|
Post by steve on Jan 28, 2012 15:16:25 GMT
No it doesn't. It shows that there is a relationship.
Most important in what respect? Contribution to the greenhouse effect? Yes. Contribution to the enhanced greenhouse effect by increasing as a result of warming? Yes. So what?
Yes you can.
Then you have misunderstood. Calculation of the CO2 "forcing" can be done to a reasonable level of accuracy. Seriously, only the lunatics involved in the debate are still disputing that.
Calculating the *effect* of that forcing (ie. the feedbacks to warming) is harder. However, when you look at all the other forcings that can be measured or estimated, the forcing of CO2 remains significant in proportion.
What I am doing is doing a budget of all the known effects on the atmosphere. It has nothing to do with trends. Initial estimates of the greenhouse effect of increased CO2 were calculated when warming was not apparent (eg. in the 1970s) and have not changed that much since then. ie. there was no trend when those estimates were made.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 28, 2012 16:55:04 GMT
Icefisher, I don't think your private (or actually on loan from other denialists, each with a slight personal variation) thermodynamics beats the one they teach in schools and universities.
I think you partly realize that GHSs work both ways, both on the rays' way in, and the way out. This is I suppose what your attempt at "insulating materials" means.
You need to explain yourself. What do you mean by works both ways? Transfer heat? Insulate? Its difficult to tell what you talking about if you are not explicit.
I also have no idea what you are talking about "on loan" either. If I hold a belief somebody may hold how is that relevant?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 28, 2012 21:27:47 GMT
iceskater: There are no experiments to test the models. The only test will be time.
So far, the divergence is quite large between the projections and reality. What this shows is the models are missing something...it is time to saddle up and find it.....
Some things we know......a lot we don't know.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 28, 2012 23:50:03 GMT
We are learning more all the time as the Sun screams out The current 10 year temperature trend is running minus 1 deg C per century. It is the lowest 10 year trend value since 1969. . . .42 years! CO2 emissions have doubled over the past 40 years. Look at the chart folks as it falls off the edge in sync with the sun one has to almost conclude the "1/2 watt climate variable" - the sun is overpowering the alleged "2 watt climate variable" - CO2. With Livingston Penn predicting perhaps the lowest solar cycle in 300 years coming up we may be seeing just the tip of the iceberg. . . .both literally and figuratively. The reason the 1/2 watt variable is behaving like the science concensus believes a 2 watt variable should behave like is because climate scientists made the fundamental mistake of dividing incoming radiation variance by 4 to spread it evenly on the surface of the globe. How did they make that mistake? They ignored convection. Convection has the ability to theoretically warm a non-radiating atmosphere to a temperature equivalent of the maximum intensity of the sun at high noon on the equator at the equinoxes. Nothing in the world would be better insulated than a non-radiating atmosphere so heat loss would be virtually zero during the times and places the sun does not shine its brightest, while winds and convection expanded it from where it is shining across the globe like the mouth of a forced air furnace and a house with perfect insulation. Of course our atmosphere is not non-radiating, including the 99% of it that climate scientists arbitrarily decided to assign a zero radiance figure to. As a result the world is much cooler than it would be with a 100% non-radiating atmosphere. Climate scientists have wrongly claimed that the climate would average the average intensity of the sun below the clouds. They then incorrectly estimated a back radiation figure for how much warmer the climate was. In this world CO2 changes the overall emissivity of the atmosphere in a very small range as its radiation potential is tied directly to its emissivity times its proportion with all the other gasses in the atmosphere. They ignored basic physics! They assumed the global climate would be the average temperature of the incoming radiation not reflected to space. No doubt for a moment it might be. But then they made a fundamental error and ordered basic laws of physics to not operate. They commanded conduction and convection and evaporation to not happen as if something could be at a temperature, hot, and radiate all its energy to the sky and leave nothing for conduction and convection. Such a command is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics. They had it completely wrong! Anybody who doubts this is challenged to take on the assertions in reply #20 above. Take on any of the assertions. All or one.
|
|
|
Post by glennkoks on Jan 28, 2012 23:52:52 GMT
"So far, the divergence is quite large between the projections and reality. What this shows is the models are missing something...it is time to saddle up and find it....."
