Science Not Settled

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

 

Yawn.

 

That's to your response Willie.

 

Can you explain in your own words what RE and GWP actually are vs. what they imply?

 

If not, don't expect more from me than getting bored with the parroting of dogma.

 

This is a discussion forum Wild Cobra - not your blog. Willie71 gave a reasoned and lengthy response to some of your points - to dismiss them as unworthy of your attention is not within the spirit of our forum.

 

Either start discussing (as opposed to soap-boxing) or we will close thread.

 

Do NOT respond to this moderation within the thread

 

[Wild Cobra]

I am unaware of models failing, unless you are reporting the skeptical stance that any prediction that is not 100% accurate is a failure. Predictions are probabilities, and as new information becomes available, the predictive ability improves.

 

If a 95% of the models fail after a few years to predict occurrences, then how can the certainty be 95%?

 

 

No faith. There ia a peer review process, that while not perfect, is a process to look at methodology, data used, and quality of the discussion/conclusion. Anyone who equates fait with the peer review process is unaware of the definition of either or both of those terms.

 

The peer review process is far from perfect, especially when it is a closed review process. All the journals from the AGW side are for profit journals. They appeal to what they think their subscribers want to pay for. Ever read their selection criteria?

 

 

CO2 is not the largest climate driver. The sun is, of course.

 

 

I think you misspoke there, because then you would be agreeing with me, that the sun is responsible for most the changes we have observed.

 

 

 

But the sun's changes are not responsible for the rapid changes we are seeing now. CO2 is responsible for changes in single digits, where the different temperature between the planets in the solar system are evidence of the sun's influence. Look at Mars or Venus, compared to earth. That is not the magnitude of the differences that are seen.

 

 

 

No, the sun is responsible for the earth's average increase in temperature, but the thermal inertia of the oceans makes this a process taking several decades to equalize. My estimate is around 55 years. I will say the sun is the primary source, but the other factors modulate the heat. Some more than others. Some negative and some positive. Some faster, some slower.

 

 

have read many of the papers included in the IPCC reports, and ther only way these are not valid is if a skeptic tries to poke holes in minor details to create doubt. The claims of corruption, climategate, a worldwide conspiracy to increase taxes etc, are talking head nonsense. I have been reviewing mental health journals for 20+ years as part of my job, and I can tell quite quickly whether something is well done, or has an agenda. That skill translates to looking at the structure of other papers (yes I am univerity trained in the multiple research designs, what they can and cannot answer, and how specific/general the study is intended to be) are relevant in all science fields. I have not seen a single skeptic paper with sound design or conclusion in the 10 years I have been following this topic. I have seen a few peer reviewed papers that weren't the best, but even the worst of these exceed the methodology and conclusions of the skeptic papers.

 

Try to poke holes? I have poked holes in the material. It is laced with errors of omission. It is laced with weasel words, and are ignored by people who are content in their confirmation bias.

 

One thing everyone should understand if they are going to debate this topic is what RE and GWP actually look like. What they actually mean. Not what they imply, but I haven't met one person buying into the consensus that acknowledges they understand this simple part of the science.

 

 

The IPCC reports show several principles, what history has shown, what trends are probable, what trends are possible, and makes hypothesis of what is most likely. Predicting tippiong points is difficult in a dynamic system, so we have to look at possibilities and probabilities. Whether the surface temperature changes at the low end of the possible rate compared to previous predictions compared to possible other ranges does not dismiss the fact that the earth temperature is changing. As we learn how the earth absorbs heat through the atmosphere, the oceans, and the land mass, we will continually improve the predictive ability.,

 

 

Yes. Possible, likely, but I disagree with probable.

 

The use weasel words and ignore important factors in their writings to justify probable.

 

Yes, the surface is changing, but the IPCC and likes completely dismiss the indirect impact of the solar changes. They include the indirect heat added into the greenhouse gasses.

 

There is a minimum standard. Its possible that work outside of this standard might have some truth or good insight to it, so if it does, the peer review process will tease that out. Not going through that process makes one suspicious, immediately. If the researcher chooses not to publish in respected journals, there is a reason. Real science means peer review, repeatability, being open to all data. Have any of the "real scientists" denied that the rate of atmospheric warming is on the low end of the predictions over the past 10 years? That's what the data says. Scientists ask why, and look for answers to that question.

