excuses, excuses...
    So you aren't going to bother taking care of your saturation fallacy, mentioned as corrected by those several researchers in the longer narrative article?

    OK.

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Funny, I dismiss RealClimate after reading the articles.
    Error, on your part. I don't think you read the longer, narrative article - it isn't a RealClimate article.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    You won't even give the articles by Glassman a chance.
    You quoted several paragraphs you found persuasive, and they were full of errors of reasoning and fact - I highlighted three, in the other thread, just for example. He's not worth reading.

    Meanwhile, you haven't even begun to deal with the central issue mentioned - with its discoverers named - here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm - in that longer link I posted. It isn't a RealClimate link.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Excuses, excuses...
    So you aren't going to bother taking care of your saturation fallacy, mentioned as corrected by those several researchers in the longer narrative article?
    What fallacy?

    I have never claimed 100% saturation. You are the one who doesn't seem to understand the saturation, and are making false allegations against me to dismiss me.

    I resent that.

    I have a some old images from Spectral Calc that I gathered a few ago when I debated this exact issue. I don't even have that file on this computer. It must be on my old Win 98 PC. I used them to dispel that same RealClimate article. Here it is from my Photobucket account:





    Here is a graph I just compiled using several thousand data points:



    I added an approximate 1x and 4x by the other graph. A bit hard to determine but it's close.

    I think you are missing that the 1 x represents perhaps 1 part in 30,000 of atmospheric gasses. The 4 x would then represent about 1 part in 7500. The Y value scale is logarithmic. By the time you get to nearly a true saturation, you may have to change the Y value from 2 x 10(-23) to around 2 x 10(-26) A factor of 1000, or a sickening level of 3% CO2 in the atmosphere.

    When I say CO2 is at near saturation, it is a relative statement. I am not assigning values. Rather than assume how I am using it, you should ask. I say near saturation as to anything we can possibly achieve. I also say it because of the logarithmic nature of increased CO2. As the levels get higher, the slope of change decreases.

    Consider this also. If we have exhausted 1/4 the fossil fuels out there already, we can maybe bring CO2 to only about 680 ppm when we used the rest, or just a little over 2.4 times.

    Why do you fear such things? Now there is a point I would agree other considerations become valid, but I am not afraid of what we can do.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Funny, I dismiss RealClimate after reading the articles.
    Error, on your part. I don't think you read the longer, narrative article - it isn't a RealClimate article.
    I did read it. It's more of a history with links. I even followed several links. I discovered it when I was looking for more references to Svante Arrhenius early works, and corrected works.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    You won't even give the articles by Glassman a chance.
    You quoted several paragraphs you found persuasive, and they were full of errors of reasoning and fact - I highlighted three, in the other thread, just for example. He's not worth reading.
    You did not such thing. To counter with links, one of which I poked holes in is not acceptable. You may not like the pieces I picked. I'm sorry they don't make sense to you. I think you misunderstood two of them anyway. Maybe you should learn more on the topic. If you have to counter with incorrect articles, then I understand. Your bias outweighs the truth, and you don't care to learn the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Meanwhile, you haven't even begun to deal with the central issue mentioned - with its discoverers named - here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm - in that longer link I posted. It isn't a RealClimate link.
    I don't know what you claim is "the central issue" in the article, and I'm not going to pick the whole thing apart and it's dozens of links. I see it as history, no data, and it is biased because it leaves out other relevant data, like Callandar's revising his doubling claim from 4-5 C to 1.5 C. Besides, we have drifted way off topic. I show pieces of an article by a top PHD, and you find what are two propaganda sites to dismiss it. Look at Glassman's works. He gives good information and methodology.

    In this regard, you are like Inow. Rather than putting an argument in your own words and what you want to get across, or give information overload.

    Is you claim "my links are better than yours?" If so, that isn't science, and it doesn't give me reason to listen to you.

    Illustrate please that you know what you are saying. Changing arguments and reasons why I am wrong seem really silly to me. You are sidestepping any real debate. If you keep it up, I will assume you are faking it, and do not have any realistic understanding of the topic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Iceaura, I just got to thinking. Maybe you do see the significance between a logarithmic graph and linear.

