Notices
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 124

Thread: New article on Global Warming

  1. #1 New article on Global Warming 
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Worth while read. Very detailed with verifiable methodology:

    The Cause Of Earth’s Climate Change Is The Sun (clean pdf format)

    THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN (original blog with questions and remarks)


     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: New article on Global Warming 
    Forum Ph.D. Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Cumbria UK
    Posts
    882
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Worth while read. Very detailed with verifiable methodology:

    The Cause Of Earth’s Climate Change Is The Sun (clean pdf format)

    THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN (original blog with questions and remarks)
    I will give it a go when I have some time to spare.


    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    The guy fits a curve, and claims he has discovered evidence - even, necessity - of a cooperative mechanism thereby.

    That's bullshit. I'm sorry he didn't recognize that before he wasted so much of his time - and mine. Mine was unpaid.

    Sample quote: "Mathematical models have poles, meaning singularities at which a dependent parameter becomes infinite or undergoes perpetual oscillations".

    That's where I quit reading. Page 15 of 48. You owe me twenty minutes of my life.
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The guy fits a curve, and claims he has discovered evidence - even, necessity - of a cooperative mechanism thereby.

    That's bullshit. I'm sorry he didn't recognize that before he wasted so much of his time - and mine. Mine was unpaid.

    Sample quote: "Mathematical models have poles, meaning singularities at which a dependent parameter becomes infinite or undergoes perpetual oscillations".

    That's where I quit reading. Page 15 of 48. You owe me twenty minutes of my life.
    So why don't you renounce the IPCC et. al. for the same methodology?
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The guy fits a curve, and claims he has discovered evidence - even, necessity - of a cooperative mechanism thereby.

    That's bullshit. I'm sorry he didn't recognize that before he wasted so much of his time - and mine. Mine was unpaid.

    Sample quote: "Mathematical models have poles, meaning singularities at which a dependent parameter becomes infinite or undergoes perpetual oscillations".

    That's where I quit reading. Page 15 of 48. You owe me twenty minutes of my life.
    I take it you didn't comprehend that paragraph. So be it.

    Thing is, I cannot find fault in Dr. Glassman's work. In one of his past 5 articles, I did find an error, posted it on his blog, he thanked me and corrected the error. It was simply a wrong reference, the data was all correct.

    It might help is you started with Dr. Glassmans works in order, seeing how he eliminates CO2 as the cause for global warming, and comes to the conclusion it must be the sun in his sixth.
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    The guy fits a curve, and claims he has discovered evidence - even, necessity - of a cooperative mechanism thereby.

    That's bullshit. I'm sorry he didn't recognize that before he wasted so much of his time - and mine. Mine was unpaid.

    Sample quote: "Mathematical models have poles, meaning singularities at which a dependent parameter becomes infinite or undergoes perpetual oscillations".

    That's where I quit reading. Page 15 of 48. You owe me twenty minutes of my life.
    It might help is you started with Dr. Glassmans works in order, seeing how he eliminates CO2 as the cause for global warming, and comes to the conclusion it must be the sun in his sixth.
    Because the change of heat is too swift?
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Thing is, I cannot find fault in Dr. Glassman's work.
    Can't say I'm surprised, after this:
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    So why don't you renounce the IPCC et. al. for the same methodology?
    For our prize of the day, an all expenses paid trip to your local library, contestants will attempt to discover and describe the difference between

    1) carefully fitting a curve of some kind to some data, and declaring the fit to be evidence of an unknown mechanism generating the data

    2) carefully deriving a curve from a known mechanism, and showing that it fits some data - or even (successfully, often) predicting its fit to data acquired after its derivation.

    In answering this question, you may wish to take into account that polynomials of arbitrary degree can be fitted to any set of points on the plane Generally with real biological data, easy good fits involve polynomials of degree five or less.

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    It might help is you started with Dr. Glassmans works in order,
    Not unless paid to critique it. I've read 15 pages of his "work" already, selected as most interesting by followers of his output, and plan to waste little time on more of the same.

    Another sample quote, from page three or so (early on):

    "This model hypothesis that (sic) the natural responses of Earth to solar radiation produce a selecting mechanism. The model exploits evidence that the ocean dominates Earth's surface temperature, as it does the the atmospheric CO2 concentration, through a set of delays in the accumulation and release of heat caused by three dimensional ocean currents. The ocean thus behaves like a tapped delay line - - - to amplify or suppress source variations at certain intervals on the scale of decades to centuries. A search with running trend lines - - - produced a family of representations - - - - . One of these, the 134-year running trend line, bore a strong resemblance to the complete record of instrumental surface temperatures - - - .

    Because the fingerprint of solar radiation appears on Earth's surface temperature, that temperature cannot reasonably bear the fingerprint of human activity. - - - "
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    LOL...

    You complain about the same things the IPCC and Alarmists do. The fit their theory to the data. Dr. Glassman's work is comprehensive, whereas the IPCC doesn't give thiers. I'll bet if the alarmists explained their methodology as well as Dr. Glassman does, you would find larger holes in the works.

    Look at it from this viewpoint. Modeling is what it is. It can be wrong. You can stay inside the box if you want, but you will miss so much that is contrary to your bias. Consider that Glassman's work is an explanation of possibility too. Are you going to summarily dismiss it because of bias?

    That is not scientific at all.

    I'll bet you cannot disprove a single contention of Glassman's works, while we have seen proof against the IPCC et. al.
     

  10. #9  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I've found through experience that ALL of the best scientific rebuttals and responses begin with the phrase LOL. That's when you know you're dealing with a real player in the field or topic under discussion.
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Glassman's work at first appearance is mostly gibberish padded with pseudo scientific techo-jargon but that's why it's in non-peer review fitness magazine rather than a science journal. Though I have no real reason to do so based on it's lack of credibility, I'll probably explain in more detail later.

    While one could look at the several IPCC reports that are supported with hundreds of peer-review scientific papers across multi-disciplines, even I'll admit much of it is overwhelming and probably not very readable for the non-scientist.

    For those with a bit of a math background the American Statistical Association has a wonderfully approachable write up that looks at solar and Co2 as the primary drivers of temperature and reach the conclusion that Co2 explains most of the past centuries temp increase. (Even with solar output as a driver of both--it would be darn hard to explain the past few particular warm years though the sun is quiet)

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

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

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    You guys can believe as you wish.

    Anyone see this:

    Judicial Watch: NASA GISS Documents Posted Online

    Why is this hanky-panky going on if Anthropogenic Global Warming is real?
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Gotta love Hansen's work:



    from ClimateGate Goes Back to 1980 and Jim Hansen Reality Check
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    You complain about the same things the IPCC and Alarmists do. The fit their theory to the data.
    Bzzzt! No trip to the library for you!

    Sorry about that. Perhaps I can interest you in our consolation prize - a link to a dictionary, containing definitions of such words as "mechanism" and "theory"?
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    You complain about the same things the IPCC and Alarmists do. The fit their theory to the data.
    Bzzzt! No trip to the library for you!

    Sorry about that. Perhaps I can interest you in our consolation prize - a link to a dictionary, containing definitions of such words as "mechanism" and "theory"?
    Maybe you should learn how a model is developed.
     

  16. #15  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    2
    we should stop global warming..........
    it is harmfull
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by johnjun1410
    we should stop global warming..........
    it is harmfull
    If it were only that simple.

    I believe your statement implies that we are at fault for global warming.

    Science is not consensus, and there isn't even strong consensus that most global warming is anthropogenic.

    What I gave is an acceptable alternate opinion, which I see as having far more merit that the claim CO2 is causing as much warming as people attribute to it.

    have you read the past threads on the global warming topic? please do, because I think all of us on both sides of the topic are tired of repeating ourselves.

    I'll be more than glad to answer questions of my viewpoint if you go back and read the material I already posted on the matter. i just don't want to repost everything I already have.
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by johnjun1410
    we should stop global warming..........
    it is harmfull
    If it were only that simple.

    I believe your statement implies that we are at fault for global warming.
    Matters not where the fault is, we should stop anything that threatens the planet.

    Science is not consensus, and there isn't even strong consensus that most global warming is anthropogenic.
    wrong.

    What I gave is an acceptable alternate opinion, which I see as having far more merit that the claim CO2 is causing as much warming as people attribute to it.

    have you read the past threads on the global warming topic? please do, because I think all of us on both sides of the topic are tired of repeating ourselves.

    I'll be more than glad to answer questions of my viewpoint if you go back and read the material I already posted on the matter. i just don't want to repost everything I already have.
    Yeah, fine, I don't want to read it again either.
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Matters not where the fault is, we should stop anything that threatens the planet.
    Just how far do you take that attitude?

    Should we just stop living?
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Matters not where the fault is, we should stop anything that threatens the planet.
    Just how far do you take that attitude?

    Should we just stop living?
    Why not counter the greenhouse gass with light radiators that release the energy from earth in form of light that goes right through the atmosphere?

    Or anti-greenhouse gas?

    Ideas are several, we can pick a convenient one.
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Matters not where the fault is, we should stop anything that threatens the planet.
    Just how far do you take that attitude?

    Should we just stop living?
    I see no logic in your thinking.

    The issue of 'fault' in any threat is entirely beside the point.
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Matters not where the fault is, we should stop anything that threatens the planet.
    Just how far do you take that attitude?

    Should we just stop living?
    Why not counter the greenhouse gass with light radiators that release the energy from earth in form of light that goes right through the atmosphere?

    Or anti-greenhouse gas?

    Ideas are several, we can pick a convenient one.
    Do you know of such a design, and wouldn't it be ugly to cover enough earth to make a difference?
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Matters not where the fault is, we should stop anything that threatens the planet.
    Just how far do you take that attitude?

    Should we just stop living?
    Why not counter the greenhouse gass with light radiators that release the energy from earth in form of light that goes right through the atmosphere?

    Or anti-greenhouse gas?

    Ideas are several, we can pick a convenient one.
    Do you know of such a design, and wouldn't it be ugly to cover enough earth to make a difference?
    Yes. Put an energy converter in all engines that releases the waste energy in form of energy that leaves earth directly.
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Matters not where the fault is, we should stop anything that threatens the planet.
    Just how far do you take that attitude?

    Should we just stop living?
    I see no logic in your thinking.

    The issue of 'fault' in any threat is entirely beside the point.
    "we should stop anything that threatens the planet"

    By who's definition? Thing is, according to many people, we humans are the cause of everything that threatens this planet. Where do you draw the line of what we can do and what we must stop? I was simply taking your viewpoint to that extreme.

    I'm really amazed that those who are in a science forum are so closed minded to the solar aspect of warming. It is the source of all more than 99.9% of our heat, and the earths heat rises and falls with the radiation from the sun. How can anyone with the basic knowledge of science not accept this? NASA/GISS data shows about a 0.24% increase in solar energy from the maunder minima to 2000 low to high, and about a 0.18% increase using the long term rolling averages. temperatures start at absolute zero. the earthns global average is in the neighborhood of 15C. This is about 288K. 0.18% of 288K is about 0.52 degrees of change that the sun undeniable accounts for, unless you are going to throw known science out the window. The estimates are something like 0.6 C to 0.85 C increase in temperature. This leaves about 0.1 to 0.3 C for CO2, Black carbon, and other things.

    Point is, the sun is the largest contributor to global warming. Have a dimmer switch for the sun at your disposal by chance?
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Matters not where the fault is, we should stop anything that threatens the planet.
    Just how far do you take that attitude?

    Should we just stop living?
    I see no logic in your thinking.

    The issue of 'fault' in any threat is entirely beside the point.
    "we should stop anything that threatens the planet"

    By who's definition? Thing is, according to many people, we humans are the cause of everything that threatens this planet. Where do you draw the line of what we can do and what we must stop? I was simply taking your viewpoint to that extreme.

    I'm really amazed that those who are in a science forum are so closed minded to the solar aspect of warming. It is the source of all more than 99.9% of our heat, and the earths heat rises and falls with the radiation from the sun. How can anyone with the basic knowledge of science not accept this? NASA/GISS data shows about a 0.24% increase in solar energy from the maunder minima to 2000 low to high, and about a 0.18% increase using the long term rolling averages. temperatures start at absolute zero. the earthns global average is in the neighborhood of 15C. This is about 288K. 0.18% of 288K is about 0.52 degrees of change that the sun undeniable accounts for, unless you are going to throw known science out the window. The estimates are something like 0.6 C to 0.85 C increase in temperature. This leaves about 0.1 to 0.3 C for CO2, Black carbon, and other things.