 

Being open to all data...

 

Yes. How many of your beloved authors do that?

 

Have they denied the rate is on the low end? No. They have however scurried with excuses for it and the most laughable to me is assigning thermal lag to the CO2 effect. CO2 only warms the skin of the ocean, it doesn't go the depths that shortwave energy does. For years I have argued solar energy lag from the thermal inertia of the ocean, but everyone laughed at me. Now that CO2 needs support in its claimed prominent mode, you guys don't laugh at the thermal inertia any more.

 

Why is that? It looks like you are simply appealing to authority, than common sense.

 

Not only have temperatures been on the low end of the predictions, but most models have been broken by them. How can the claim be anything but laughable that a doubling of CO2 can cause 4.5 degrees or more of warming... the high end of modeling... when CO2 stays in the low end?

 

Shouldn't this be revised lower?

Edited November 5, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

After some discussion, staff have decided that it would be unfair to close a thread because someone else has taken it upon themselves to derail it. Wild Cobra, this means that any post you make in this thread that is preachy or in other ways off topic will be immediately trashed and you will risk your account being suspended.

[Willie71]

 

If a 95% of the models fail after a few years to predict occurrences, then how can the certainty be 95%?

 

 

 

The peer review process is far from perfect, especially when it is a closed review process. All the journals from the AGW side are for profit journals. They appeal to what they think their subscribers want to pay for. Ever read their selection criteria?

 

 

 

I think you misspoke there, because then you would be agreeing with me, that the sun is responsible for most the changes we have observed.

 

 

 

No, the sun is responsible for the earth's average increase in temperature, but the thermal inertia of the oceans makes this a process taking several decades to equalize. My estimate is around 55 years. I will say the sun is the primary source, but the other factors modulate the heat. Some more than others. Some negative and some positive. Some faster, some slower.

 

 

 

Try to poke holes? I have poked holes in the material. It is laced with errors of omission. It is laced with weasel words, and are ignored by people who are content in their confirmation bias.

 

One thing everyone should understand if they are going to debate this topic is what RE and GWP actually look like. What they actually mean. Not what they imply, but I haven't met one person buying into the consensus that acknowledges they understand this simple part of the science.

 

 

 

Yes. Possible, likely, but I disagree with probable.

 

The use weasel words and ignore important factors in their writings to justify probable.

 

Yes, the surface is changing, but the IPCC and likes completely dismiss the indirect impact of the solar changes. They include the indirect heat added into the greenhouse gasses.

 

 

Being open to all data...

 

Yes. How many of your beloved authors do that?

 

Have they denied the rate is on the low end? No. They have however scurried with excuses for it and the most laughable to me is assigning thermal lag to the CO2 effect. CO2 only warms the skin of the ocean, it doesn't go the depths that shortwave energy does. For years I have argued solar energy lag from the thermal inertia of the ocean, but everyone laughed at me. Now that CO2 needs support in its claimed prominent mode, you guys don't laugh at the thermal inertia any more.

 

Why is that? It looks like you are simply appealing to authority, than common sense.

 

Not only have temperatures been on the low end of the predictions, but most models have been broken by them. How can the claim be anything but laughable that a doubling of CO2 can cause 4.5 degrees or more of warming... the high end of modeling... when CO2 stays in the low end?

 

Shouldn't this be revised lower?

 

The IPCC reports show a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, with three being most probable. The last papers I read that showed warming in the past century being about 1 degree, claim that this proves the modelling is wrong. What they are ignoring is the probability of tipping points, which are quite likely based on available data. No doubt the rate of warming was slower than it could be if certain tipping points happen.

 

I don't appeal to common sense at all. Knowing the shortcomings of perception, and cognition, "common sense" simply means that you believe that other people should think like you, or they are irrational. Its also typically used when someone doesn't have evidence for their position, and use it as emphasis to sound more authoritarian.

 

Common Sense:

unfortunately, there simply isn't a common-sense answer for many questions. In politics, for example, there are a lot of issues where people disagree. Each side thinks that their answer is common sense. Clearly, some of these people are wrong.

The reason they are wrong is because common sense depends on the context, knowledge and experience of the observer. That is why instruction manuals will often have paragraphs like these:

When boating, use common sense. Have one life preserver for each person in the boat.