    Here is the one I made earlier, linear rather than logarithmic, with apparent article for 1 x CO2, 2 x CO2, and 4 x CO2, like the RealClimate article is using them.

    Each doubling, you make it half-way closer to zero.

    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I contend that they use GCM's to make this prediction and there is no physical principle or empirical evidence to support this claim.
    What are computer models based on then?
    I think you are asking a different question. My statement was that there is no evidence based support for the predictions that doubling of CO2 to 560 ppmv from 280 ppmv adds a 3 degree centigrade warming overprint to global mean temperature. I did not say that GCM's do not contain empirical correlations and mathematical formulas based on physical principles.

    However the GCM's also contain formulations and parameters that are based on the opinions of the designers of the software. Furthermore the effects that they model and the ones that are omitted are also based on the opinions of the designers. I claim that these opinions drive the results to a higher degree than do the physical principles that are encoded. The papers I quoted and the recent papers WC linked support this claim. Glassman documented 8 key errors in the GCM's used by the IPCC.

    But perhaps you or someone else can show how these models don't have these deficiencies.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I claim that the empirical evidence gives us at most 0.1-0.4C warming possibly attributable to CO2 for the rise to 390ppmv and the theoretical impact is now about 70% of the total theoretical impact for a rise to 560ppmv.
    If CO2 warms the air this will allow it to hold more water vapour. Has a model of cloud formation and dispersal been developed yet?
    The GCM's include models of cloud formation and dispersal. It is not clear if the GCM's correctly balance the energy budget in response to mild radiative forcing of limited bandwidths. Higher sea and surface air temperatures may increase absolute humidity which may or may not increase cloud cover which does reduce solar irradiance. The GCM designers assume positive impact but the evidence seems to indicate the opposite. Estimates from theoretical physics has CO2 effect to date at 0.6-0.8 degrees C but the data shows less than .4C can be attributed to CO2 so the feedback seems to be negative not positive.

    Does the IPCC add water vapour to CO2 radiative forcing?
    They very much include this in their models. It is quite interesting the effects they include and which ones they ignore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I have never claimed 100% saturation.
    No one said you had. What you have claimed is that the fact that the concentration of CO2 already present in the lower atmosphere absorbs and scatters such a high fraction of the relevant wavelengths that adding more would make little difference. You have said that repeatedly, for example:
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    When I say CO2 is at near saturation, it is a relative statement. I am not assigning values. Rather than assume how I am using it, you should ask. I say near saturation as to anything we can possibly achieve.
    That is called the "saturation fallacy" by one of the links posted for you, and that seems a convenient handle. The flaw in that approach was discovered many years ago.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I highlighted three, in the other thread, just for example. He's not worth reading.

    You did not such thing.
    Yes, I did. Three examples, labeled for their respective flaws. "Links" had nothing to do with it.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I see it as history, no data, and it is biased because it leaves out other relevant data, like Callandar's revising his doubling claim from 4-5 C to 1.5 C.
    Again, that's beside the point. The point is that the mechanism by which extra concentrations of CO2 have been found to trap heat in the lower atmosphere are not addressed by your approach, which is suited to tubes of gas at some given partial pressure and temperature and so forth.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Look at Glassman's works. He gives good information and methodology
    No, he doesn't. He includes obvious flaws in reasoning and dubious assertions, visible in his writing without any need of technical sophistication, for example.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Iceaura, I just got to thinking. Maybe you do see the significance between a logarithmic graph and linear.
    The ones your using are both irrelevant, is the main thing I see. The actual calculations involved in estimating the effects of a CO2 concentration boost in the actual atmosphere of the earth would be considerably more complicated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    You're using formulas from 20 years ago. Have you confirmed that those are still recognized as accurate in recent reports?
    Sorry for missing this unique read Inow.

    Those 20 year old formulas are from you Bible...

    The IPCC reports!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    You're using formulas from 20 years ago. Have you confirmed that those are still recognized as accurate in recent reports?
    Sorry for missing this unique read Inow.

    Those 20 year old formulas are from you <sic> Bible...