    Point is, the sun is the largest contributor to global warming. Have a dimmer switch for the sun at your disposal by chance?
    Ofcoure we can put weighed light deflectors in space. just as long as it doesn't get too cold.
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Ofcoure we can put weighed light deflectors in space. just as long as it doesn't get too cold.
    That could be done, and they could be remotely controlled for degree of opening. However, do you realize how massive of a project that would be? To block 0.1% of the solar energy, it would have to be almost 50,000 square miles in area.

    How much money would it cost to build it, launch it, and have rockets attached that would keep the solar winds from pushing it out of position?

    Also, it would need to be in the L1 orbit, which is rather far out.
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Ofcoure we can put weighed light deflectors in space. just as long as it doesn't get too cold.
    That could be done, and they could be remotely controlled for degree of opening. However, do you realize how massive of a project that would be? To block 0.1% of the solar energy, it would have to be almost 50,000 square miles in area.

    How much money would it cost to build it, launch it, and have rockets attached that would keep the solar winds from pushing it out of position?

    Also, it would need to be in the L1 orbit, which is rather far out.
    more about the nearby engine energy to escaping energy converter/radiator
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I'm really amazed that those who are in a science forum are so closed minded to the solar aspect of warming. It is the source of all more than 99.9% of our heat, and the earths heat rises and falls with the radiation from the sun.
    Hasn't been discussed at any length whatsoever, precisely because to those on the AGW side, it is entirely beside the point.

    No matter what the cause of the warming, if humans do not take the long view societies will suffer. Like it or not, there you have it. If your house is on fire you do not say "It will swing back to a more comfortable temperature if I just ignore it, and besides I don't believe the fire is my fault."

    Really, hasn't this conversation been had before.
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    I'm really amazed that those who are in a science forum are so closed minded to the solar aspect of warming. It is the source of all more than 99.9% of our heat, and the earths heat rises and falls with the radiation from the sun. How can anyone with the basic knowledge of science not accept this?
    And no scientist do doubt the sun's role either directly or by the orbital change and tilt cycles. The issue is the magnitude of the change...so we'll look at your next part.


    NASA/GISS data shows about a 0.24% increase in solar energy from the maunder minima to 2000 low to high, and about a 0.18% increase using the long term rolling averages. temperatures start at absolute zero. the earthns global average is in the neighborhood of 15C. This is about 288K.
    So far so good.

    0.18% of 288K is about 0.52 degrees of change that the sun undeniable accounts for, unless you are going to throw known science out the window.
    There's were you go astray. Temperature and irradiation are not linear functions. In fact irradiation is roughly a T^4 function. (see Stefan–Boltzmann law).

    So using your 288 number again crunch the rise.

    change T = 1.0018^0.25 * 288 - 288 = +0.13 C

    While still more significant that most people realize, it's a far from the +0.54 C suggested earlier and leaves a much larger remaining observed warming to be explained by other factors.


    Point is, the sun is the largest contributor to global warming.
    Whether with exceedingly simple radiation models like this or more complex models there's virtually no evidence that solar changes can account for much more than 25% or so of the recent surface warming of the past couple centuries.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    To: Lynx_Fox

    You deserve big thanx for that evaluation of sun heat compared to earth heat.
    Thanks.
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I'm really amazed that those who are in a science forum are so closed minded to the solar aspect of warming.
    They aren't. You have invented the attitude to explain why they don't take your uninformed opinions seriously, or accept your rhetorical questions as engendering serious doubt.

    btw: The rise in temp that people are worried about is probably more than .54C, and within the past century - not "since the Maunder Minimum".
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    By who's definition? Thing is, according to many people, we humans are the cause of everything that threatens this planet. Where do you draw the line of what we can do and what we must stop? I was simply taking your viewpoint to that extreme.
    Finding a fruitcake opinion somewhere does not argue against anything. Taking other people's opinions to your choice of "extremes" not expressed by them is a misrepresentation, not an argument against their actual opinions.
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    No matter what the cause of the warming, if humans do not take the long view societies will suffer."
    That's just one theory, and doesn't have good supporting evidence. The earth has a way of self regulation. As the atmosphere warms, more clouds and higher clouds are formed, increasing the earths albedo. Self regulation.

    Besides, I have not seen any evidence to validate the CO2 theory as being the primary driver. This is a theory that nobody seems to be willing to let go of, by means of considering other real forces. There are ways of determining the impact of black soot and solar changes reasonable well. CO2 is a feedback mechinism that continually changes. the solar energy is a primary force for heat, and black soot is a radiator of black body radiation.

    From wiki: Albedo:



    Black soot on ice/snow is far more dramatic at changing the albedo than that of old snow.
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    There's were you go astray. Temperature and irradiation are not linear functions. In fact irradiation is roughly a T^4 function. (see Stefan–Boltzmann law).

    So using your 288 number again crunch the drop.

    change T = 1.0018^0.25 * 288 - 288 = +0.13 C

    While still more significant that most people realize, it's a far from the +0.54 C suggested and leaves a much larger remainder to be explained by other factors.
    You would be correct if we were talking strictly surface warming. We are talking radiative warming in the atmosphere, which cancels out the ^.25 aspect of dealing with surface warming. We measure the air temperature. Not surface temperature, right?

    Radiative warming of the atmosphere is closer to 1:1. Energy to heat retains a linear aspect.

    Tell me. Do our monitoring stations have the thermometers in the ground, or do they measure the air?
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    btw: The rise in temp that people are worried about is probably more than .54C, and within the past century - not "since the Maunder Minimum".
    Sure...

    Now that the data that supports that short term change and look at the same data long term. I'll met the ∆T is a strategically selected low point in the long term trend.

    Funny. When I argue long term, you guys argue short term. Why is that? Cannot argue on the same topic?
     

  35. #34  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Radiative warming of the atmosphere is closer to 1:1. Energy to heat retains a linear aspect.
    The total warming of the planet would rise the temperature by the (delta R)^0.25, R being the earth's radiance. All else being equal, the relative green house effect, which can be thought of as surface and lower atmospheric warming, and mid and upper atmospheric cooling would be relatively unchanged; the surface, lower and middle atmospheric temperature would all rise by roughly the same amounts.

    In yet another way to think about it. Due to changes in the sun's radiance, the effective radiating temperature of earth (something like 255K) goes up and down relative to the (delta R)^0.25, but net gradient between surface and upper atmosphere doesn't change. Green house gas change effects are different. Green house gas increases don't change the effective radiating temperature of the planet, but change the gradient: the lower atmosphere (and surface) warm while the mid and upper atmosphere get colder.

    --
    Interestingly the models show even another quiet solar period similar to the maunder minima wouldn't provide us much relief when compared to the surface warming due to increased green house gases. If you want a technical read which looks specifically at another maunder minima I suggest: http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/...ur-maunder.pdf

    Even if you don't wade into the details look at figure 2.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    blah blah unproven blah blah blah blah fraud blah blah blah blah volcanoes produce more CO2 blah blah blah blah climategate blah blah blah blah blah greenhouse effect uproven blah blah blah blah Al Gore propaganda blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah IPCC fraud blah blah blah blah blah communist propaganda blah blah blah blah blah blah global cooling blah blah blah blah blah ...
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Twit of wit
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    blah blah unproven blah blah blah blah fraud blah blah blah blah volcanoes produce more CO2 blah blah blah blah climategate blah blah blah blah blah greenhouse effect uproven blah blah blah blah Al Gore propaganda blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah IPCC fraud blah blah blah blah blah communist propaganda blah blah blah blah blah blah global cooling blah blah blah blah blah ...
    Apparently Cypress got banned for trolling. I didn't see any posts to warrant this.

    Why aren't you banned yet? Is it because he is conservative and you are liberal?
     

  38. #37  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Now that the data that supports that short term change and look at the same data long term. I'll met the ∆T is a strategically selected low point in the long term trend.
    And you'd be wrong again, just like the last few times you asserted that.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NO...re_Anomaly.png
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:20...Comparison.png

    Although the beginning of the major boost in CO2 concentration would be a reasonable place to start such a record - "strategically selected" for good reason, eh?

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Funny. When I argue long term, you guys argue short term. Why is that?
    We are almost always arguing the same term - the period of the great CO2 boost, last couple of centuries especially, last century critically. You find that an inconvenient span of time to consider, for some reason - hence, you usually pick something shorter or longer,

    except when you are linking with approval to someone who discovered that if he picked a 134 year "trend line" for his model of an unknown oceanic mechanism of delayed heat release, out the "family" of trend lines that did not work, it matched the temperature data really well. So then that period of time became the right one to consider, and you viewed his claims as well supported.
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    There's were you go astray. Temperature and irradiation are not linear functions. In fact irradiation is roughly a T^4 function. (see Stefan–Boltzmann law).

    So using your 288 number again crunch the drop.

    change T = 1.0018^0.25 * 288 - 288 = +0.13 C

    While still more significant that most people realize, it's a far from the +0.54 C suggested and leaves a much larger remainder to be explained by other factors.
    You would be correct if we were talking strictly surface warming. We are talking radiative warming in the atmosphere, which cancels out the ^.25 aspect of dealing with surface warming. We measure the air temperature. Not surface temperature, right?

    Radiative warming of the atmosphere is closer to 1:1. Energy to heat retains a linear aspect.

    Tell me. Do our monitoring stations have the thermometers in the ground, or do they measure the air?
    If I ever wrote that, I must remind you I was still Clark Kent back in those days. For with the heat I need S on my suit to adapt more to amphibians.

    -No worries, I'm just joking. But honestly, was that reply like 7 years old?
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    I'm surprised you only know the radiance to heat formula. The heat to radiance cancels out the non linear aspects, making it linear again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Radiative warming of the atmosphere is closer to 1:1. Energy to heat retains a linear aspect.
    The total warming of the planet would rise the temperature by the (delta R)^0.25, R being the earth's radiance.
    That is correct if you are calculating a planetary body with no greenhouse gasses.

    The radiance from the earth is a fourth power function, canceling out the 1/4 power. the radiance becomes proportional again, and this is what drives the greenhouse effect.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    All else being equal, the relative green house effect, which can be thought of as surface and lower atmospheric warming, and mid and upper atmospheric cooling would be relatively unchanged; the surface, lower and middle atmospheric temperature would all rise by roughly the same amounts.
    Except you are no accounting for the increased radiance from the earth at the fourth power of the difference.

    Must conserve the energy. It doesn't disappear. The greenhouse effect is close to linear of the atmospheric IR radiation. It stays proportional to the solar changes with all else equal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    In yet another way to think about it. Due to changes in the sun's radiance, the effective radiating temperature of earth (something like 255K) goes up and down relative to the (delta R)^0.25, but net gradient between surface and upper atmosphere doesn't change. Green house gas change effects are different. Green house gas increases don't change the effective radiating temperature of the planet, but change the gradient: the lower atmosphere (and surface) warm while the mid and upper atmosphere get colder.
    What? I think you are forgetting the inverse reaction

    Consider this. If I start with any given radiance, and get any given value, the surface temperature changes just as you say. It increased by ^.025 of the given increase. I have always known that I get a little upset when people assume I know so much less than I do. I have also known that when when is converted back to radiance, the changes are amplified by the ^4, balancing the ^1/4.

    You should really do the math instead of thinking withing the box other people espouse.

    If I use a black-body calculator, and increase the heat my any given amount, what will the radiated IR change by...