When towing a water skier, use common sense. Have one person watching the skier at all times.

If the ideas are so obvious, then why the second sentence ? Why do they have to spell it out ? The answer is that "use common sense" actually meant "pay attention, I am about to tell you something that inexperienced people often get wrong."

Science has discovered a lot of situations which are far more unfamiliar than water skiing. Not surprisingly, beginners find that much of it violates their common sense. For example, many people can't imagine how a mountain range would form. But in fact anyone can take good GPS equipment to the Himalayas, and measure for themselves that those mountains are rising today.

If a speaker tells an audience that he supports using common sense, it is very possibly an

Ambiguous Assertion

.

[Wild Cobra]

 

The IPCC reports show a range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, with three being most probable. The last papers I read that showed warming in the past century being about 1 degree, claim that this proves the modelling is wrong. What they are ignoring is the probability of tipping points, which are quite likely based on available data. No doubt the rate of warming was slower than it could be if certain tipping points happen.

 

Yes, they do, and the way the put together the various contributors to forcing, they have CO2 at about 100% of the forcing value, with others cancelling each other out.

 

I am uncertain, but I can agree that CO2 may have the approximate 3.7 W/m^2 claimed. However, it's full force is on land and the ocean effectively absorb the longwave, heat the skin, and reemit is in short order. Plus, I have ever seen them account for the reduces solar from the extra CO2 blocking the longwave portion in the upper atmosphere. I believe its around the 2 micron spectral range. CO2 does warm the surface by redirecting longwave to the surface, but also redirects solar longwave away from the earth at the top of the atmosphere. Reducing the solar component reduces the source heat for the greenhouse effect. Some scientists have calculated that CO2 actually cools because of this.

 

The 1.5 to 4.5 is not realistic. They simply do not account for the factors that are negative feedback properly. Back to the high end of 4.5 degrees. This is based on CO2 being 3.7 W/m^2 and H2O feedback. Consider if the 3.7 with blackbody formulas and this nets you a sensitivity of 0.68 degrees with no feedback. 0.3 degrees for the AR4 assessment of a 36.3% increase in CO2. The feedback is highly controversial. The ocean skin heating from added CO2 will yield some added warming, and in extra precipitation and latent heat, and is very small. There can be some H2O feedback, but not this extra 0.8 to 3.8 degrees. Go over the 1:1 threshold, and H2O is past a trip point itself, with no need of help. There is no tripping point for H2O feedback to solar changes, and the sun warms the oceans far deeper than CO2. Does it make sense that H2O feedback can exceed the H2O without going into runaway mode? This tells me that this extra evaporation which causes the extra absolute humidity has it's own regulating mode. We see that in more clouds, increasing the earth albedo. Higher albedo means less solar heating for the input to the greenhouse gas feedback.

 

All the conditions have to violate how they naturally respond to get these hogh CO2 sensitivity values claimed, or be best case 100% of the time, which of course, never happens.

 

 

I don't appeal to common sense at all. Knowing the shortcomings of perception, and cognition, "common sense" simply means that you believe that other people should think like you, or they are irrational. Its also typically used when someone doesn't have evidence for their position, and use it as emphasis to sound more authoritarian.

I believe if people understand the science, their common sense leads them to near the same conclusions I have. I have not yet come across anyone on the various forums I visited over the years that actually understand the basic of these climate sciences. This lack of proper understanding allows for the IPCC and likes to imply results that are not true.

 

It is absolutely clear, to anyone crunching the numbers, that the IPCC et al. do not include the indirect forcing cause by solar variations, in their solar radiative forcing results. In the AR4, they used a 0.12 W/m^2 value for solar flux since 1750 and I believe they reduced it to 0.06 in the AR5. These are the direct changes they can justify as a low increase, and it does not account for the extra greenhouse effect caused by the extra source heat to the greenhouse effect. It also does not account for the extra latent heat, or extra ocean warning. Using averaged year data instead of cycle average also skew the facts needed to account for equalized states. The six year span on the AR4 to AR5 places the solar about a half cycle off from each other. The solar start should also be 1713, not 1750, because of thermal inertial. Just like the greenhouse effect takes the incoming solar and holds more heat, the total greenhouse effect needs to be increased linearly with the incoming solar change as indirect solar heating. For every 0.1% increase in the suns output, the greenhouse effect should increase by close to that. A greenhouse effect, if stated to be 324 W/m^2, becomes 324.3 for a 0.1% increase. This puts the suns effect of indirect warming at 0.3 W/m^2 per 0.1% increase, and with an approximate increase of 0.2% to 1980 and thermal inertia, we can see an approximate 0.6 W/m^2 indirect solar warning hiding in the greenhouse gas warming.