    The IPCC reports!
    That neither represents my position accurately nor addresses the actual question put you. I'd suggest you try again, but I frankly don't care anymore having interacted with you on this topic so many times already and knowing how unlikely it is that we'll find common ground on the path of academic integrity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I have never claimed 100% saturation.
    No one said you had. What you have claimed is that the fact that the concentration of CO2 already present in the lower atmosphere absorbs and scatters such a high fraction of the relevant wavelengths that adding more would make little difference. You have said that repeatedly, for example:
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    When I say CO2 is at near saturation, it is a relative statement. I am not assigning values. Rather than assume how I am using it, you should ask. I say near saturation as to anything we can possibly achieve.
    That is called the "saturation fallacy" by one of the links posted for you, and that seems a convenient handle. The flaw in that approach was discovered many years ago.
    I do not understand how you can apply what I say to what the article deals with. I have explained the discrepancies I see. Please explain what I am missing then.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I highlighted three, in the other thread, just for example. He's not worth reading.
    Yes, I did. Three examples, labeled for their respective flaws. "Links" had nothing to do with it.
    Your explaination of the flaws are invalid.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I see it as history, no data, and it is biased because it leaves out other relevant data, like Callandar's revising his doubling claim from 4-5 C to 1.5 C.
    Again, that's beside the point. The point is that the mechanism by which extra concentrations of CO2 have been found to trap heat in the lower atmosphere are not addressed by your approach, which is suited to tubes of gas at some given partial pressure and temperature and so forth.
    Found?

    You mean hypothesized without proof beyond causation?
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Look at Glassman's works. He gives good information and methodology
    No, he doesn't. He includes obvious flaws in reasoning and dubious assertions, visible in his writing without any need of technical sophistication, for example.
    Not that I can see. Please explain.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Iceaura, I just got to thinking. Maybe you do see the significance between a logarithmic graph and linear.
    The ones your using are both irrelevant, is the main thing I see. The actual calculations involved in estimating the effects of a CO2 concentration boost in the actual atmosphere of the earth would be considerably more complicated.
    I disagree with the explaination. I have explained why in this thread or another.

    Can you show any evidence the articles you cite are correct? I have shown how they aren't.

    The RealClimate article uses cleaver ways of trumping up insignificance. You are right. We are no where near saturation, but you would have to make the atmosphere go not only past 100% CO2, but increase the thickness. Maybe like Venus is at 93 x the density.

    Fact is, CO2 is near its thermal trapping limit of what we can make happen. The RealClimate arguments are so lame. Parse the wording better.

    Think of a conveyor belt with red, blue and green M&M candies going past. You have one fussy child sitting at the belt who only eats red M&M’s, and he can eat them fast enough to eat half of the M&M’s going past him. Thus, he reduces the M&M flux by half. If you put another equally fussy kid next to him who can eat at the same rate, she’ll eat all the remaining red M&M’s. Then, if you put a third kid in the line, it won’t result in any further decrease in the M&M flux, because all the M&M’s that they like to eat are already gone.
    First, this is entirely inaccurate to a simple form for CO2. If the first child could eat half the red M&M's, then the second would only be able to eat half the remaining red ones, a third child, half the remaining, etc. etc.

    You never get to zero. This so-called saturation fallacy is a fallacy in itself, because it tells you a false story.

    Now carefully think about what this implies, but what it doesn't really say:
    In reality, that mere percent increase, when combined properly with the "thinning and cooling" argument, adds 4 Watts per square meter to the planets radiation balance for doubled CO2.
    "When combined properly..."
    To me, that means that certain assumptions must be made to made this work.

    And... 4 watts... give me a break. Can we ground ourselves back to earth for a reality check please...
    Then this...
    After all, a mere one percent change in the 280 Kelvin surface temperature of the Earth is 2.8 Kelvin (which is also 2.8 Celsius).
    When I use this argument for radiative forcing from the sun, you guys refuse it.

    Hypocritical at all?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    You're using formulas from 20 years ago. Have you confirmed that those are still recognized as accurate in recent reports?
    Sorry for missing this unique read Inow.

    Those 20 year old formulas are from you <sic> Bible...

    The IPCC reports!
    That neither represents my position accurately nor addresses the actual question put you. I'd suggest you try again, but I frankly don't care anymore having interacted with you on this topic so many times already and knowing how unlikely it is that we'll find common ground on the path of academic integrity.
    You're right. You saying they are 20 years old and asking if I looked for newer is laughable. Why should I be serious with you any longer when you never explain, but just pose more questions and only answer with links to read.