    Lets see using SpectralCalc's Blackbody Calculator:

    I set the lower limit to 0, upper to 200; at 288 k, the total radiance is 390.115 W/m2. If I increase that by 0.045% (1.0018^.25), the radiance is now 390.818 rather than a 0.045% increase. It took a0.18% increase, just like we started with. It is now this percentage that drives the atmospheric temperature almost linear to the radiance increase.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    --
    Interestingly the models show even another quiet solar period similar to the maunder minima wouldn't provide us much relief when compared to the surface warming due to increased green house gases. If you want a technical read which looks specifically at another maunder minima I suggest: http://sciences.blogs.liberation.fr/...ur-maunder.pdf
    It's a model. So?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Even if you don't wade into the details look at figure 2.
    Figure 2 indicates questionable temperatures and questionable predictions. Models will ultimately display the assumptions by those making them when they are not based in known science. Global warming is too many assumptions, that I firmly believe are unreasonable assumptions.
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    ---
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    No matter what the cause of the warming, if humans do not take the long view societies will suffer."
    The earth has a way of self regulation. As the atmosphere warms, more clouds and higher clouds are formed, increasing the earths albedo. Self regulation.
    I see. So, it will swing back to a more comfortable temperature if we just ignore it, and besides we don't believe it is our fault.
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    No matter what the cause of the warming, if humans do not take the long view societies will suffer."
    The earth has a way of self regulation. As the atmosphere warms, more clouds and higher clouds are formed, increasing the earths albedo. Self regulation.
    I see. So, it will swing back to a more comfortable temperature if we just ignore it, and besides we don't believe it is our fault.
    (heh)

    Anyway, I have a hard time believing that the quote Wild Cobra made of me was mine. Therefor I will use the search function and check that, and If I find no such post that is mine, I want the in that case manipulated quote to begonthed (not by blood in either case)

    Okay, the quote of me by Wild Cobra posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:25 am should've been on Lynx_Fox (Please edit that?)
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly
    Okay, the quote of me by Wild Cobra posted: Mon Jun 28, 2010 5:25 am should've been on Lynx_Fox (Please edit that?)
    I corrected two of mine and eliminated the other.

    The misunderstanding started with yours on 6/27, shows up as 2:44P my time. Your quotes I quoted from are messed up. Maybe you can edit that posting for us please. Yes, I should have seen it wasn't your quote, but I missed that.
     

  45. #44  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

    Lets see using SpectralCalc's Blackbody Calculator:

    I set the lower limit to 0, upper to 200; at 288 k, the total radiance is 390.115 W/m2. If I increase that by 0.045% (1.0018^.25), the radiance is now 390.818 rather than a 0.045% increase. It took a0.18% increase, just like we started with. It is now this percentage that drives the atmospheric temperature almost linear to the radiance increase.
    Slow down and think some more on this and I'll attempt to show you there is no cancelling effect.

    But to start your looking at the wrong number...you should start with effective radiant energy and temperature. For earth that is 239.7 W/m^2 with a black body T of 255 K.

    The earths effective radiant energy is proportional to the sun radiant energy.
    The sun increased radiant energy by 0.18%. So that's 230.7 *1.0018 or an equivalent radiating energy of earth of 240.22 W/m^2.

    Go ahead and use your link to confirm that's a radiating temperature of 255.12 K.
    A 0.12 degree K increase, due to earth's radiant increase which was proportional to the solar 0.18% increase.

    If you didn't change the green house gases, the approximately +30K green house effect that boost surface temps above effective radiation temperature doesn't change which means an approximate rise from 288 to 288.12 K purely due to the increased solar radiance.

    --
    As an aside think about Mars that has ~85% of earth's temperature but only receives ~40% of the sun's solar radiation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by free radical
    No matter what the cause of the warming, if humans do not take the long view societies will suffer."
    The earth has a way of self regulation. As the atmosphere warms, more clouds and higher clouds are formed, increasing the earths albedo. Self regulation.
    I see. So, it will swing back to a more comfortable temperature if we just ignore it, and besides we don't believe it is our fault.
    The net effect is yet to be determined. More moisture from warming doesn't necessarily mean more clouds. As one example, looking at mid-latitude seasonal variations, summer holds much more water vapor than winter but because summer regime tends to be vertical cumulus clouds they take up a much smaller area. High latitude horizontal stratiform clouds tend to block IR radiation more than reflect incoming solar radiation.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

    Lets see using SpectralCalc's Blackbody Calculator:

    I set the lower limit to 0, upper to 200; at 288 k, the total radiance is 390.115 W/m2. If I increase that by 0.045% (1.0018^.25), the radiance is now 390.818 rather than a 0.045% increase. It took a0.18% increase, just like we started with. It is now this percentage that drives the atmospheric temperature almost linear to the radiance increase.
    Slow down and think some more on this and I'll attempt to show you there is no cancelling effect.

    But to start your looking at the wrong number...you should start with effective radiant energy and temperature. For earth that is 239.7 W/m^2 with a black body T of 255 K.

    The earths effective radiant energy is proportional to the sun radiant energy.
    The sun increased radiant energy by 0.18%. So that's 230.7 *1.0018 or an equivalent radiating energy of earth of 240.22 W/m^2.

    Go ahead and use your link to confirm that's a radiating temperature of 255.12 K.
    A 0.12 degree K increase, due to earth's radiant increase which was proportional to the solar 0.18% increase.

    If you didn't change the green house gases, the approximately +30K green house effect that boost surface temps above effective radiation temperature doesn't change which means an approximate rise from 288 to 288.12 K purely due to the increased solar radiance.

    --
    As an aside think about Mars that has ~85% of earth's temperature but only receives ~40% of the sun's solar radiation.
    I completely understand what you are saying. I will say this a second time. We are measuring atmospheric temperatures, not physical earth surface temperatures. A 0.18% increase of incoming radiation produces a 0.18% increase in IR emissions from the earth. This corresponds to 0 0.18% increase in atmospheric temperature and temperature in now proportional to energy applied.

    Again, our thermometers are measuring the atmosphere. Not the dirt.
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

    Lets see using SpectralCalc's Blackbody Calculator:

    I set the lower limit to 0, upper to 200; at 288 k, the total radiance is 390.115 W/m2. If I increase that by 0.045% (1.0018^.25), the radiance is now 390.818 rather than a 0.045% increase. It took a0.18% increase, just like we started with. It is now this percentage that drives the atmospheric temperature almost linear to the radiance increase.
    Slow down and think some more on this and I'll attempt to show you there is no cancelling effect.

    But to start your looking at the wrong number...you should start with effective radiant energy and temperature. For earth that is 239.7 W/m^2 with a black body T of 255 K.

    The earths effective radiant energy is proportional to the sun radiant energy.
    The sun increased radiant energy by 0.18%. So that's 230.7 *1.0018 or an equivalent radiating energy of earth of 240.22 W/m^2.

    Go ahead and use your link to confirm that's a radiating temperature of 255.12 K.
    A 0.12 degree K increase, due to earth's radiant increase which was proportional to the solar 0.18% increase.

    If you didn't change the green house gases, the approximately +30K green house effect that boost surface temps above effective radiation temperature doesn't change which means an approximate rise from 288 to 288.12 K purely due to the increased solar radiance.

    --
    As an aside think about Mars that has ~85% of earth's temperature but only receives ~40% of the sun's solar radiation.
    I completely understand what you are saying. I will say this a second time. We are measuring atmospheric temperatures, not physical earth surface temperatures. A 0.18% increase of incoming radiation produces a 0.18% increase in IR emissions from the earth. This corresponds to 0 0.18% increase in atmospheric temperature and temperature in now proportional to energy applied.

    Again, our thermometers are measuring the atmosphere. Not the dirt.
    I have to admit, you both lost me, it's been ages since i studied radiation, I just hope both of you know what you're talking about. Point is someones got to be wrong. So if some experiment could be made?
     

  49. #48  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I completely understand what you are saying. I will say this a second time. We are measuring atmospheric temperatures, not physical earth surface temperatures. A 0.18% increase of incoming radiation produces a 0.18% increase in IR emissions from the earth. This corresponds to 0 0.18% increase in atmospheric temperature and temperature in now proportional to energy applied.
    (shrug) I've tried to explain it. Temperature and radiative emissions are not directly proportional under any conditions that approximate a black body (most things)

    --
    LQ, in simple terms radiation energy by a material is a forth power function of temperature. radiation ~= constant * temperature ^ 4 (Stefan_Boltzmann Law)

    Lets take an extreme example.
    Lets assume the sun's output were decreased by 10% and earth's reflectivity remained the same. The earth's effective radiation energy would be decreased by 10% to match the decrease it's receiving from the sun. Because of the 4th power relationship that would mean an effective temperature decrease of 2.6%. (of 255 is 6.6 degrees C)

    Other places serve as a fun examples of this. Titan (a moon of Saturn) for example gets between 1-2% of the suns energy of the earth but has an effective temperature of about a 3rd of the Earth's temperature. (It's green house effect is similarly proportional to Earth's as well--but that's a fine topic for another discussion)
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I completely understand what you are saying. I will say this a second time. We are measuring atmospheric temperatures, not physical earth surface temperatures. A 0.18% increase of incoming radiation produces a 0.18% increase in IR emissions from the earth. This corresponds to 0 0.18% increase in atmospheric temperature and temperature in now proportional to energy applied.
    (shrug) I've tried to explain it. Temperature and radiative emissions are not directly proportional under any conditions that approximate a black body (most things)

    --
    LQ, in simple terms radiation energy by a material is a forth power function of temperature. radiation ~= constant * temperature ^ 4 (Stefan_Boltzmann Law)

    Lets take an extreme example.
    Lets assume the sun's output were decreased by 10% and earth's reflectivity remained the same. The earth's effective radiation energy would be decreased by 10% to match the decrease it's receiving from the sun. Because of the 4th power relationship that would mean an effective temperature decrease of 2.6%. (of 255 is 6.6 degrees C)

    Other places serve as a fun examples of this. Titan (a moon of Saturn) for example gets between 1-2% of the suns energy of the earth but has an effective temperature of about a 3rd of the Earth's temperature. (It's green house effect is similarly proportional to Earth's as well--but that's a fine topic for another discussion)
    Q1. It would be simple to prove that by comparing temperatures at different heights in the atmosphere?

    Q2. And, at night the temperature (given this has all got to do with solar radiation), would decrease in the same rate as ever (on an about, right?).

    Which it doesn't, right?
     

  51. #50  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

    Q1. It would be simple to prove that by comparing temperatures at different heights in the atmosphere?
    Not sure what you are trying to prove. The effective temperature is derived from the average amount of infrared radiation leaving the planet. In a strong green house atmosphere the surface and lower atmosphere will be much warmer than the effective temperature, while the upper atmosphere will be much cooler.

    Q2. And, at night the temperature (given this has all got to do with solar radiation), would decrease in the same rate as ever (on an about, right?).

    Which it doesn't, right?
    The surface and opaque layers to IR radiation will cool at the largest rates. If it's not cloudy most will be from the surface. If it's cloudy much of the cooling will happen near the cloud top.

    I guess it's important to distinguish between two effects here: 1) Changes to solar input and earth's irradiance (or effective temperature) which change all levels of the atmosphere by a similar amount, and 2) green house effects which change the vertical distribution of temperature but don't change the earth's irradiance (or effective temperature).
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

    Q1. It would be simple to prove that by comparing temperatures at different heights in the atmosphere?
    Not sure what you are trying to prove. The effective temperature is derived from the average amount of infrared radiation leaving the planet. In a strong green house atmosphere the surface and lower atmosphere will be much warmer than the effective temperature, while the upper atmosphere will be much cooler.

    Q2. And, at night the temperature (given this has all got to do with solar radiation), would decrease in the same rate as ever (on an about, right?).

    Which it doesn't, right?
    The surface and opaque layers to IR radiation will cool at the largest rates. If it's not cloudy most will be from the surface. If it's cloudy much of the cooling will happen near the cloud top.

    I guess it's important to distinguish between two effects here: 1) Changes to solar input and earth's irradiance (or effective temperature) which change all levels of the atmosphere by a similar amount, and 2) green house effects which change the vertical distribution of temperature but don't change the earth's irradiance (or effective temperature).
    More about Q1: So is the relation between the lower and the upper atmosphere bigger then before (in terms lower : upper)?
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I guess it's important to distinguish between two effects here: 1) Changes to solar input and earth's irradiance (or effective temperature) which change all levels of the atmosphere by a similar amount, and 2) green house effects which change the vertical distribution of temperature but don't change the earth's irradiance (or effective temperature).
    Yes, both are important to consider. But... any surface changes are changing the atmosphere temperatures through the relatively slow conduction process. Radiative changes in the atmosphere are a faster process. I cannot quantify the importance to give each, but I am certain the radiative forcing plays a far larger role than the conductive changes. Now even if both are equally important, greenhouse models show there is about double the greenhouse forcing than radiative forcing via greenhouse effect feedback. The simple NASA model shows 168 watts of direct and 324 watts of greenhouse forcing.