 

Read carefully how the IPCC specifies "direct" solar changes in their calculations. They never lie about it, but they effectively lie by omission.

 

I have repeatedly tried to show simple facts behind misleading metrics the IPCC et al. used like RE (radiative forcing) and GWP (global warning potential.) I assume you have read what I said in the past about these. Can you say I'm wrong about what they truly indicate?

 

Hint. You cannot, because I am not wrong.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[Willie71]

 

There is no tripping point for H2O feedback to solar changes, and the sun warms the oceans far deeper than CO2. Does it make sense that H2O feedback can exceed the H2O without going into runaway mode? This tells me that this extra evaporation which causes the extra absolute humidity has it's own regulating mode. We see that in more clouds, increasing the earth albedo. Higher albedo means less solar heating for the input to the greenhouse gas feedback.

 

 

 

I hope this is a typo. CO2 doesn't warm anything. CO2 affects what happens to the energy from the sun. If this isn't a typo, then.......

[Wild Cobra]

 

I hope this is a typo. CO2 doesn't warm anything. CO2 affects what happens to the energy from the sun. If this isn't a typo, then.......

 

OK, it acts somewhat like an insulator.

 

Indirectly, the CO2 does change the heat of the immediate surface of the ocean by changing the transfer of energy.

[Essay]

 

I have repeatedly tried to show simple facts behind misleading metrics the IPCC et al. used like RE (radiative forcing) and GWP (global warning potential.) I assume you have read what I said in the past about these. Can you say I'm wrong about what they truly indicate?

 

Hint. You cannot, because I am not wrong.

 

Just a minor technicality (or typo?) from the previous page as I catch up, but you're abbreviation "RE" for "radiative forcing" is normally used for "radiative efficiency" (in Watts per sq. meter per ppb) of a greenhouse gas. Radiative Forcing (RF) is in Watts per sq. meter.

~

[Wild Cobra]

 

Just a minor technicality (or typo?) from the previous page as I catch up, but you're abbreviation "RE" for "radiative forcing" is normally used for "radiative efficiency" (in Watts per sq. meter per ppb) of a greenhouse gas. Radiative Forcing (RF) is in Watts per sq. meter.

~

 

Yes, a typo. I did mean radiative efficiency.

 

If you think I’m wrong, can you explain how?

[overtone]

All the journals from the AGW side are for profit journals

That is not true. All the legitimate journals in the field or related to the field are "from the AGW side", and many of them are non-profit.

 

 

 

 

No, the sun is responsible for the earth's average increase in temperature, but the thermal inertia of the oceans makes this a process taking several decades to equalize.

The data contradict that hypothesis - for starters, a thermal body such as the ocean cannot heat the air to a higher temperature than it is, which creates some mechanistic problems squaring the air temperature variability and rising extremes with oceanic damping. Additionally, we have the most global warming signs at high latitudes, at night, and during the winter, where the sun's variations have the least effect and the CO2 greenhouse has the most effect. And of course there's always the numbers - the solar flux variability has been measured and found wanting as the primary driver of the century-long rapid warming trend.

 

This is interesting:

 

 

However, it's full force is on land and the ocean effectively absorb the longwave, heat the skin, and reemit is in short order - - -

- - - - -

- - - CO2 does warm the surface by redirecting longwave to the surface, but also redirects solar longwave away from the earth at the top of the atmosphere. Reducing the solar component reduces the source heat for the greenhouse effect. Some scientists have calculated that CO2 actually cools because of this.

 

I think this indicates a core misunderstanding behind this poster's befuddlement. I think it shows that he is imagining the sun's heating to be a result of its infrared flux, and the claimed greenhouse effect to be a result of the solar longwave flux or its reflection being absorbed by CO2.