    The first of those I listed was updated in 1997. Reduced by forcing by 15%. Not 20 years old now, is it? That first order formula is the one still seen today in modern references.

    That Why I say the IPCC report is your bible. You question anyone that disagrees with them, like it's your religion. You offer no facts to support your position, and never articulate it in your own words of understanding. You only post links for your proof. Links, that generally, refer to the IPCC!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    You're using formulas from 20 years ago. Have you confirmed that those are still recognized as accurate in recent reports?
    Sorry for missing this unique read Inow.

    Those 20 year old formulas are from you <sic> Bible...

    The IPCC reports!
    That neither represents my position accurately nor addresses the actual question put you. I'd suggest you try again, but I frankly don't care anymore having interacted with you on this topic so many times already and knowing how unlikely it is that we'll find common ground on the path of academic integrity.
    You're right. I didn't answer you remark about looking up something newer. I shouldn't have to. If I was wrong, you would have said so, right?

    Your saying they are 20 years old and asking if I looked for newer is laughable. Why should I be serious with you any longer when you never explain, but just pose more questions and only answer with links to read.

    The first of those formulas I listed was updated in 1997. Reduced by forcing by 15% from the previous formula. Not 20 years old now, is it, or is 13 the new 20? I never took this new math they teach in school, so I guess I could be in error. That first order formula is the one still seen today in modern references. If you have something relevant to add, please do. Otherwise don't expect a serious response from me.

    That Why I say the IPCC report is your bible. You question anyone that disagrees with them, like it's your religion. You offer no facts to support your position, and never articulate it in your own words of understanding. You only post links for your proof. Links, that generally, refer to the IPCC!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I have explained the discrepancies I see. Please explain what I am missing then
    You are overlooking the actual basis of the calculations of AGW, the effects of CO2 boosting on the emissivity of the earth's atmosphere - its radiation of heat into space.

    Your calculation only handles the lower atmosphere, considered as a uniform and approximately ideal gas mixture, where the concentration of CO2 has nearly trapped all the heat it can - the "saturation" referred to. That was the historical error that caused the rejection of CO2 buildup as a cause of the ending of ice ages. That error has been corrected.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobras
    Your explaination of the flaws are invalid.
    I didn't explain them. I just labeled them. If you can't see what's wrong with his arguments and approach, I can provide you with extensive detail - but in another thread, eh?
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    The actual calculations involved in estimating the effects of a CO2 concentration boost in the actual atmosphere of the earth would be considerably more complicated.
    I disagree with the explaination. I have explained why in this thread or another
    You have not explained why. You have simply repeated your own argument,
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Fact is, CO2 is near its thermal trapping limit of what we can make happen.
    which is identical to the discredited "saturation" argument of fifty years ago. You have shown no awareness of any other considerations, such as the effects of CO2 boosting on upper atmosphere radiation and the atmosphere's total emissivity, which have been shown to be significant in theory and offer the best explanation for the observed and measured physical patterns.