I would even go as far as to say that the models are missing quite a bit. If it was just Co2 the models would be much more accurate. Personally I am interested in the AMO and how NH temperatures react to a negative phase. But there is also vulcanism, solar cycles, cosmic rays and and dozens of other factors and their feedbacks that we don't have a full grasp on.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 29, 2012 0:07:35 GMT
Glenn: Good point. Ya know, I hadn't given the consideration that the models were missing co2 as well.........but.......ya .........know? They just might be.
The models are based on best assumptions......well...maybe the co2 assumptions are also in error.
Interesting thought.......very interesting thought.
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jan 29, 2012 6:13:10 GMT
Several have noted the complexity of the climate "system". Here is an interesting proposal for a work in progress and a call for contributions of knowledge, cites and expertise (or at least familiarity). It is not to be confused with or misinterpreted as an answer. Anon. 2012. The Ridiculousness Continues – Climate Complexity Compiled. Scientific. Watts Up With That? January 21. wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/21/the-ridiculousness-continues-climate-complexity-compiled/"With the help of an array of WUWT reader comments on this thread and several others documented within, I’ve been compiling a summary of all potential climatic variables in order to build a conceptual map of Earth’s climate system. The goals of this exercise include; To gain a bigger picture understanding and perspective of Earth’s climate system. To demonstrate that Earth’s climate system is a ridiculously complex, continually evolving and sometimes chaotic beast, with the plethora of variables, many interdependencies and an array of feedbacks, both positive and negative. To highlight the challenges associated with accurately measuring the current state, as well as predicting the trajectory and likely future state of Earth’s climate system many decades into the future. To build the WUWT Potential Climatic Variables Reference Page. To lay the conceptual groundwork for the WUWT Likely Climatic Variables Reference Page."
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 29, 2012 14:40:32 GMT
More from WUWT Burt's response (partial). "Brian, In my background of 46 years in aerospace flight testing and design I have seen many examples of data presentation fraud. That is what prompted my interest in seeing how the scientists have processed the climate data, presented it and promoted their theories to policy makers and the media. What I found shocked me and prompted me to do further research. I researched data presentation fraud in climate science from 1999 to 2010. I do not have time here to define the details; if interested in my research, a PPT or PDF can be downloaded at: rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htmIn general, if you as an engineer with normal ethics, study the subject you will conclude that the theory that man’s addition of CO2 to the atmosphere (a trace amount to an already trace gas content) cannot cause the observed warming unless you assume a large positive feedback from water vapor. You will also find that the real feedback is negative, not positive! Specifically, the theory of CAGW is not supported by any of the climate data and none of the predictions of IPCC since their first report in 1991 have been supported by measured data. The scare is merely a computer modeled theory that has been flawed from the beginning, and in spite of its failure to predict, many of the climate scientists cling to it. They applauded the correlation of surface temperatures with CO2 content from 1960 to 1998 as proof, but fail to admit that the planet has cooled after 1998 in spite of the CO2 content increasing." wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/28/burt-rutan-on-schooling-the-rogue/#comment-878588
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 29, 2012 16:08:31 GMT
"The scare is merely a computer modeled theory"
Showing that Burt doesn't understand what he's talking about.
"the planet has cooled after 1998"
he REALLY doesn't know what he's talking about.
What data show the planet has cooled after 1998?
|
|
|
Post by Pooh on Jan 29, 2012 17:03:34 GMT
"Say it isn't so, Joe"
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 29, 2012 17:34:59 GMT
iceskater
I said there was a relationship. Quite obviously CO2 rises cause temperature rises because it is a greenhouse gas and, less obviously, temperature rises probably cause CO2 rises because warmer water can hold less dissolved gas.
The irrelevance of your questions suggests you are not reading or understanding what I am telling you. I think you are assuming what I am saying without being careful enough to actually read what I say.
Each day all the global weather forecasting organisations work out the starting conditions for their global forecast model. This gives an estimate of the cloud, humidity and temperature across the globe and through all the levels of the atmosphere.
It is possible to take such an atmosphere and calculate the instantaneous radiative effects of increasing the amount of CO2. You can do this lots of times on different days of the year to even out weather effects and see what the variation is. Modelling radiation in this way is a pretty standard engineering technique (ie. not necessarily anything to do with climate science).
If you do this you find out that adding CO2 results in less radiation being emitted to space which implies the earth will warm up. Empirically, the amount of "forcing" of CO2 follows this equation:
Forcing in Watts per metre squared = 5.35 ln (C/Co)
where Co is original CO2 concentration and C is new concentration.