 

He simply does not know what the greenhouse mechanism is. I wonder how widespread that is among denialists.

Edited November 7, 2014 by overtone

[Wild Cobra]

I think it shows we have a communications breakdown.

 

Not all the energy is reemitted. Some of the IR does heat the surface of the water.

 

There will be that 4th power function where the water does respond to changes in downward IR and change temperture and reemit IR.

 

As for the sun, I am refering to the shortwave that gets absorbed deeper than thre longwave.

 

Yes, CO2 forcing has a higher change in flux when there is less H2O to compete with, but don't forget the soot on ice in the arctic.

[Essay]

Not all the energy is reemitted. Some of the IR does heat the surface of the water.

 

So for instance, do you mean the incoming solar IR, or the "outgoing" IR that gets trapped in the greenhouse?

~

Edited November 8, 2014 by Essay

[Wild Cobra]

 

So for instance, do mean the incoming solar IR, or the "outgoing" IR that gets trapped in the greenhouse?

~

 

I was speaking in terms of the IR from greenhouse gasses and shortwave from the sun, for the effect on the oceans.

 

The longwave of the sun that is absorbed, is mostly done so in the upper most atmosphere, and a different spectral band. I believe just under 2 microns, but I would have to look it up again. The more greenhouse gasses we have, reduces the suns longwave to the troposphere, so it is an effect that acts opposite of tropospheric greenhouse gasses. It is just one factor that naturally helps to mitigate greenhouse gas warming.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[Essay]

 

I was speaking in terms of the IR from greenhouse gasses and shortwave from the sun, for the effect on the oceans.

 

The longwave of the sun that is absorbed, is mostly done so in the upper most atmosphere, and a different spectral band. I believe just under 2 microns, but I would have to look it up again. The more greenhouse gasses we have, reduces the suns longwave to the troposphere, so it is an effect that acts opposite of tropospheric greenhouse gasses. It is just one factor that naturally helps to mitigate greenhouse gas warming.

...yes the incoming solar IR is very short, compared to the outgoing IR.

===

 

It is my understanding that (averaged over the day/night & year) about two thirds of our heating comes from the "tropospheric greenhouse gasses" and that the other third comes directly from the sun.

 

So whatever 'blocking' of "the suns longwave to the troposphere" that occurs would be about one-half as significant as the increased tropospheric greenhouse effect, wouldn't you agree?

 

And this is already accounted for in the models, I'm fairly certain; or are you saying that this effect, which "naturally helps to mitigate greenhouse gas warming," is some newly discovered, unaccounted-for effect, which changes everything?

~

 

p.s. Can you summarize that 20 second (or 20 minute) video, or any main point you want to highlight, since not everyone can easily watch videos. Thanks.

Edited November 8, 2014 by Essay

[iNow]

p.s. Can you summarize that 20 second (or 20 minute) video, or any main point you want to highlight, since not everyone can easily watch videos. Thanks.

It's his current signature and is obnoxious as hell for those of us trying to scroll through the thread on a mobile device where it needs to load for every single post he's submitted on a single page.

 

It's a clip from a movie where it's being argued that scientists think they're right merely because they have advanced degrees, that they don't actually have any data to back up their position, and then when laypeople make clearly wrong nonsensical claims those same scientists don't rebut them factually, but instead claim others are wrong just because they said so and are scientists that clearly know better and no other reasons are needed to demonstrate the claim to be false.

 

It's really rather stupid, and even misspells the word "Explanation" in the video title.

[CharonY]

Actually it is also misspelled in the title above the video (though I should not complain about misspelling). However, there is an option to ignore signatures. I am not sure whether it works on mobile devices, though.

[Wild Cobra]

...yes the incoming solar IR is very short, compared to the outgoing IR.

===

 

It is my understanding that (averaged over the day/night & year) about two thirds of our heating comes from the "tropospheric greenhouse gasses" and that the other third comes directly from the sun.

 

I disagree with that. I believe it's more like <25% greenhouse gasses, >50% solar, and a large portion from soot on ice, melting the northern ice. Of course there are other facters, and I believe the H2O feedback is from solar, not CO2.

 

 

So whatever 'blocking' of "the suns longwave to the troposphere" that occurs would be about one-half as significant as the increased tropospheric greenhouse effect, wouldn't you agree?