    It just rained in January in central Minnesota, for the 13th or 14th consecutive year, this time at night. These patterns are not predicted without including significant greenhouse gas forcing in one's climate descriptions. Deal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I have explained the discrepancies I see. Please explain what I am missing then
    You are overlooking the actual basis of the calculations of AGW, the effects of CO2 boosting on the emissivity of the earth's atmosphere - its radiation of heat into space.
    Well, emissivity is a percentage of black-body response. Are you applying it correctly here?
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Your calculation only handles the lower atmosphere, considered as a uniform and approximately ideal gas mixture, where the concentration of CO2 has nearly trapped all the heat it can - the "saturation" referred to. That was the historical error that caused the rejection of CO2 buildup as a cause of the ending of ice ages. That error has been corrected.
    The lower troposhere is all we are dealing with. Now if you want to deal with the upper atmosphere, I thought is was cooling as the lower atmosphere was warming. If I'm wrong, please direct me to some meaningful sites.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobras
    Your explaination of the flaws are invalid.
    I didn't explain them. I just labeled them. If you can't see what's wrong with his arguments and approach, I can provide you with extensive detail - but in another thread, eh?
    OK, just labeling them is incomplete. I assumed you were using the links as an explaination. I am willing to change my mind if I see proper evidence. If I am wrong, then please show me.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    The actual calculations involved in estimating the effects of a CO2 concentration boost in the actual atmosphere of the earth would be considerably more complicated.
    I disagree with the explaination. I have explained why in this thread or another
    You have not explained why. You have simply repeated your own argument,
    Let's start with me disagreeing with the calculations. What if the model is in error? I say it, and the calculations that show CO2 to be as much of an effect are in error. Maybe I didn't make my point well, but throughout history, the effect of CO2 has been reduced as the science is better understood. Part of my argument has been we can quantify the solar effect accurately. The greenhouse effect is the climate community arbitrarily deciding how to assign the energy for the remaining heat, and making models to their assumptions. My claim is all this is wrong. They assign too much forcing to CO2. It seems no matter what method I show such fallacies, they are ignored.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Fact is, CO2 is near its thermal trapping limit of what we can make happen.
    which is identical to the discredited "saturation" argument of fifty years ago. You have shown no awareness of any other considerations, such as the effects of CO2 boosting on upper atmosphere radiation and the atmosphere's total emissivity, which have been shown to be significant in theory and offer the best explanation for the observed and measured physical patterns.
    Then why do studies show the upper atmosphere cooling? I say the RealClimate article made statements based on assumption. I might be able to search them, but some years ago, there was several articles I saw in this topic. Showing the false assumption of the upper atmosphere warming.
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    It just rained in January in central Minnesota, for the 13th or 14th consecutive year, this time at night. These patterns are not predicted without including significant greenhouse gas forcing in one's climate descriptions. Deal.
    Weather patterns can be 20+ years in duration. Still, can you be 100% certain cause and effect are properly joined?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Sorry I didn't address the Red Herring of Stratospheric Warming you claim. I thought it was already established that the stratosphere was cooling. I like to use people's favored sites against them... Here are partial parts of the following links:

    RealClimate: The sky IS falling:

    A timely perspective article in Science this week addresses the issues of upper atmosphere change. ‘Upper’ atmosphere here is the stratosphere up to the ionosphere (~20 to 300 km). Laštovička et al point out that cooling trends are exactly as predicted by increasing greenhouse gas trends, and that the increase in density that this implies is causing various ionspheric layers to ‘fall’. This was highlighted a few years back by Jarvis et al (1998) and in New Scientist in 1999 (and I apologise for stealing their headline!).
    Nature: Atmospheric science: Stratospheric cooling and the troposphere
    Satellite observations of tropospheric temperatures seem to show less warming than surface temperatures, contrary to physical predictions1. Fu et al.2 show that statistical correction for the effect of stratospheric cooling brings the satellite-based estimates of tropospheric warming into closer agreement with observations of surface warming.
    Published letter fromNOAA to Nature: Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends
    From 1979 to 2001, temperatures observed globally by the midtropospheric
    channel of the satellite-borne Microwave Sounding
    Unit (MSU channel 2), as well as the inferred temperatures in the
    lower troposphere, show only small warming trends of less than
    0.1K per decade (refs 1–3). Surface temperatures based on in situ
    observations however, exhibit a larger warming of ,0.17K per
    decade (refs 4, 5), and global climate models forced by combined
    anthropogenic and natural factors project an increase in tropospheric
    temperatures that is somewhat larger than the surface
    temperature increase. Here we show that trends in MSU
    channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly
    records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend
    offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming. We quantify
    the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures
    using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures.
    The resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures
    from satellite data is physically consistent with the
    observed surface temperature trend. For the tropics, the tropospheric
    warming is ,1.6 times the surface warming, as expected
    for a moist adiabatic lapse rate.
    Therefore, because of
    the combined influence of stratospheric and tropospheric changes,
    T2 trends are not an ideal indicator of global climate change. To
    derive the tropospheric temperature trends, the effects of stratospheric
    cooling
    on T2 must be taken into account.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Maybe I didn't make my point well, but throughout history, the effect of CO2 has been reduced as the science is better understood.
    No - the effect of CO2 variation was held to be negligible after the discovery of the saturation you are arguing - that was fifty years ago and more. Since the discovery of the flaw in that approach the effect of CO2 variation has been recalculated several times, with results both inhancing and reducing as better understanding, better data, and more sophisticated mathematical handling have come on line. The current estimate is as published by the IPCC, and is a significant increase over the "negligible" of the past - so much so that a tone of "alarmism" has crept into the discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Well, emissivity is a percentage of black-body response. Are you applying it correctly here?
    I'm not applying it at all. Other people are. If you think there is something wrong with their approach, point to it - so far, all you have done is repeat the discredited arguments of pre-WWII climatology.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Showing the false assumption of the upper atmosphere warming.
    The calculations as done by the AGW theorists,several years ago, predicted an upper atmosphere cooling, at least in the near term. It wasn't an assumption.
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    OK, just labeling them is incomplete. I assumed you were using the links as an explaination. I am willing to change my mind if I see proper evidence.
    Another thread, if my labels are insufficient hint.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    The papers I quoted and the recent papers WC linked support this claim. Glassman documented 8 key errors in the GCM's used by the IPCC.