Satellite observations of the outgoing longwave radiation from the earth taken in the early 1970s and taken 30 years later show the effect of the increasing CO2 in line with these calculations.
Before we go onto all the things that may or will happen *as a result of this warming*, do you understand the point I am making? If you understand the point I am making, do you agree with the point or do you have reasons for disagreeing?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 29, 2012 17:58:37 GMT
"The scare is merely a computer modeled theory" Showing that Burt doesn't understand what he's talking about. "the planet has cooled after 1998" he REALLY doesn't know what he's talking about. What data show the planet has cooled after 1998? Pg 32 of the PDF Of course you did read the document before dismissing Burt as an ignorant fool.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 30, 2012 4:53:17 GMT
Steve in one of the threads below assumes backradiation warming of the climate system to be a fact. Then the modelers take this assumption and attempt to fit it into climate models for predictive purposes. There is no evidence of warming resulting from backradiation so they look to statisticians to claim strong evidence it exists based upon the assumption no other mechanism is a competitor. Indeed the surface warms lower layers of the soil under the surface. When the surface is cold and not at its equilibrium temperature the surface molecule looks like the gas molecule diagram. But the downward radiation does not warm the surface, no way! The downward radiation is merely storing energy until an equilibrium is reached, if anything its cooling the surface to provide energy to lower layers so it can be as warm as the surface. The question is why isn't same form of equilibrium found when a greenhouse gas does it? Why is its balanced state so different than the surface molecule? So far nobody has been able to budget diagram this. Why is that? Its because you cannot violate the laws of thermodynamics and one cannot diagram it properly while explaining why such an equilibrium is not sought. I asked Steve to explain the differences between a surface molecule and a ghg molecule but he demurred and resorting to his faith that that was the way it was and he apparently did not want to confuse that belief by thinking or talking about it much. Below is a diagram of the conundrum. What evidence is there that the gas molecule in fact does not operate identically to the surface molecule? Is the surface molecule exposed to a forcing that the gas molecule does not face? Does that forcing disappear and why does it disappear as a gas expands above the surface of a planet? Seems to me there is no identified difference for the purposes of radiation between the gas and surface molecule so some kind of mysterious religious doctrine was buried in all the equations to make it work. I am a religious guy but take my religion very personally and don't proselytize as it seems so many are bent on doing. Its not good enough to just assume backradiation exists and that gas molecules radiatively behave in a fundamentally different way without some evidence to back that up. Indeed its a convenient explanation for the planet being warmer than the SB BB temperature. I allows us to quit worrying about how that might change other work we do. But as I see it saying backradiation exists is kind of tantamount to Einstein saying God exists. Everybody has a world view on such stuff but it doesn't mean its science. And heck how can it hurt if the giant Corporate Green lobby is going to give me money if I do say I believe it and do everything in their power to deny me money from even taxpayer sources if I question it. Seems that is another popular reason to believe in God also. If I believe in God I have a chance to go to heaven if I die. If I don't believe in God I have no chance of going to heaven as I just die. I will do another post on why the climate is warmer than the SB temperature when I get it trimmed down into a bit cleaner form.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jan 30, 2012 13:21:21 GMT
If we didn't know that CO2 was a "greenhouse gas" then clearly the prehistorical data may lead you to conclude that CO2 levels are a consequence of the temperature and not the other way around. But we do know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Do you accept at least that CO2 (at atmospheric temperatures and pressurse) absorbs and emits infrared radiation while transmitting light radiation, which essentially qualifies it to be a greenhouse gas? The properties of CO2 (and other gases) as a greenhouse gas are measured in a lab to a reasonably high precision (ie. emissivity and absorptivity spectra resolved to within less than 1cm-1). So if you know the temperature structure and constituents of the atmosphere you can calculate the radiation emitted and absorbed by each blob of atmosphere and integrate over the whole atmosphere. Thereby you can calculate the radiative effects of adding or removing CO2. You don't actually need satellite observations from 30 years apart to validated this (cited below though) because you can take observations of the spectra of the atmosphere and see whether they fit your theory. The weather forecasting software used by, for example, the Met Office uses the same radiation code as the climate models. Random google finds this which also points out that the models are available for "peer review" by other academic and operational forecasting institutions.: software.ac.uk/blog/2011-10-04-beyond-weather-metum-and-art-weather-forecastingPaper about satellite observations of IR.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 30, 2012 14:27:51 GMT
|
|