 

Hard to say. I will not dispute that assessment as I never tried to quantify it. Since CO2 is a well mixed gas into the upper atmosphere, and H2O is not, there is no saturation of H2O spectral lines to limit CO2's potential. The effect of that approximate 2 micron band is a very small percenatge of the solar power, so I think the effect would be small, but it may be significant. CO2 is capable of blocking a far greater level of power of upward longwave from the surface than the downward longwave of the sun, but much of the CO2 band is already saturated by H2O.

 

 

And this is already accounted for in the models, I'm fairly certain; or are you saying that this effect, which "naturally helps to mitigate greenhouse gas warming," is some newly discovered, unaccounted-for effect, which changes everything?

 

I'm only saying that it is a reduction of energy making it to the surface, which when reemitted up to feed the greenhouse effect, is reduced. It is a negative feedback for CO2. To what significance it plays, I don't know.

 

 

 

p.s. Can you summarize that 20 second (or 20 minute) video, or any main point you want to highlight, since not everyone can easily watch videos. Thanks.

 

You mean the one in my signature?

 

It is a clip taken from Wiseguy season 2 episode 9. Ron Silver speaks of the arrogance of NASA and people with degrees. Silver play a role of David Sternberg in this arc.

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0749525/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

 

Episode date 1/18/89.

Actually it is also misspelled in the title above the video (though I should not complain about misspelling). However, there is an option to ignore signatures. I am not sure whether it works on mobile devices, though.

 

I thought just the link would appear, I didn't know it would automatically display the YOUTUBE.

[Essay]

 

I believe it's more like <25% greenhouse gasses, >50% solar, and a large portion from soot on ice, melting the northern ice.

 

"So whatever 'blocking' of "the suns longwave to the troposphere" that occurs would be about one-half as significant as the increased tropospheric greenhouse effect, wouldn't you agree?" -Essay

 

Hard to say. I will not dispute that assessment as I never tried to quantify it.

 

And yet you seem to be quantifying it with solid numbers immediately above. Maybe we have different definitions for "our heating," and where it comes from. "...from soot on ice?"

 

I'm talking about the 'sensible' heat, shown below as the two arrows penetrating into the surface of the planet (168 on left, 324 on right), hence the 1/3 and 2/3 comment about where "our heating" comes from.

 

*probably an out-of-date image, but from a .edu site, so it should be roughly good enough.

 

But soot?

How do you think soot contributes to our experience of slightly warmer nighttime temperatures?

 

~

 

p.s. By "our heating," I mean our climate's air temperature, as reported by weather stations, rather than some calculation of the total absorbed energy in Joules for the entire biogeosphere.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Essay

[iNow]

Soot is dark and so absorbs more radiation, but that also cannot account for either the pace or the intensity of the warming trend.

[Wild Cobra]

Soot is dark and so absorbs more radiation, but that also cannot account for either the pace or the intensity of the warming trend.

It's atmospheric warming in minimal, but on glacier and arctic ice, it causes the ice to absorb multiples more energy from the sun and atmosphere. Without soot, we wouldn’t see the ice caps melting at the rate they do, and this absorbed energy is a net increase to the earth as less is reflected outward.

 

And yet you seem to be quantifying it with solid numbers immediately above. Maybe we have different definitions for "our heating," and where it comes from. "...from soot on ice?"

 

Yes, I assumed you meant the forcing change from 1750 to 2005/2011 (AR4/AR5). Soot on ice, is primarily ocean warming and ice melt. The IPCC AR4 claims 1.66 W/m^2 for CO2 and only 0.12 W/m^2 for solar.

 

 

I'm talking about the 'sensible' heat, shown below as the two arrows penetrating into the surface of the planet (168 on left, 324 on right), hence the 1/3 and 2/3 comment about where "our heating" comes from.

 

*probably an out-of-date image, but from a .edu site, so it should be roughly good enough.

 

 

Here is the paper that comes from:

 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf

 

OK, I don't know how accurate those are. If you ever read KT '97 and other similar works, they describe their problems with the numbers adding up and adjusting them. For the purpose of the graph, that's fine. They also use emissivity = 1 for some of those calculation.