    But perhaps you or someone else can show how these models don't have these deficiencies.
    It appears obvious to me no one is willing to show Dr. Glassman wrong. Only find excuses to dismiss him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Sorry I didn't address the Red Herring of Stratospheric Warming you claim.
    It occurs to me that that kind of reading comprehension may explain your acceptance of Dr Glasman's arguments, as quoted by you here and in the other thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Just because it's pretty...

    Here are the speactral lines of CO2 when looked at by isotopic ratio:

    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Sorry I didn't address the Red Herring of Stratospheric Warming you claim.
    It occurs to me that that kind of reading comprehension may explain your acceptance of Dr Glasman's arguments, as quoted by you here and in the other thread.
    Why are you citing articles like the RealClimate one that uses such an argument?

    I cannot read your mind. Why do you say I'm wrong then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I cannot read your mind
    So read my posts. No post of mine has ever claimed upper atmospheric warming from CO2 boosting. No post of mine has ever cited RealClimate "assumptions" of upper atmospheric warming via CO2 boosting. Where did you get the idea that anyone here was asserting near term upper atmospheric warming from CO2 boosting? You said it was my claim - where did I make any such claim?

    My suspicion is that you are reading Glasman in the same way, and thereby missing his continual presentation of errors in reasoning, invalid assertion, reliance on innuendo, and general bs. At least, that's what he is doing in the paragraphs you quoted here. If his writings elsewhere are more worth reading, why not quote from them?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I cannot read your mind
    So read my posts. No post of mine has ever claimed upper atmospheric warming from CO2 boosting. No post of mine has ever cited RealClimate "assumptions" of upper atmospheric warming via CO2 boosting. Where did you get the idea that anyone here was asserting near term upper atmospheric warming from CO2 boosting? You said it was my claim - where did I make any such claim?

    My suspicion is that you are reading Glasman in the same way, and thereby missing his continual presentation of errors in reasoning, invalid assertion, reliance on innuendo, and general bs. At least, that's what he is doing in the paragraphs you quoted here. If his writings elsewhere are more worth reading, why not quote from them?
    Let's try starting over. I think we are trying to argue different things. You obviously don't want to discuss Glassman. That deserves it's own thread anyway.

    I went to the material posted in the RealClimate article when you spoke of the saturation fallacy, theories that include the upper atmosphere warming. We got sidetracked.

    It still seems to remains that we disagree with the basic formula process to apply to CO2 warming. Should we include feedback or not may also be a valid question. I think we should first focus on the CO2 it self before assigning any feedback to CO2.

    What I noticed is that you seen to dispute the logarithmic formulas, yet you admitted to finding no formulas. Of the three formulas I listed earlier, I used the strait first order terms of the third one. I removed the associated feedback because their values will actually change with other climatic factors occurring, and I believe that squaring or cubing doesn't apply the way they use it, if it does at all. Removing the feedback, I ended up with:

    F= a(g(ln(1+C))-g(ln(1+C0)))

    I adjusted value "a" as needed to fit the curves for the various ways I used the formula. For example, value "a" would be 5.31115 for fitting the values found in the IPCC AR4 assessment of 1.66 watts of radiative forcing increase. This is based on 277 ppm for 1750 and 379 ppm for 2005, as outlined on page 139-140, and the charts showing the 1.66 watt increase. If you use C=379 and C0=277, the value is 1.66. With C0=0, then C=277 returns 28.889 watts and C=379 returns 31.549 watts. Note that the difference is 1.66.