    Unless the IPCC and others are blowing smoke, atmospheric temperature is nearly proportional to radiative forcing. This radiative forcing, with all else equal, remains proportional to the incoming solar radiation.

    They are claiming by the AR4 that CO2 increases radiative forcing by 1.66 watts per square meter, and a total forcing of about 1.6 watts. This is suppose to represent a range which I forget, but near the upper end, 0.8 C is half the 1.6 for easy reference.

    If we consider the simplified NASA greenhouse gas model:



    There is a 0.93 watt increase for the 0.18% radiative increase. This 0.93 watts easily becomes 0.4 C or more by the way the IPCC treats radiative forcing estimates. If the ratio were 2:1, it would be 0.465 degrees.

    Maybe we need to understand and quantify more how convection temperate transfers and radiative forcing play their rolls together, and in different atmospheric pressures. The thinner the atmosphere, the less convection has an effect. When you try to compare atmosphere like Venus or Titan there simply is no comparison. Too large of a pressure difference, too large an atmospheric mix difference, or both. Titan has a 146.7 kPa pressure, Venus a 9.3 MPa, compared to Earths 101.325 kPa. Titan is mostly CH4 and Venus mostly CO2. Without assumptions of science not universally accepted yet, my understanding of math tells me it is impossible to extrapolate any useful comparisons when dealing with so many unknowns. That's why I scoff at people using other planets and moons as examples.

    Consider the way we measure. We have white painted boxes that allow the atmosphere in to a thermometer shielded by direct radiation. Not 100%, but it does primarily measure atmospheric temperature. We are not technically measuring surface temperature, even though we call it that.

    edit... add...

    Another thing that bugs me about people comparing the earth to places like Venus and Titan comes back to the extreme change in the atmosphere. the earths three primary gasses Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon are diatomic and monatomic gasses. They are only lightly influenced by radiated energy. CH4 and CO2 radiate in larger areas of the atmospheric window. When an atmosphere is most of a complex vibrating molecule, then the energy has a far harder time escaping the atmospheric window. The surrounding molecules absorb the same radiated frequencies their neighbors are shedding. Energy directly exchanged via convection is little different because these most these molecules all share the same radiative spectra. The earth, with under 400 ppm CO2 doesn't have this same problem. Heat transferred to neighboring molecules via convection is now radiated at frequencies outside of CO2's absorption.
     

  54. #53  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

    More about Q1: So is the relation between the lower and the upper atmosphere bigger then before (in terms lower : upper)?
    The short answer is yes. The lower atmosphere(troposphere) is warming while the mid-upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is cooling. The figure below a branch of the department of energy shows the trends from weather balloons since the 1950s.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

    More about Q1: So is the relation between the lower and the upper atmosphere bigger then before (in terms lower : upper)?
    The short answer is yes. The lower atmosphere(troposphere) is warming while the mid-upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is cooling. The figure below a branch of the department of energy shows the trends from weather balloons since the 1950s.
    I wonder if they have used the same design over the years. Is it possible, over time, the thermometer is better shielded by radiation, thus reducing temperature recorded?

    Just saying, are we certain this is the trend? Would a reproduction of a 50's balloon give the same results as a modern one?

    I'm not disputing the data, just have that open question for accuracy. I simply don't know, and like to consider all things before a conclusion.
     

  56. #55  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

    There is a 0.93 watt increase for the 0.18% radiative increase.
    I'm not sure how you're getting your numbers. 235 watts * 0.0018 = 0.423 watt/m^2 increase. Pretty small compared to the effective increase in radiative forcing from increased Co2.


    --
    When you try to compare atmosphere like Venus or Titan there simply is no comparison.
    I never discussed Venus. There is a close enough comparison to Titan to illustrate the point that solar input and a planets effective temperature are not even close to being linear. (1% of sun's input to earth results in planet with 1/3 the temperature of earth--not 1% of temperature) It was done to illustrate with large easy to understand numbers rather than the driving point being lost in the minute decimal-place details--there was no other reason.

    Consider the way we measure. We have white painted boxes that allow the atmosphere in to a thermometer shielded by direct radiation. Not 100%, but it does primarily measure atmospheric temperature. We are not technically measuring surface temperature, even though we call it that.
    I agree. But over the course it averages out to nearly the same and since it's a widely accepted standard of measurement, what ever systemic difference that exit is also consistent over the many decades of measurement.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

    There is a 0.93 watt increase for the 0.18% radiative increase.
    I'm not sure how you're getting your numbers. 235 watts * 0.0018 = 0.423 watt/m^2 increase. Pretty small compared to the effective increase in radiative forcing from increased Co2.
    You obviously didn't look at the graphic I supplied. When the 0.18% gets incorporated with the incoming radiation, the IR that is the source of the greenhouse effect is also increased by 0.18%. Look at the center of the graphic. I show how the 0.93 watts comes about.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    When you try to compare atmosphere like Venus or Titan there simply is no comparison.
    I never discussed Venus.
    True, but others do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    There is a close enough comparison to Titan to illustrate the point that solar input and a planets effective temperature are not even close to being linear. (1% of sun's input to earth results in planet with 1/3 the temperature of earth--not 1% of temperature) It was done to illustrate with large easy to understand numbers rather than the driving point being lost in the minute decimal-place details--there was no other reason.
    I disagree to Titan being used as any acceptable comparison. All such a comparison can do if foster ignorance to the facts. Now if it had a comparable atmosphere to ours, with more CO2, then it would be a viable example. Since the atmosphere is mostly CH4, the continued positive feedback at the same spectral frequencies is several factors greater than the small percentages of greenhouse gasses in the Earths atmosphere.

    Can you say there is any reasonable comparison?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Consider the way we measure. We have white painted boxes that allow the atmosphere in to a thermometer shielded by direct radiation. Not 100%, but it does primarily measure atmospheric temperature. We are not technically measuring surface temperature, even though we call it that.
    I agree. But over the course it averages out to nearly the same and since it's a widely accepted standard of measurement, what ever systemic difference that exit is also consistent over the many decades of measurement.
    Well, would you disagree that there is about double the radiative forcing turned into heat than blackbody heat?
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by LeavingQuietly

    More about Q1: So is the relation between the lower and the upper atmosphere bigger then before (in terms lower : upper)?
    The short answer is yes. The lower atmosphere(troposphere) is warming while the mid-upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is cooling. The figure below a branch of the department of energy shows the trends from weather balloons since the 1950s.
    I wonder if they have used the same design over the years. Is it possible, over time, the thermometer is better shielded by radiation, thus reducing temperature recorded?

    Just saying, are we certain this is the trend? Would a reproduction of a 50's balloon give the same results as a modern one?

    I'm not disputing the data, just have that open question for accuracy. I simply don't know, and like to consider all things before a conclusion.
    That's certainly enough for me to point out that whatever heat test would've been based on a working thermometer and the test is valid to prove greenhouse gas effect.
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Did anyone read the article and really understand it? Here is what it concludes:
    V. CONCLUSIONS

    A. SOLAR RADIATION PATTERN MATCHES EARTH’S TEMPERATURE

    The imprint of the Sun is on Earth’s climate. The signal is unusually strong among the class of all climate signals, matching the entire record of global average surface temperature based on data from instruments. The imprinted signal is not visible in the broadband, Total Solar Irradiation model, but can be seen by filtering, much as spectral analysis reveals significant sinusoidal frequency components. And what is significant depends not on the source – the Sun -- but on the receiver – Earth. Moreover, because the problem is thermodynamic, and the medium, heat, has capacity but not inertia, temperature will not contain natural frequencies to resonate with a source.

    B. EARTH’S NATURAL RESPONSES DICTATE WHAT IS IMPORTANT FROM THE SUN.

    The ocean dominates the natural climate processes on Earth, and its three dimensional currents have the effect of storing and releasing energy and gases after a number of finite delays. According to this model, Earth should selectively reinforce and suppress finite delays within the structure of solar radiation. Application of the most elementary finite-time filter, the fixed time, running trend, reveals a pair of components of solar radiation, one major (S134) and one minor (S46), that combine linearly in the ratio of 5:1 to match Earth’s temperature history as known by instruments.

    C. SIGNAL SELECTION & AMPLIFICATION.

    For the conclusions reached in this paper, the energy in S134 is sufficient by itself. However, it is not sufficient as a radiative forcing were it to be received at the surface of Earth to have a measurable affect on climate. However, the accuracy of the model in matching Earth’s temperature record indicates that an amplifying process must operate on solar radiation.

    1. ALBEDO AMPLIFICATION

    The obvious choice for the amplifier of solar radiation is cloud albedo, neglected in GCMs, but easily shown to be the most powerful temperature feedback in Earth’s climate. Furthermore, the conventional model for Earth’s radiation budget contains open-loop processes known to affect the extent of cloud cover, and hence cloud albedo. Most significant among these processes is atmospheric absorption of incoming solar radiation. This absorption affects the temperature lapse rate to warm the atmosphere, but heretofore climate studies did not apply this short wave effect to the extent of cloud cover. The model advanced for Earth’s variable response to solar radiation is empirical, but requiring few coefficients to match the long records of temperature on Earth to appropriately filtered solar energy.

    2. FAST & SLOW ALBEDO FEEDBACK

    In consideration of all the processes and observations, cloud albedo must be modeled with both a fast reaction, positive feedback, and a slow reaction, negative feedback. The fast reaction is a positive feedback with respect to solar insolation, amplifying variations in solar radiation as it imparts energy to Earth’s surface, including the surface layer of the ocean. The slow reaction is a negative feedback with respect to surface temperature. It operates through the increase in humidity that accompanies a rise especially in ocean surface layer temperature. The fast reaction amplifies TSI, while at the same time the slow reaction mitigates warming, including that from the TSI it amplified.

    Not recognized by IPCC is that feedback exists with respect to a flow variable. This fact is not even recognizable within IPCC’s radiative forcing paradigm because it has no flow variables. Consequently, IPCC models feedback loops as correlations between variables (e.g., TAR Figures 7.4, 7.6, 7.7, & 7.8, pps. 439, 445, 448, & 454 respectively), and not as confluences in energy, mass, or information flow between sources external and internal to the system. Cloud albedo fast response operates on short wave radiation directly through the parameter of the temperature at cloud level. Cloud albedo slow response operates on surface temperature indirectly through the parameter of humidity, especially as released by the ocean.

    D. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT ANTHROPOGENIC.

    On the scale of the instrumental record of Earth’s surface temperature over the last 160 years, humans have had no effect, and the Solar Global Warming model advanced here would predict none. To the extent that IPCC might presume that human activities have altered Earth’s temperature record, the effect is imaginary, absent some sentient extraterrestrial force that managed to keep the Sun synchronized with Earth’s average surface temperature.

    IPCC claims to have evidence of the fingerprint of man on Earthly gas and temperature processes are unsubstantiated. Each has a basis in graphical trickery. Two of these claims falsely demonstrate relationships known mathematically: the rate of CO2 increase compared to the rate of O2 decrease, and the rate of fossil fuel emissions compared to the rate of decrease in the isotopic weight of atmospheric CO2 based on mass balance principles. Other claims rely on investigatormanufactured data from ancient records blended into modern records, where the former are averages by a process requiring a year to centuries, while the latter are relatively instantaneous. The records requiring a year are tree ring reductions, while the others are measurements from ice cores that average gas concentrations over a range of couple of decades to a millennium and a half.

    E. GREENHOUSE GASES DO NOT CAUSE CLIMATE CHANGE.

    Just as the Earth’s temperature record following the Sun eliminates humans from the climate equation, so is the fate of the greenhouse effect. To the extent that the greenhouse effect is correlated with Earth’s temperature history, the cause must link from the Sun to the greenhouse gases. The alternative is the silly proposition that solar radiation variations might be caused by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations.

    F. AGW POST-MORTEM.

    AGW is dead. Here are some topics for the post-mortem. Forensic analysis of proxy reductions for correlations caused by data set sharing, and subjective smoothing into the instrument record. Forensic analysis of whether proxy temperature reductions have any validity. An à priori model for the tapped delay line representation of climate based on ocean currents. An à priori model for cloudiness as it responds to short wave radiation.
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Did anyone read the article and really understand it? Here is what it concludes:
    D. CLIMATE CHANGE IS NOT ANTHROPOGENIC.