 

I don't have a problem with the graph, and contend that CO2 total downward forcing is using the IPCC numbers on a log graph puts the total CO2 forcing at 30.26 W/m^2 for 1750 at 278 ppm, 31.92 W/m^2 for 2005 at 379 ppm, and 32.08 W/m^2 for 2011 390.48 ppm. Of course the numbers are slightly higher on new graphs, if my memory is correct, the 390 is now at 396.

 

Anyway, the CO2 values come from the 324 W/mm^2 back radiation. The 2005 levels - the 1750 levels yield 31.92 - 30.26 = 1.66 W/m^2 as indicated in the AR4 for forcing change. Now is you consider the approximate 32 W/m^2 of CO2 forcing from the 324, it is under 10% of the greenhouse effect. Now if you use Hansen’s formula, you get 22.18, 23.89, and 24.06 W/m^2 for the 1750, 2005, and 2011 CO2 forcing value. Far less than 10% of the greenhouse effect.

 

I have taken years back, another graph that is simplified from that, and edited it with what the numbers would be for 1750, showing that though, as claimed in the AR4, the direct solar change is 0.12 W/m^2, but the indirect forcing is far greater.

 

The 390 and 324 don't just come out of thin air. They are the effect of the atmosphere and greenhouse gasses, acting as a feedback. Though changing the ppmv of a greenhouse gas induces a logarithmic response, that is to the feedback effect. Changing the solar intensity, as a source to this feedback, gives you a near linear change in response.

 

 

 

 

p.s. By "our heating," I mean our climate's air temperature, as reported by weather stations, rather than some calculation of the total absorbed energy in Joules for the entire biogeosphere.

 

OK.

 

I have a serious problem with the musical chairs of the climate stations and accuracy over the years.

 

Do we have any that have not been influence by land changes around them?

[Essay]

Here is the paper that comes from:

 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf

 

OK, I don't know how accurate those are. If you ever read KT '97 and other similar works, they describe their problems with the numbers adding up and adjusting them. For the purpose of the graph, that's fine. They also use emissivity = 1 for some of those calculation.

 

I don't have a problem with the graph, and contend that CO2 total downward forcing is using the IPCC numbers on a log graph ....

 

 

OK.

 

I have a serious problem with the musical chairs of the climate stations and accuracy over the years.

 

Do we have any that have not been influence by land changes around them?

...not familiar with KT97, nor the 1989 Wiseguys reference to science, but:

 

Whatever the details are for the energy balance, or whatever biases might exist in our news reports about the weather, both of our images show that about two thirds of our heating comes from the atmosphere as "back radiation," while only about one third comes directly from the sun.

 

This might seem like a more reasonable claim when you consider that this 'averages in' the nighttime temperatures also. Think about how cold we'd get at night without an atmosphere, and you can more easily see how that 2/3 figure is arrived at.

~

[Wild Cobra]

...not familiar with KT97, nor the 1989 Wiseguys reference to science, but:

 

Well first off, KT '97 is short for those who have researched the climate sciences. It ranks among the most popular papers, and is the one I linked. Here it is again:

 

Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget

J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth

National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado:

 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf

 

The graph is on page 206 (PDF page 10).

 

The Wiseguy video was just a fun little thing.

 

 

Whatever the details are for the energy balance, or whatever biases might exist in our news reports about the weather, both of our images show that about two thirds of our heating comes from the atmosphere as "back radiation," while only about one third comes directly from the sun.

 

 

Yes, but if you notice, the only energy driving the 2/3rds is the surface heat of the earth and direct heating of the sun. . It starts as the incoming solar component. Any change in the solar component affects all those numbers in the 2/3rds component by about the same percentage. It is nearly linear. Increase the solar numbers by 0.2%, increase all numbers by 0.2%. Makes a pretty large impact with those greenhouse effect multipliers.

 

 

This might seem like a more reasonable claim when you consider that this 'averages in' the nighttime temperatures also. Think about how cold we'd get at night without an atmosphere, and you can more easily see how that 2/3 figure is arrived at.

~

 

I understand how the day/night temperatures are less severe with the greenhouse effect. I will guess most here do not however.

[Essay]

 

Well first off, KT '97 is short for those who have researched the climate sciences. It ranks among the most popular papers, and is the one I linked. Here it is again:

 

Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget

J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth

National Center for Atmospheric Research,* Boulder, Colorado:

 

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf

 

....