    The CO2 effect itself I do believe to be a strait logarithmic formula. If you add feedback mechanisms, it may vary, but the primary effect will still be logarithmic.

    Now I am one that solidly believe the CO2 warming effect to be over rated. Without attempting to pin it down close, I would say that the "a" value to express radiative forcing in watts per square meter to be somewhere between 1 and 3. To express degrees in C, I would place it between 0.5 to 1.5.

    I would welcome anything that shows what the model is rather than what shows a models results. Models are only as accurate as the assumptions they are programmed with.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    What I noticed is that you seen to dispute the logarithmic formulas, yet you admitted to finding no formulas.
    I haven't looked.

    What I pointed out is that no one in the field is using the straight logarithmic formula you are using for calculating the effects of a CO2 boost, as the approach was discovered to be incomplete and misleading when applied to the real atmosphere - it overlooked the thinning and drying of the air with altitude, the boundary properties at the ground and space, and other significant factors in the effects of boosting CO2 concentration overall.

    In other words your approach was not only considered, it was the consensus for years. And it was not replaced by being forgotten, or by a popular media campaign, but by researchers in the field and theoretical work published in the professional journals,

    research and work that overcame and replaced the former consensus by persuading other professionals, and by surviving serious examination both theoretical and pragmatic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    What I noticed is that you seen to dispute the logarithmic formulas, yet you admitted to finding no formulas.
    I haven't looked.

    What I pointed out is that no one in the field is using the straight logarithmic formula you are using for calculating the effects of a CO2 boost, as the approach was discovered to be incomplete and misleading when applied to the real atmosphere - it overlooked the thinning and drying of the air with altitude, the boundary properties at the ground and space, and other significant factors in the effects of boosting CO2 concentration overall.

    In other words your approach was not only considered, it was the consensus for years. And it was not replaced by being forgotten, or by a popular media campaign, but by researchers in the field and theoretical work published in the professional journals,

    research and work that overcame and replaced the former consensus by persuading other professionals, and by surviving serious examination both theoretical and pragmatic.
    Fine.

    All I want is something to justify what the CO2 claim is by those raising alarms. It would seen to me that such proof should be readily available, unless... it's all a hoax!

    Trust but verify... If I cannot verify, why should I trust?

    If the science is settled, then where are the formulas?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    (Removed because it's virtually identical to comments in the other thread.)

    Sorry Cypress I'm not going to allow you to carry out the same conversation in both threads in a thinly veiled attempt to channelize this forum into your ignorant and jaundiced view of science.

    Mod
    Lynx_Fox
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #81  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I don't find any clear evidence from scientific study.
    Except that scienific study shows that the global mean temperature is rising, quite rapidly overall, already past .5C and still going up, with no other apparent cause.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I don't find any clear evidence from scientific study.
    Except that scienific study shows that the global mean temperature is rising, quite rapidly overall, already past .5C and still going up, with no other apparent cause.
    LOL... No apparent cause.

    So you completely dismiss claims that show what could be happening.

    It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with all that has been said on the topic, but to dismiss them out of hand, is not science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #83  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    LOL... No apparent cause.

    So you completely dismiss claims that show what could be happening.
    No other apparent cause.

    By "apparent" I mean actually pointed to, described, mentioned, visible, etc. Mysterious "lags" of unspecified mechanism presumed to occur with the necessary timing, for example, are not "apparent". Poorly correlated solar forcing that doesn't account for the patterns and magnitudes does not count as "apparent".