    On the scale of the instrumental record of Earth’s surface temperature over the last 160 years, humans have had no effect, and the Solar Global Warming model advanced here would predict none.
    That statement is flawed, hiroshima and nagasaki bombs by the least must've changed earth temperature a bit.
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Did anyone read the article and really understand it?
    Sure. He threw a huge family of arbitrarily manipulated curves at a data set, and one of them stuck. From this he inferred the existence of unspecified ("ocean") mechanisms that in unknown ways mimic the known mechanisms and apparently observed effects of greenhouse gas heat trapping over that past 134 years. From this he declared the known and measured CO2 boost and other greenhouse gas influences to be without effect, substituting the as yet undescribed mechanisms without evidence even in the parameters of the fitted curve.

    Besides that, he made a lot of assertions about unrelated political and economic matters, and disparaged the IPCC and a few other standard targets of the current corporate political media workings.

    That was in the first 15 pages, with a 20 minute scan. The rest of it is, by that evidence, not worth reading.
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    Did anyone read the article and really understand it?
    Sure. He threw a huge family of arbitrarily manipulated curves at a data set, and one of them stuck. From this he inferred the existence of unspecified ("ocean") mechanisms that in unknown ways mimic the known mechanisms and apparently observed effects of greenhouse gas heat trapping over that past 134 years. From this he declared the known and measured CO2 boost and other greenhouse gas influences to be without effect, substituting the as yet undescribed mechanisms without evidence even in the parameters of the fitted curve.

    Besides that, he made a lot of assertions about unrelated political and economic matters, and disparaged the IPCC and a few other standard targets of the current corporate political media workings.

    That was in the first 15 pages, with a 20 minute scan. The rest of it is, by that evidence, not worth reading.
    He is a modeler and you dismiss him for making a model that works better than the AGW crowd. That's all we have for the AGW theory is a model.

    He also flat out disproves a few things stated by the AGW crowd, yet you stick with them.

    Maybe you should go back and read how he uses the same data sets the IPCC used to show them to be wrong.
     

  63. #62  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    That's all we have for the AGW theory is a model? Ummm no. You have the decrease of outbound radiation at greenhouse gas absorption wavelengths and an increase of downward radiation at those same wavelengths. You have a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere. You have poleward movement of vector borne diseases. You have loss of glacial mass as measured by the GRACE satellite. You have the widening of the tropical Hadley Cell. You have the increasing altitude of the tropopause. You have the increasing ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the atmosphere as well as the decrease of oxygen concentration.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
     

  64. #63  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    That's all we have for the AGW theory is a model? Ummm no. You have the decrease of outbound radiation at greenhouse gas absorption wavelengths and an increase of downward radiation at those same wavelengths. You have a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere. You have poleward movement of vector borne diseases. You have loss of glacial mass as measured by the GRACE satellite. You have the widening of the tropical Hadley Cell. You have the increasing altitude of the tropopause. You have the increasing ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the atmosphere as well as the decrease of oxygen concentration.
    Good thing that. That's why the solar doing most of it wouldn't be true to me, and I don't know more then a few that didn't believe in greenhouse gas doing most of it in school.
     

  65. #64  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    He is a modeler and you dismiss him for making a model that works better than the AGW crowd.
    I don't see any model. I see a fitted curve.

    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    He also flat out disproves a few things stated by the AGW crowd, yet you stick with them.
    He makes some assertions more or less irrelevant to the ostensible findings presented in his alleged paper, invariably aligned with a certain political agenda familiar to us all.
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    That's all we have for the AGW theory is a model? Ummm no. You have the decrease of outbound radiation at greenhouse gas absorption wavelengths and an increase of downward radiation at those same wavelengths.
    That are the measures levels please.
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    You have a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere.
    maybe.

    Are we using the same design they used in the 50's, or do the better balloons shield the thermometers from some radiation the older ones didn't?
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    You have poleward movement of vector borne diseases.
    Yes, the climate's has been getting warmer. So?
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    You have loss of glacial mass as measured by the GRACE satellite.
    And why does that mean it's caused by CO2 rather than the sun?
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    You have the widening of the tropical Hadley Cell. You have the increasing altitude of the tropopause. You have the increasing ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the atmosphere as well as the decrease of oxygen concentration.
    Am I saying otherwise? How does any of this prove CO2 rather than the sun?

    As for you CO2 isotope issue, you should carefully read page 24, and what precedes it.
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    As for you CO2 isotope issue, you should carefully read page 24, and what precedes it.
    To save you some time: the argument on page 24 is that the ratio of the isotopes of C in the extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere, the concentration boost, is not the same as the ratio in fossil fuels. The conclusion is that it must be coming from somewhere else.

    Aside from the several statistical and technical issues overlooked in the various graphs etc, and ignoring the amount of text in this ostensibly academic paper spent accusing the IPCC of fraud and deception without good argument,

    aside from these technical and political signs of trouble, that is, the entire argument ignores the differential treatment of these isotopes by the many and significant carbon sinks.

    Apparently, we are supposed to believe that the IPCC account requires all anthro carbon to be released into the air and remain there, the accumulation simply the adding up of the released C in otherwise undisturbed air.

    btw: one wonders the author even bothers with such calculations, considering that the rest of the time he is arguing that the CO2 boost is not much affecting the climate anyway. But there is probably some good explanation - - - - .
     

  68. #67  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura
    To save you some time: the argument on page 24 is that the ratio of the isotopes of C in the extra CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere, the concentration boost, is not the same as the ratio in fossil fuels. The conclusion is that it must be coming from somewhere else.
    You skipped the part that those claiming the AGW theory shows a certain percentage of anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere because of these measurements. What he did was show that this part of the AGW science is wrong.
     

  69. #68  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    You skipped the part that those claiming the AGW theory shows a certain percentage of anthropogenic carbon in the atmosphere because of these measurements. What he did was show that this part of the AGW science is wrong.
    I didn't skip that part, I mocked it. Like this:
    Quote Originally Posted by me
    Apparently, we are supposed to believe that the IPCC account requires all anthro carbon to be released into the air and remain there, the accumulation simply the adding up of the released C in otherwise undisturbed air.
    And you owe me another ten minutes of my life, for reading the garbage on pages 21-24.
     

  70. #69  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

    There is a 0.93 watt increase for the 0.18% radiative increase.
    I'm not sure how you're getting your numbers. 235 watts * 0.0018 = 0.423 watt/m^2 increase. Pretty small compared to the effective increase in radiative forcing from increased Co2.
    You obviously didn't look at the graphic I supplied. When the 0.18% gets incorporated with the incoming radiation, the IR that is the source of the greenhouse effect is also increased by 0.18%. Look at the center of the graphic. I show how the 0.93 watts comes about.
    Ok back after a few days.

    The problem is that's now radiative forcing equivalent is defined. It's based on equivalent of direct input to the system, which is at the most about .4 watts from solar increased activity between about 1700 and the 1970s. The simplified linear term are approximations of the four power term over the relatively small changes, (for radiative equivalent of total planet they are about 3.7 W/ degree K). For simplicity the climatologist calculate that increased green house gases have added radiative forcing equivalent of about 2.5 watts/m^2 compared to 0.4 for solar. That's why virtually every credible source puts solar increase as a relatively minor contributer compared to green house increased forcing.

    Imagine if you will, on the simple figure you put up that instead of 235W/m^2 input, it has 234.6 W/m^2 and in parenthesis 232W/m^2. The parenthesis number would represent the lower radiative forcing equivalent of both less green house forcing and actual direct radiation. Of course in reality we're changing both the direct input and lowering the ratio between it and the 452# but it's important not to be confused by the semantics.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    That's all we have for the AGW theory is a model? Ummm no. You have the decrease of outbound radiation at greenhouse gas absorption wavelengths and an increase of downward radiation at those same wavelengths.
    That are the measures levels please.
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    You have a warming troposphere and a cooling stratosphere.
    maybe.

    Are we using the same design they used in the 50's, or do the better balloons shield the thermometers from some radiation the older ones didn't?
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    You have poleward movement of vector borne diseases.
    Yes, the climate's has been getting warmer. So?
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    You have loss of glacial mass as measured by the GRACE satellite.
    And why does that mean it's caused by CO2 rather than the sun?
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    You have the widening of the tropical Hadley Cell. You have the increasing altitude of the tropopause. You have the increasing ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the atmosphere as well as the decrease of oxygen concentration.
    Am I saying otherwise? How does any of this prove CO2 rather than the sun?

    As for you CO2 isotope issue, you should carefully read page 24, and what precedes it.
    The Suns output has actually begun to fall. It actually began to fall 40 years ago. And throughout that time temperatures have continued to get warmer. The decrease in solar radiation striking the Earth and the decreasing outbound infrared radiation being re-emitted by the surface declining at greenhouse gas absorption wavelengths should be enough for you to realize that yes, indeed CO2 is having a major effect on the temperature. On top of that there is an increase in downward radiation at infrared CO2 absorption wavelengths. This means that more energy is being trapped at those wavelengths via the greenhouse effect via increasing greenhouse gases and more of it is being redirected back towards the surface of the planet. The cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere signify that more energy is being redirected back to the surface and reabsorbed. Note that measurements of outbound and inbound radiation are not measured by balloons. This particle radiation was measured by the IRIS and IMG satellites.

    Some links:

    B. D. Santer et al., "Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes", Science 301(5632): 479-483, DOI: 10.1126/science.1084123 - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...i;301/5632/479

    John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges, "Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997", Nature 410 (15 March 2001): 355-357. - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../410355a0.html

    Kaicun Wang, Shunlin Liang, "Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008", J. Geophys. Res., 114, D19101, doi:10.1029/2009JD011800, 2009. - http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...JD011800.shtml

    William J. Randel et al., "An update of observed stratospheric temperature trends", J. Geophys. Res., 114, D02107, doi:10.1029/2008JD010421, 2009. - http://acd.ucar.edu/~randel/SPARC_revised.pdf
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    I give up.

    You guys are repeating other people's words. There is no way I can convince you if you don't understand.

    I present an article that uses the IPCC's own data, then you come up with data that talks about more than twice the forcing. How can you believe these writers of fear when they cannot even agree on numbers that are close?
     

  73. #72  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    I present an article that uses the IPCC's own data
    It doesn't matter whose data he used for those arguments - they're bs regardless. He might as well have just made up some data while he was at it.

    You let me choose among entire families of related curves, I'll fit one curve in one of them to any data set you can invent.

    And the "mass balance" overlooking of the sequestration mechanisms, on top of its various internal and statistical problems, almost looks deliberate - can he really have done that by mistake?
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Imagine if you will, on the simple figure you put up that instead of 235W/m^2 input, it has 234.6 W/m^2 and in parenthesis 232W/m^2. The parenthesis number would represent the lower radiative forcing equivalent of both less green house forcing and actual direct radiation. Of course in reality we're changing both the direct input and lowering the ratio between it and the 452# but it's important not to be confused by the semantics.
    I'm not changing the ratios. I keep them intact. Increase the input to a feedback amplifier, and the output changes too.

    I'm not sure what you are trying to say. If I read your intent right, the 234.6 is 1.1% higher irradiation from the sun than the 232. I adjusted the numbers to reflect the 235 as being 0.18% higher than the 234.58. If you note, all numbers reflect this same percentage change. Regardless of the actual surface temperature change, the numbers that make up the (original) 168 and 324 will equal the 452 + 40. The 235 input to the system will equal the 195 + 40.

    Lets look at it from this perspective. I adjusted the model numbers by 0.18% which is an accepted value of solar irradiation increase. The IPCC says there is a 0.12 watt direct radiative solar forcing effect, and the 67 - 68.88 is just that. The 0.30 watt increase to directly heating the surface does little, except put this back as an automatic 0.3 watt input to the greenhouse effect loop. How can anyone who understands how feedback work not agree that the 0.42 watt increase in solar energy is amplified by the existing greenhouse effect? How can you not say the 0.93 radiative forcing increase from just the solar change isn't real? How about the fact that solar radiation is increasing by 0.42 watts, but only said to be 0.12 watts of forcing? how did the IPCC conveniently lose 0.3 watts?

    Regardless how you want to slice the forcing numbers, there is no way the IPCC's claim of a 1.6 way increase in radiative forcing and that CO2 is 1.66 watts of it can be true when understanding how the 0.42 watt input increase adds more than double to the radiative forcing in the atmosphere. The feedback of greenhouse gasses isn't a fixed number.

    look at what has to be in play if my changes to the model are incorrect. If we assume the IPCC means a change of 0.12 watts from 234.88 to 235, then this is only a 0.05% change in solar energy. That's a ridiculously low change from the maunder Minima to present day. Even then, the total impact on the 519 number is 0.365 watts total solar forcing change. So maybe they mean the 519 was 518.88 during the Minima? That would require the solar energy only increasing by 0.023% since then.

    I hope nobody gets picky. All the above numbers are watts per square meter except the ones listed as %.
     

  75. #74  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I hope nobody gets picky. All the above numbers are watts per square meter except the ones listed as %.
    You know what, I kinda believe you.

    Look, I know for most this would appear as a long shot, but if there is any movement dependent relation other then a non changing one, between movement direction force decline and z,y - wise force decline, then we have a force z,y wise that at higher velocities only decline with r.

    That's why I believe, that particle-accelerators are causing this force on the sun and heating it up.

    Isn't there any man, woman or crackpot of any kind that believes in this?
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Lynx....

    Have a response to my last, or do you agree that a 0.18% increase of solar irradiance will cause an approximate 0.93 watt per square meter increase in radiative forcing in the atmosphere?
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    I give up.

    You guys are repeating other people's words. There is no way I can convince you if you don't understand.

    I present an article that uses the IPCC's own data, then you come up with data that talks about more than twice the forcing. How can you believe these writers of fear when they cannot even agree on numbers that are close?
    You asked what proof there was that CO2 was the cause of a changing climate and not the Sun, even though I stated why in the post you responded to. You asked the question again. Therefor I responded in much the same manner only this time with more detail. It seems as if you are ignoring what I've stated and replying with "Well you just explained the reasoning behind the belief that CO2 is causing warming but what is the reasoning that CO2 is causing warming?"

    Do you mean anthropogenic CO2 emission? Proof comes in the isotopic ratio in the atmosphere. That being the ratio between carbon-12 and carbon-13 is increasing as well as the rate at which the CO2 concentration has increased is less the rate of what global emissions are while the rest is being taken up by the oceans.
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Do you mean anthropogenic CO2 emission? Proof comes in the isotopic ratio in the atmosphere. That being the ratio between carbon-12 and carbon-13 is increasing as well as the rate at which the CO2 concentration has increased is less the rate of what global emissions are while the rest is being taken up by the oceans.
    It was shown halfway through the article why that science is flawed.

    Maybe you should have read that section. If I recall, the information started just before page 24.
     

  79. #78  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    It was shown halfway through the article why that science is flawed.
    Was not.

    Summary of one major problem with bs there in post 5 on page 5 of this thread, if anyone still cares.
     

  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
    It was shown halfway through the article why that science is flawed.
    Was not.

    Summary of one major problem with bs there in post 5 on page 5 of this thread, if anyone still cares.
    You no longer have any credibility. Especially since you cannot debate against the 0.18% solar increase causing about 0.93 watts per square meter of increased radiative forcing.
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    You are wasting your time, WC. Your posts are no longer being read.
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Do you mean anthropogenic CO2 emission? Proof comes in the isotopic ratio in the atmosphere. That being the ratio between carbon-12 and carbon-13 is increasing as well as the rate at which the CO2 concentration has increased is less the rate of what global emissions are while the rest is being taken up by the oceans.
    It was shown halfway through the article why that science is flawed.

    Maybe you should have read that section. If I recall, the information started just before page 24.
    As I am not mathematically inclined I did not really understand what exactly was being stated. If you could explain it to someone who is not mathematically inclined I'd be grateful.

    However, I did mention that that troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling. You asked if the balloons and such were the same as used previously. The paper I posted dealing with stratospheric cooling specifically states that three different data sets were used. Radiosonde data, satellite data and lidar observations. The conclusion was "Temperature changes in the lower 48 stratosphere show cooling of ~0.5 K/decade over much of the globe for 1979-2007, with 49 some differences in detail among the different radiosonde and satellite data sets."

    Another proof of a cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere is the increasing altitude of the tropopause, where I also posted a link to a peer reviewed article in the same post. A subscription is needed to read the full article though. However here is a writeup on the article: http://www.lbl.gov/cs/Archive/news090203a.html

    I also posted peer reviewed journals that study the outbound infrared radiation observed by different satellites. Notably the IMG and IRIS satellites. An update to this also includes AIRS. The update can be found here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4204.1

    Another part of that original post dealt with the increased downward radiation at greenhouse gas absorption wavelengths.

    Your way of explaining these two argument was asking me "What are the numbers" where I provided links to peer reviewed journals. Your response to this was "I'm done. You guys are just repeating things."

    Edit:

    I asked a physicist friend of mine why natural solar cycles could not explain the current warming trend and how much changes in solar irradiance could have contributed to the warming. He stated that, during the 20th century, if you use ACRIM TSI has increased 0.03% while if you use PMOD, which is likely more accurate, solar forcing has decreased 0.036% over the same period.

    ACRIM: http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%2..._obs_fig26.pdf

    Comparison from 1978 to present: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant

    He also stated that the increase in solar irradiance over the last century, an increase from about 1362 w/m^-2 to 1366w/m^-2 could only account for 0.1 - 0.2 degrees of warming

    http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfsta...additivity.pdf

    Then he goes on to state the following: "So in order to get a 0.7°C warming, you'd need around a 1.5% increase in solar irradiance, or an increase from the current level of 1366 Wm-2 to around 1386 Wm-2. At best, the increase in TSI over the past half century has been 50 times too weak to cause a 0.7°C warming."
    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" - Bertrand Russell
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    As I am not mathematically inclined I did not really understand what exactly was being stated. If you could explain it to someone who is not mathematically inclined I'd be grateful.
    Well, i didn't go through the calculations either. If you read the blog he has on the topic, you would see nobody disputes his math. All his math does is prove the assumed anthropogenic levels of CO2 are incorrect. It is impossible for their stated levels to be true.
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    However, I did mention that that troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling. You asked if the balloons and such were the same as used previously. The paper I posted dealing with stratospheric cooling specifically states that three different data sets were used. Radiosonde data, satellite data and lidar observations. The conclusion was "Temperature changes in the lower 48 stratosphere show cooling of ~0.5 K/decade over much of the globe for 1979-2007, with 49 some differences in detail among the different radiosonde and satellite data sets."
    You completely miss what I was asking. I'm not referring to the type of data, but the accuracy differences. If the casing around the measuring equipment was not identical in certain specifications, the direct and indirect measurements vary. The same with the measuring equipment. If all specifications were not identical with modern equipment vs. early equipment, the data is not compatible. There could be higher measured levels from the 40's or 50's because the older balloons and equipment packages let wavelengths of energy in that modern balloons don't. The recording equipment itself could have generated heat that flawed the reading with IR contamination.

    Again, the equipment was not identical, so don't expect the data to have the same baseline.
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Another proof of a cooling stratosphere and warming troposphere is the increasing altitude of the tropopause, where I also posted a link to a peer reviewed article in the same post. A subscription is needed to read the full article though. However here is a writeup on the article: http://www.lbl.gov/cs/Archive/news090203a.html
    As explained above, unless the equipment was identical...

    Besides, it does not prove a source for warming. These balloon records only go as far back as the point where the sun stopped increasing in intensity. I wouldn't expect them to say anything about solar changes.
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    I also posted peer reviewed journals that study the outbound infrared radiation observed by different satellites. Notably the IMG and IRIS satellites. An update to this also includes AIRS. The update can be found here: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI4204.1
    And these are only as good as far back as 1978. Right?

    Nothing about long term changes in a system that has normal long term natural cycles.
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Another part of that original post dealt with the increased downward radiation at greenhouse gas absorption wavelengths.
    Sure, as reflective atmospheric contaminates decreased by EPA regulations, that is to be expected.
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Your way of explaining these two argument was asking me "What are the numbers" where I provided links to peer reviewed journals. Your response to this was "I'm done. You guys are just repeating things."
    When you stick to one unconnected box, the results deserve to stay in a box.
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Edit:

    I asked a physicist friend of mine why natural solar cycles could not explain the current warming trend and how much changes in solar irradiance could have contributed to the warming. He stated that, during the 20th century, if you use ACRIM TSI has increased 0.03% while if you use PMOD, which is likely more accurate, solar forcing has decreased 0.036% over the same period.

    ACRIM: http://www.acrim.com/RESULTS/Earth%2..._obs_fig26.pdf

    Comparison from 1978 to present: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic.../SolarConstant

    He also stated that the increase in solar irradiance over the last century, an increase from about 1362 w/m^-2 to 1366w/m^-2 could only account for 0.1 - 0.2 degrees of warming

    http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfsta...additivity.pdf
    I will not dispute the satellite data. Nobody does. No one thing is the "end all be all." If you cannot link the various things in the article, I don't know what to say. Energy has lag. It does not immediately release. Some of it is nearly instantaneous, some of it takes 800 years or more. There was a solid increase in solar energy from about 1900 to 1950. It's been relatively flat since then. Because of the way outputs lag inputs in a system, we really don't know when the effects of solar warming stops. My best guess was that it tales 70 to 75 years. It appears I'm wrong, that it may only take about 60 to 65 years.

    I sure wish we could send satellites into the past.
    Quote Originally Posted by BumFluff
    Then he goes on to state the following: "So in order to get a 0.7°C warming, you'd need around a 1.5% increase in solar irradiance, or an increase from the current level of 1366 Wm-2 to around 1386 Wm-2. At best, the increase in TSI over the past half century has been 50 times too weak to cause a 0.7°C warming."Then he goes on to state the following: "So in order to get a 0.7°C warming, you'd need around a 1.5% increase in solar irradiance, or an increase from the current level of 1366 Wm-2 to around 1386 Wm-2. At best, the increase in TSI over the past half century has been 50 times too weak to cause a 0.7°C warming."
    He is flat out wrong there. A 1.5% increase in solar radiation would be disastrous.

    Let me ask you this:

    1) How much does the IPCC say the radiative forcing has increased?

    2) How much is the total radiative forcing?

    3) What percentage increase is this?

    If I use the simple NASA model, radiative forcing total is 519 watts. The IPCC says we have increased by 1.6 watts, with CO2 being 1.66 watts.

    1.6/519 = 0.31%

    1.66/519 = 0.32%

    My claim since the units are identical, if the sun increases by 0.18%, then so does the atmospheric radiative forcing by the sun. Since all radiative forgings of greenhouse gasses are feedbacks of the solar radiation, they to increase the same. However, their measured increase is caused by the sun. Not by them.
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    One of the things wrong with that over simplification is the atmosphere does not respond the same from solar as it does from increased green house gases for the same radiative forcing; those differences are important to the temperature response on the surface. For example we know that solar increases, all else being equal, act mostly to increase daytime temperatures on land, while over the oceans most of that energy goes to increase evaporation rather than temperature. Green house gases though act quite differently, with their increase, land temperatures increase day and night while over the ocean more of the energy goes into warming the ocean instead of into evaporation. For similar reasons there's large differences in latitudinal response. The net effect is larger surface temperature change due to green house changes compared to the same change in solar radiative forcing. Not all forcing even of equal proportions cause the same response in surface temperatures.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    One of the things wrong with that over simplification is the atmosphere does not respond the same from solar as it does from increased green house gases for the same radiative forcing; those differences are important to the temperature response on the surface.
    True, we went over that. We have a radiative to surface differential of x^.25. Then, all this differential changes the heat, and the up-going long-wave radiation, it changes by x^4.

    Bottom line is if the incoming solar radiation increases by any given number, the system will equalize for the outgoing radiation to equal that power. At this point, we have our average global temperature.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    For example we know that solar increases, all else being equal, act mostly to increase daytime temperatures on land, while over the oceans most of that energy goes to increase evaporation rather than temperature.
    Just the near instantaneous. The ocean, being around 2/3rds the area, holds energy longer. Even on the surface, the increased daytime energy stats in the greenhouse cycle at night. This point is useless in my view.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Green house gases though act quite differently, with their increase, land temperatures increase day and night while over the ocean more of the energy goes into warming the ocean instead of into evaporation.
    What is the lag time of the extra ocean heat, to when it causes more evaporation? It is latent energy that may not appear for years, decades, or centuries, depending on when in the Thermohaline circulation we see added heat.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    For similar reasons there's large differences in latitudinal response. The net effect is larger surface temperature change due to green house changes compared to the same change in solar radiative forcing. Not all forcing even of equal proportions cause the same response in surface temperatures.
    I agree, but not immediately. Changes cause equilibrium imbalance. This balance takes centuries to reestablish itself to change. that's why we still see increased heat from increased solar activity of decades past.

    When we keep the units identical, changes in heat are too... once equilibrium is established. Say what you will, but when the atmospheric window does change in size to gas content. However, when it stays the same, the energy and heat calculations are linear to delta heat input. Energy and heat are linear.
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    True, we went over that. We have a radiative to surface differential of x^.25. Then, all this differential changes the heat, and the up-going long-wave radiation, it changes by x^4....

    Bottom line is if the incoming solar radiation increases by any given number, the system will equalize for the outgoing radiation to equal that power. At this point, we have our average global temperature.
    Equalize from the top of the troposphere which is where the effective temperature level is, not near the surface where we live.

    Just the near instantaneous. The ocean, being around 2/3rds the area, holds energy longer. Even on the surface, the increased daytime energy stats in the greenhouse cycle at night. This point is useless in my view.
    Actually it's hours because water evaporates from the very thin layer ocean layer, usually referred to as "skin," which react rather quickly. A good share of that water vapor is distributed high in the troposphere by convection where it sheds heat far above the surface and falls back as precipitation in the same day. The vertical distribution of the change in energy is very different than the forcing from green house gas IR which serves mostly to warming the surface.

    It is primarily because you keep referring to the oversimplified model that doesn't get into these important details and want to claim that direct forcing and IR green house forcing are equivalent--they act very differently near the surface where the biosphere is, including the two legged animals sharing thoughts here.

    I agree, but not immediately. Changes cause equilibrium imbalance. This balance takes centuries to reestablish itself to change. that's why we still see increased heat from increased solar activity of decades past.
    I'd like to see you separate this often made claim into its own thread sometime. What bothers me is you always talk as it's some hump of extra energy that will appear sometime in the future (thus "increasing heat"), rather than what it really is, which is a long tail off of heat until we reach equilibrium. Whatever excess heat remains from the solar max 30+ years ago is either exhausted or exceedingly tiny.

    Finally even with the gross oversimplifications starting from the initial posts, and if we accept the proportional solar forcing and green house response argument you've made, there still remains the fact that even if it's as high as+ 0.9W/m^2 since the 18th century is still only a fraction of the 2+Watts of forcing added from man-produced greenhouse gases (mostly Co2 and CH4). And that relative fraction is getting larger as we continue to add green house gases to the atmosphere.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  87. #86  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Equalize from the top of the troposphere which is where the effective temperature level is, not near the surface where we live.

    Just the near instantaneous. The ocean, being around 2/3rds the area, holds energy longer. Even on the surface, the increased daytime energy stats in the greenhouse cycle at night. This point is useless in my view.
    Actually it's hours because water evaporates from the very thin layer ocean layer, usually referred to as "skin," which react rather quickly. A good share of that water vapor is distributed high in the troposphere by convection where it sheds heat far above the surface and falls back as precipitation in the same day. The vertical distribution of the change in energy is very different than the forcing from green house gas IR which serves mostly to warming the surface.
    Sorry, but a large amount of the solar radiation reaches deep enough, and near the poles, adding energy to the deeper waters. If you denier about the actual ocean dynamics, then it is pointless for me to continue.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It is primarily because you keep referring to the oversimplified model that doesn't get into these important details and want to claim that direct forcing and IR green house forcing are equivalent--they act very differently near the surface where the biosphere is, including the two legged animals sharing thoughts here.
    You know that the greenhouse effect is a feedback that amplifies the source energy, and that the sun is the energy source, right? With no change in the greenhouse effect, solar changes are linear. Simple works just fine.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    I agree, but not immediately. Changes cause equilibrium imbalance. This balance takes centuries to reestablish itself to change. that's why we still see increased heat from increased solar activity of decades past.
    I'd like to see you separate this often made claim into its own thread sometime. What bothers me is you always talk as it's some hump of extra energy that will appear sometime in the future (thus "increasing heat"), rather than what it really is, which is a long tail off of heat until we reach equilibrium. Whatever excess heat remains from the solar max 30+ years ago is either exhausted or exceedingly tiny.
    It doesn't just disappear, or do you contend it does?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Finally even with the gross oversimplifications starting from the initial posts, and if we accept the proportional solar forcing and green house response argument you've made, there still remains the fact that even if it's as high as+ 0.9W/m^2 since the 18th century is still only a fraction of the 2+Watts of forcing added from man-produced greenhouse gases (mostly Co2 and CH4). And that relative fraction is getting larger as we continue to add green house gases to the atmosphere.
    Where do you get such a number? According to the IPCC, total energy increase is 1.6 watts, I believe with a ±10%. They recently agreed that black carbon contributes 0.3 watts of that heat. Solar and soot, we are now at about 1.2 watts of the 1.6 watts.
     

  88. #87  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Sorry, but a large amount of the solar radiation reaches deep enough, and near the poles, adding energy to the deeper waters. If you denier about the actual ocean dynamics, then it is pointless for me to continue.
    Deep enough for what? I already explained that much of the energy goes into evaporation which in turn largely gets redistributed in the vertical. In another thread recently someone shows the huge amount convection over the oceans. Most of it happens during the day--an easily recognizable pattern of energy coming from daytime solar driven evaporation of the very top of the ocean.

    You're also completely wrong about polar sunlight penetration. The high incident angle means the energy is both distributed over a large area, hence low W/m^2, as well as being reflected. This is why there's virtually no thermocline at high latitudes; there's not enough sunlight penetration to create one. Of course it's still better than snow covered ice.





    Where do you get such a number? According to the IPCC, total energy increase is 1.6 watts, I believe with a ±10%. They recently agreed that black carbon contributes 0.3 watts of that heat. Solar and soot, we are now at about 1.2 watts of the 1.6 watts.
    Well you could look at their own figures I guess, I actually underestimated greenhouse radiative forcing. Your mixing up the net forcing which also includes the aerosols that block sunlight and the two primary greenhouses we've added (Co2 and CH4) and that I was referring to.

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

  89. #88  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
    Where do you get such a number? According to the IPCC, total energy increase is 1.6 watts, I believe with a ±10%. They recently agreed that black carbon contributes 0.3 watts of that heat. Solar and soot, we are now at about 1.2 watts of the 1.6 watts.
    Well you could look at their own figures I guess, I actually underestimated greenhouse radiative forcing. Your mixing up the net forcing which also includes the aerosols that block sunlight and the two primary greenhouses we've added (Co2 and CH4) and that I was referring to.

    [/quote]
    OK, somehow I missed the other greenhouse gasses part of your number. I did correctly point out the net 1.6 warming and 1.66 CO2 part.

    Please note, the IPCC's assessment of 0.12 watts for Solar is listed something like poorly understood. So are most other influences, except the gasses. Funny since it's the other factors that are more easily measured and understood.

    Sorry. I simply don't trust climatologists when they make such blatantly wrong assessments.

    Solar energy is well understood, by the geoscientists who specialize in that field. If you have ever worked with mathematical feedback circuits, like in electronics, it is understood. It is proportional. The largest part of the increases attributed to the greenhouse gasses are actually increases from the source energy. The sun, which is multiplied by the feedback loop.



    A simple model suffices for small changes in solar energy.
     

  90. #89  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    The little chart is cute.

    What's confused me about this entire thread is your insistent that you double count solar for some reason. All the radiative forcing in the chart are already adjusted so they are equivalent to whatever they would be at the "+" sign in your chart.

    Going back to solar, the only variation we're absolutely sure of is the standard 11/22 year solar cycle which as about a 0.18 Watt/m^2 range from solar max to solar min. There's only weak evidence that the Maunder Minimum was any weaker than the bottom of those cycles. Despite the difference between direct and solar, some of which I explained above, there have been a few studies that try to look at the solar cycle to determine sensitivity such as Camp and Tung (2007, 2009) http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2007/2007GL030207.shtml
    http://www.amath.washington.edu/rese.../solar-jgr.pdf

    So what do they find? About a 0.36C range due to that 0.18W/m2 forcing. A couple points to highlight.

    -First off if you read the study you'll see there's no evidence of appreciable solar lag and the evidence is rather convincing. Peak temperature signal due to solar is within the year of peak solar radiation.
    -They would share your concern and show pretty convincingly that the set of climate models used in IPCC (they have none of their own) underestimates solar radiative forcing by about 33% or so.
    -The IPCC sensitivity estimate based on the simple kind of assumptions you've made that consider IR and solar close enough to consider the same, are in the ball park. (2.3-4.1), And based on that, doubling Co2 will create a warming of about 3 degree C.
    -Given their solar temp estimate on top of the green house gas forcing exceed the normal variability it's almost certain we'll have another record temperature year as we approach the next peak of the solar cycle in 2012 or 2013.

    "The finding adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming. It also effectively rules out some lower estimates in those models." Tung

    We went around in round in thread. Time for another topic me thinks, at least for a while.

    And thanks all for keeping the discussion relatively civil.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    The little chart is cute.

    What's confused me about this entire thread is your insistent that you double count solar for some reason.
    I do no such thing. The solar energy in that simplified model is split. It doesn't show what is reflected The energy that heats the earth, radiates back out as upward energy. Greenhouse downward radiation heats the earth and returns 1:1 as upward energy.

    Where do you say I double, so I can remove the confusion. Reword what is necessary.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    All the radiative forcing in the chart are already adjusted so they are equivalent to whatever they would be at the "+" sign in your chart.
    I only grabbed a simple feedback amplifier depiction to show the energy is the source amplified. The output in this case would be the atmospheric heat. Some of that heat is redirected to the surface, adding to the direct solar heating. A more accurate similarity would be to show a full electronic amplifier depiction:



    Neither of there are a perfect example of the amplification greenhouse gasses create. In this second one, consider Rf to change as the greenhouse gasses change. Both amplifier inputs are "+" however. Consider V2 to be the solar heat returning from the surface. The ratio of R2 to Rg varies as the albedo changes. I'll assume R1 could be used to depict changes in atmospheric scatter. Where the inputs of V1 and feedback of the output through Rf add up, this depicts the upward radiation from the surface of both the solar and greenhouse gas warming combined. Vout would be the combined atmospheric heat.

    Not the best model, and there can be more inputs. For those understanding electronics, this is a way of understanding the feedback from greenhouse gasses. In the end, all values in a simplified greenhouse model have the same amplifying multiplier when all else remains the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Going back to solar, the only variation we're absolutely sure of is the standard 11/22 year solar cycle which as about a 0.18 Watt/m^2 range from solar max to solar min.
    Well, considering the solar variation is more like 1 watt over the 11 year cycle, that 0.18 watts represents just the direct atmospheric warming. Are you saying the remaining 0.82 watts vanishes into thin air?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    There's only weak evidence that the Maunder Minimum was any weaker than the bottom of those cycles.
    There are studies that shows it both more and less, and most remove the changes in background radiation. All radiation must be considered. It all either heats or reflects. You cannot ignore some energy. I find it funny how the AGW crowd continuously uses the weakest solar changes they can find. I trust Lean 2004, which indicates when you do an 11 year average to remove the short term solar cycle, you have an approximate 0.2% variation. This 11 year average is 1363.437 during the Maunder Minama to 1366.205 in 1989.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Despite the difference between direct and solar, some of which I explained above, there have been a few studies that try to look at the solar cycle to determine sensitivity such as Camp and Tung (2007, 2009) http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2007/2007GL030207.shtml
    http://www.amath.washington.edu/rese.../solar-jgr.pdf

    So what do they find? About a 0.36C range due to that 0.18W/m2 forcing. A couple points to highlight.
    How do you account for the discrepancy? A 2:1 temperature change when the IPCC uses about a 1:2? Using radiative forcing, their claim is that the total 1.6 watt increase is in the neighborhood of 0.8 watts of forcing increase.

    Who is wrong, or what isn't being said?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    -First off if you read the study you'll see there's no evidence of appreciable solar lag and the evidence is rather convincing. Peak temperature signal due to solar is within the year of peak solar radiation.
    Direct changes have direct results. Nothing new here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    -They would share your concern and show pretty convincingly that the set of climate models used in IPCC (they have none of their own) underestimates solar radiative forcing by about 33% or so.
    I agree, with that assessment of direct solar changes. What about indirect?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    -The IPCC sensitivity estimate based on the simple kind of assumptions you've made that consider IR and solar close enough to consider the same, are in the ball park. (2.3-4.1), And based on that, doubling Co2 will create a warming of about 3 degree C.
    Yes, I am aware of that assumption. I disagree because the IPCC has flawed assumption they are considering. The math at 3C/doubling means about a 0.84 C increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. That is the approximate understood warming we have. We know that black carbon is underestimated, and should be be about 0.3 watts, yet there is no evidence of another factor cooling to compensate. Same with solar. Look carefully and the IPCC, and everyone else that you cite, will say "direct solar" rather than referring to all solar influences. When you consider the indirect solar influences also, what now must be a stronger cooling factor to make their assumptions work?
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    -Given their solar temp estimate on top of the green house gas forcing exceed the normal variability it's almost certain we'll have another record temperature year as we approach the next peak of the solar cycle in 2012 or 2013.
    What?

    Peak at 2012-13? Has the sun yet started to increase, or is it still quiet? I haven't seen power figures, but it is still quiet. From The Very Latest SOHO Images:


    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    "The finding adds to the evidence that mainstream climate models are right about the likely extent of future human-generated warming. It also effectively rules out some lower estimates in those models." Tung
    Well, this last part about them saying the solar maximum... They lost my confidence. If they were solar experts, they should have known this solar quieting was coming.

    Here's a typical MDI Continum image showing activity in July 2001 (during the last peak):



    Here's a typical MDI Continum image showing activity in July 2010:



    Here's a typical MDI Continum image showing activity in July 1999 (11 years ago):



    The EIT 171 images are more revealing, but they apparently fad a sensor failure on 7/21. Here are 7/20 images:

    July 2001 (during the last peak):


    July 2010:



    July 1999 (11 years ago):

     

  92. #91  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,849
    Quote Originally Posted by cobra
    We know that black carbon is underestimated, and should be be about 0.3 watts, yet there is no evidence of another factor cooling to compensate.
    Black carbon itself, with its associated emissions - as haze and higher altitude interceptor - cools to an extent, under some circumstances.

    Whether putting a lot of soot into the air cools or warms, net, is a complicated calculation.

    CO2 amplifies any warming effect of black carbon, by trapping the infrared it emits in place of reflected light. So the recent CO2 boost is a major factor there, as it is with any solar variations.
     

  93. #92  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Just two quick comments so others don't confused.

    Well, considering the solar variation is more like 1 watt over the 11 year cycle, that 0.18 watts represents just the direct atmospheric warming. Are you saying the remaining 0.82 watts vanishes into thin air?
    30% or so reflects off and the rest is divided by 4 because we live on a rotating spheroid instead of a flat surface that always faces the sun. The solar variation striking the earth's surface is only about 0.18 W total range through a solar sunspot cycle.

    Yes, I am aware of that assumption. I disagree because the IPCC has flawed assumption they are considering.
    The important point is the study that found the solar variation signal in the temperature record got about the same sensitivity as the IPCC studies by completely different, independent and until recently unpublished means. It's just another form of support that piles on the mountain of evidence that's resulted in nearly every national and international academy of sciences, bare none, putting their weight behind the conclusions that support man made global warming. Perhaps what we need is a thread about why consensus is a critical component, though not the only part, supporting the scientific method. Without it, science does not proceed.


    We all should be tired of the denial by now.
    "By the year 2000, the increase in carbon dioxide will be close to 25 percent. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate."
    President Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
     

  94. #93  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Just two quick comments so others don't confused.

    Well, considering the solar variation is more like 1 watt over the 11 year cycle, that 0.18 watts represents just the direct atmospheric warming. Are you saying the remaining 0.82 watts vanishes into thin air?
    30% or so reflects off and the rest is divided by 4 because we live on a rotating spheroid instead of a flat surface that always faces the sun. The solar variation striking the earth's surface is only about 0.18 W total range through a solar sunspot cycle.
    OK, I agree with that aspect. Got myself mixed up a bit, assuming your 0.18 watts already accounted for that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Yes, I am aware of that assumption. I disagree because the IPCC has flawed assumption they are considering.
    The important point is the study that found the solar variation signal in the temperature record got about the same sensitivity as the IPCC studies by completely different, independent and until recently unpublished means.
    Well, I don't have access to read the study. Still, the 0.18 watts doesn't all appear immediately. I cannot quantify how much reacts slower, but there is a lag. About 30% is seen immediate, The remaining 70% is stored for short to long periods in the ocean. Without taking lag into account, this cannot be a proper comparison.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    It's just another form of support that piles on the mountain of evidence that's resulted in nearly every national and international academy of sciences, bare none, putting their weight behind the conclusions that support man made global warming. Perhaps what we need is a thread about why consensus is a critical component, though not the only part, supporting the scientific method. Without it, science does not proceed.
    I think the AGW crowd continues to find ways of disputing good science. I have very little doubt the integrity of the Lean 2004 study. I solidly believe the 0.18% increase withing a small error margin. This allows for the same 0.12 watts the IPCC calls direct solar in the report, and natural solar irradiance on the chart. This part directly not absorbed by the atmosphere is still about an extra 0.3 watts directly warming the surface. This 0.3 watts becomes upward IR, adding fuel to the greenhouse effect feedback. The greenhouse effect amplified this by about almost factor of 3, increasing the greenhouse effect by 0.81 watts. Added to the direct solar forcing of 0.12 watts, the sun is now responsible for 0.93 watts.

    Are these other studies removing the complete solar component from their greenhouse effect values?

    For the solar increase to be only 0.18 watts of radiative forcing, that is only about 1/5th or 1/6th the actual change in the 11 year cycle. Only a 0.035% increase. Our sun does vary by more than that during the 11 year cycle. By more than double. Now if they are saying that a 0.18 watt increased solar irradiance increases by 0.36 degrees, then we now have more than 0.72 of an increase, buy using solar increases alone.

    Again, you must account for all the energy. None of it disappears.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

    We all should be tired of the denial by now.
    "By the year 2000, the increase in carbon dioxide will be close to 25 percent. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate."
    President Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965.
    And the increase is more like 37%, and we see no problems. Glaciers are at the same of retreat as before CO2 levels increased. Weather still has its various cycles of a couple, three decades.

    Remember some of the storms in the 60's? I do.
     

  95. #94  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Yep glaciers haven't changed a bit.





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

  96. #95  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    I think the AGW crowd continues to find ways of disputing good science. I have very little doubt the integrity of the Lean 2004 study. I solidly believe the 0.18% increase withing a small error margin. This allows for the same 0.12 watts the IPCC calls direct solar in the report, and natural solar irradiance on the chart. This part directly not absorbed by the atmosphere is still about an extra 0.3 watts directly warming the surface. This 0.3 watts becomes upward IR, adding fuel to the greenhouse effect feedback. The greenhouse effect amplified this by about almost factor of 3, increasing the greenhouse effect by 0.81 watts. Added to the direct solar forcing of 0.12 watts, the sun is now responsible for 0.93 watts.
    With this kind of reasoning (not speaking towards the accuracy of your maths) you might as well conclude that the sun is responsible for nearly 100% of current atmospheric temperatures. This is true of course, as it provides the energy, but greenhouse gasses accounts for a very large percentage of what the earth system is actually able to maintain. That is why, with everything else being nearly equal (and the sun with a minor irradiance increase), a small change in greenhouse gasses can have such a large effect.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox
    Yep glaciers haven't changed a bit.





    I didn't say they were not retreating. Read my words again.

    Have any information of retreat since the 1600's?

    I didn't think so.
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I think the AGW crowd continues to find ways of disputing good science. I have very little doubt the integrity of the Lean 2004 study. I solidly believe the 0.18% increase withing a small error margin. This allows for the same 0.12 watts the IPCC calls direct solar in the report, and natural solar irradiance on the chart. This part directly not absorbed by the atmosphere is still about an extra 0.3 watts directly warming the surface. This 0.3 watts becomes upward IR, adding fuel to the greenhouse effect feedback. The greenhouse effect amplified this by about almost factor of 3, increasing the greenhouse effect by 0.81 watts. Added to the direct solar forcing of 0.12 watts, the sun is now responsible for 0.93 watts.
    With this kind of reasoning (not speaking towards the accuracy of your maths) you might as well conclude that the sun is responsible for nearly 100% of current atmospheric temperatures. This is true of course, as it provide the energy, but greenhouse gasses accounts for a very large percentage of what the earth system is actually able to maintain. That is why, with everything else being nearly equal (and the sun with a minor irradiance increase), a small change in greenhouse gasses can have such a large effect.
    The sun is the source for all temperature except those caused by tidal forces and nuclear decay, which is really small. the greenhouse effect is a feedback system which amplifies the effect of the sun. Any increases in solar energy also get amplified. My 0.93 watts is solidly based on a 0.18% increase in solar radiation. Until the AGW crowd recognizes the actual impact the sun has, what sense is there to listen to them?
     

  99. #98  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    With this kind of reasoning (not speaking towards the accuracy of your maths) you might as well conclude that the sun is responsible for nearly 100% of current atmospheric temperatures. This is true of course, as it provides the energy, but greenhouse gasses accounts for a very large percentage of what the earth system is actually able to maintain. That is why, with everything else being nearly equal (and the sun with a minor irradiance increase), a small change in greenhouse gasses can have such a large effect.
    The problem WC seems hopeless confused about what is radiative forcing.

    The convention is to list it as equivalent to direct forcing hence why IPPC, nor others, don't apply a multiple to solar forcing changes.

    If the convention were to make it the equivalent to the forcing required to account the respective temperature changes, then he could double or triple his direct forcing number but than we'd be discussion Co2 forcing of +3-5 watt/m^2 increase instead of 1.66 W/m^2. A simple bit of checking Stephan Bolz equation would confirm this. Either way, the increased green house forcing since the 19th century turns out to be much higher than solar forcing changes. Also if the Co2 makes the climate more sensitive to solar forcing changes the difference between the increased feedback and the base number is attributed to the greenhouse gas increase.
    --

    And yes WC, we have studies that go further back, (your statement all that clear which is why I went shorter) one of 169 glaciers is posted below. (see Oerlemans, J., 2005, "Extracting a climate signal from 169 glacier records"). Notice trends are pretty flat even as we pull out of the Maunder minimum (~1750). We dont' even notice the drop off associated with the Dalton minimum (~1780-1830) but retreat starts again rather coincidently with the increase of green house gases toward the end of the 19th century and the downward slope is increasing. It, like just about every other proxy and direct temperature measures show that while solar forcing was probably the dominant term a few centuries ago, it's now eclipsed by a much stronger signal. Since the 70's with the slow reduction of solar forcing but continued temperature increase, it's become all but irrefutable, which is why the early scientist warnings by Revelle, Keeling etc echoed by President Johnson so many years ago are now confirmed and echoed by every national science agency bar none.

    I'm out of this unwieldy thread (unless it needs mod action)



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

  100. #99  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    I see a curve on most, which can be expected. Most are already declining at the end of the Maunder Minima, before industrialization.

    Tell me when know historical high watermarks are exceeded. Then I may take notice.
     

  101. #100  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    The sun is the source for all temperature except those caused by tidal forces and nuclear decay, which is really small. the greenhouse effect is a feedback system which amplifies the effect of the sun. Any increases in solar energy also get amplified.
    Agreed.

    My point, the one Lynx_Fox highlighted properly, is that while the solar output might account for some of the increase, a large part of the reason it can do that is because of the increased anthropogenic greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. When you add in the extra radiative forcing due to the extra greenhouse gasses when using a base solar irradiance number, the rest of of the warming is explained. The sun does provide the energy and has been providing a slightly increased amount, but it is the increased green house gasses in the atmosphere due to human activities that is keeping it trapped for longer and so accounts for the majority of the increased energy content of the atmosphere.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
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
  •