 

Yes, but if you notice, the only energy driving the 2/3rds is the surface heat of the earth and direct heating of the sun. . It starts as the incoming solar component. Any change in the solar component affects all those numbers in the 2/3rds component by about the same percentage. It is nearly linear. Increase the solar numbers by 0.2%, increase all numbers by 0.2%. Makes a pretty large impact with those greenhouse effect multipliers.

 

...

 

I understand how the day/night temperatures are less severe with the greenhouse effect. I will guess most here do not however.

...in what blogger community? [re: "KT '97 is short for those who have researched the climate sciences." -WC]

I can't figure out why KT '97 brings up nothing meaningful on google.

Oh! When I added the word climate" to my search, then some denialist links [i assume: science of doom.com? & "national academies ...non-greenhouse effect"?] appeared as search results. I guess we can tell which blogger community you've "researched the climate sciences" in, eh?

===

 

I highly respect Dr. Trenberth and his work in the field, as well as his willingness to work at conveying his conclusions to the public. I think he is still working up here at CSU, where Kevin has been a 'visiting professor on loan from NCAR' for more than a few years, iirc. I googled his name + CSU, and found this link:

http://www.ext.colostate.edu/energy/110510.html

...from 2011.

 

"Crazy Weather and Climate: Do Dots Connect?"

 

To the interview question "At what point would you be concerned about the freak weather signaling something truly deleterious about our climate?"

Trenberth replies: "I already am." He says a lot more too, but that is very clear. [It is the second story, on that page of newsclips from CSU, after the rainguage story]

===

[my emphasis, of course]

...and that was in 2011!

===

 

But anyway....

Can you clarify this part in your post, where you say "Yes, but if you notice, the only energy driving the 2/3rds is the surface heat of the earth and direct heating of the sun. . It starts as the incoming solar component."

 

Can you define how you think "direct heating of the sun" works and/or what you think that "incoming solar component" is? Because I thought science says, there is direct heating and indirect heating from the sun; and most of the 2/3rds [greenhouse heating] comes from the indirect heating part, so I hope you can see why I'm wondering how you define those. Maybe that's not right; but if it is, then....

 

The main point is, CO2 is invisible to the indirect heating part, so it is not 'blocked' by increasing CO2 levels.

===

===

The rest of your points on this topic are valid, but they only relate to the sun's output, instead of atmospheric absorption/emission changes, so they don't back up your first point that I'm trying to clarify.

===

 

And:

I'd be willing to bet you're wrong about your last point/guess ...and certainly for those contributing to these climate postings!

 

~

Edited November 10, 2014 by Essay

[overtone]

 

 

Without soot, we wouldn’t see the ice caps melting at the rate they do, and this absorbed energy is a net increase to the earth as less is reflected outward.

Which may explain why the Greenland and Arctic ice is melting so much faster than predicted earlier, by climate researchers who had not taken the soot into account.

 

It joins that list of predicted changes that are happening faster than the deliberately conservative IPCC forecasts indicated was likely.

 

 

I have a serious problem with the musical chairs of the climate stations and accuracy over the years.

Do we have any that have not been influence by land changes around them?

Yes. And the fact that you did not know the answer to that question probably explains why you are having "a serious problem" with the research and data from the climate stations. You are having similar problems with all the data and all the research, right?

[Wild Cobra]

...in what blogger community? [re: "KT '97 is short for those who have researched the climate sciences." -WC]

I can't figure out why KT '97 brings up nothing meaningful on google.

 

Because you don't find it with bloggers. Blogger communities are unrelieble to get your information from, so don't look there for answers. Neither are foums like this. All places like this do is offer ideas and places to find good source materail.

 

It irritates the hell out of me when someone uses a blog called "skeptical science" to say they disprove something, or even blogs from my point of view.

 

You find it in other reasearcher papers. They willsay soming like "Kiehl and Trenberth (1997, hereafter KT97)." and then just shorthand it with KT97 in the rest of the text.

 

If you have read as many papers on the subject as I have, you would know this.

 

Don't look for your answers in blogs, especially if they don't source the material they are answering from. Go to the source material.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Wild Cobra