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with all that has been said on the topic, but to dismiss them out of hand, is not science.
    I didn't. I dismissed them for cause.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #84  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I don't find any clear evidence from scientific study.
    Except that scienific study shows that the global mean temperature is rising, quite rapidly overall, already past .5C and still going up, with no other apparent cause.
    To stay with the original theme of this thread, I note that describing a general trend in temperature proxies does not provide any insight into the cause of the trend. Temperature proxies indicate an increase in the range of 0.4-0.8 degrees C since 1650 and nearly 0.5 degrees C is easily accounted for by well known natural sources. For what percentage of this recent trend can we offer hard evidence that AGW is the source?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #85  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Temperature proxies indicate an increase in the range of 0.4-0.8 degrees C since 1650 and nearly 0.5 degrees C is easily accounted for by well known natural sources
    And temp increases of greater than that, s documented, could as well - in theory.

    But there remains the problem of actually doing so. And so far all such attempts have failed. It isn't solar flux forcing, for example - the patterns and magnitudes don't match.

    Meanwhile, there's this huge anthropogenic boost in CO2 to consider. It works very well as an explanation of the warming, and accepting it as the cause also solves another problem or mystery: if it had had no such effect, what prevented it?

    If this massive CO2 boost has not caused significant global warming, the mystery of why not needs explanation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #86  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Temperature proxies indicate an increase in the range of 0.4-0.8 degrees C since 1650 and nearly 0.5 degrees C is easily accounted for by well known natural sources
    And temp increases of greater than that, s documented, could as well - in theory.

    But there remains the problem of actually doing so. And so far all such attempts have failed. It isn't solar flux forcing, for example - the patterns and magnitudes don't match.
    Actually, except for short periods of time between 10 and 25 years, the patterns and magnitudes match extremely well. Looking at historical data there is long long history of these short periods of deviation in an otherwise excellent long term pattern. The latest period of deviation began in 1983 and extended through the early 2000's. Long term ocean patterns seem to account for these longer periods of deviation quite well.

    Meanwhile, there's this huge anthropogenic boost in CO2 to consider. It works very well as an explanation of the warming, and accepting it as the cause also solves another problem or mystery: if it had had no such effect, what prevented it?
    The recent global surface temperature patterns correlate horribly with atmospheric CO2 concentration as a potential driver. However surface sea water temperature plus the human CO2 overprint nicely explains CO2 concentration. Go figure.

    If this massive CO2 boost has not caused significant global warming, the mystery of why not needs explanation.
    Actually the answer to "why not" seems as simple as examining the historical ice core proxies and noting the correlation between surface sea water temperature and CO2 concentration. The evidence answers the question by showing that temperature drives CO2 not the other way around. No wonder it has been so difficult to offer the evidence this thread asked for. There simply is none.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #87  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Actually, except for short periods of time between 10 and 25 years, the patterns and magnitudes match extremely well.
    So over the recent century of warming, the match is good except for some stretches of "ten to 25 years" now and again. Sounds like a winner.
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Actually the answer to "why not" seems as simple as examining the historical ice core proxies and noting the correlation between surface sea water temperature and CO2 concentration.
    The only problem being that the people actually measuring the CO2 in the air and in the ocean have determined that the boosting in the air is from fossil combustion, and the boosting in the water is from absorption from the air, and the recent surface water warming lagged the CO2 boost.

    So that hypothesis, initially a possibility years ago, is refuted by the physical evidence.

    Next - - - -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #88  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Actually, except for short periods of time between 10 and 25 years, the patterns and magnitudes match extremely well.
    So over the recent century of warming, the match is good except for some stretches of "ten to 25 years" now and again. Sounds like a winner.
    NO, that's not what I said. Do you even read my posts?

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Actually the answer to "why not" seems as simple as examining the historical ice core proxies and noting the correlation between surface sea water temperature and CO2 concentration.
    The only problem being that the people actually measuring the CO2 in the air and in the ocean have determined that the boosting in the air is from fossil combustion, and the boosting in the water is from absorption from the air, and the recent surface water warming lagged the CO2 boost.

    So that hypothesis, initially a possibility years ago, is refuted by the physical evidence.

    Next - - - -[/quote]

    NO, sorry read my post again. I accounted for human sources with inclusion of the term "plus the human CO2 overprint". Proper mass balances must include all sources and sinks. These refutations you speak of are addressing a different argument regarding the contribution of fossil fuel sources. I accept the estimated volumes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •