|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 4, 2017 13:08:50 GMT
Another interesting paper around the subject... AbstractIncreases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will not be able to bring about significant climatedisruption in the next 75-100 years. The main problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) theory is the false treatment of the global hydrologic cycle which is not adequately understoodby any of the AGW advocates. The water vapor, cloud, and condensation-evaporation assumptionswithin the conventional AGW theory and the (GCM) simulations are incorrectly designed to block toomuch infrared (IR) radiation to space. They also do not reflect-scatter enough short wave (albedo)energy to space. These two misrepresentations result in a large artificial warming that is not realistic.A realistic treatment of the hydrologic cycle would show that the influence of a doubling of CO2 should
lead to a global surface warming of only about 0.3°C – not the 3°C warming as indicated by the
climate simulations.The global surface warming of about 0.7°C that has been experienced over the last 150 years andthe multi-decadal up-and-down global temperature changes of 0.3-0.4°C that have been observedover this period are hypothesized to be driven by a combination of multi-century and multi-decadalocean circulation changes. These ocean changes are due to naturally occurring upper ocean salinityvariations. Changes in CO2 play little role in these salinity driven ocean climate forcings. tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdfHey, but what's an order of magnitude among friends? |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 4, 2017 13:54:34 GMT
[ Snip ] I haven’t said anything on this thread about how much the earth’s temperature will warm due to the greenhouse gas effect, but in previous posts on the “Global Warming Predictions” thread, I have made specific predictions with the rationale which extend out to the end of this century and I report every 6 months or so on the actual temperature vs my prediction. Will you be using cryogenics, Duwayne?  Only if he's wrong Ratty.  |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 4, 2017 15:27:04 GMT
Another interesting paper around the subject... AbstractIncreases in CO2 and other greenhouse gases will not be able to bring about significant climatedisruption in the next 75-100 years. The main problem with the Anthropogenic Global Warming(AGW) theory is the false treatment of the global hydrologic cycle which is not adequately understoodby any of the AGW advocates. The water vapor, cloud, and condensation-evaporation assumptionswithin the conventional AGW theory and the (GCM) simulations are incorrectly designed to block toomuch infrared (IR) radiation to space. They also do not reflect-scatter enough short wave (albedo)energy to space. These two misrepresentations result in a large artificial warming that is not realistic.A realistic treatment of the hydrologic cycle would show that the influence of a doubling of CO2 should
lead to a global surface warming of only about 0.3°C – not the 3°C warming as indicated by the
climate simulations.The global surface warming of about 0.7°C that has been experienced over the last 150 years andthe multi-decadal up-and-down global temperature changes of 0.3-0.4°C that have been observedover this period are hypothesized to be driven by a combination of multi-century and multi-decadalocean circulation changes. These ocean changes are due to naturally occurring upper ocean salinityvariations. Changes in CO2 play little role in these salinity driven ocean climate forcings. tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdfHey, but what's an order of magnitude among friends? My estimate has been around .35 |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 4, 2017 21:49:20 GMT
I will post this article as it seems to be a reasonably detailed treatise on CO2's ability to absorb, hold and radiate electromagnetic radiation (photons). I'm working my way through it and haven't detected a 'slant' yet. Actually the article is rather short, but the responses are very long. clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169I’m just going to focus on 1 point from Clive Best’s paper….. “Using the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere it is also clear that essentially all the radiation emitted by the surface in these bands is already absorbed by CO2 at pre-industrial levels.” CO2 is a strong absorber of photons with a wavelength of 15 microns. That’s where its greenhouse gas effect is concentrated. None of the other atmospheric gases absorb much of those specific photons. Clive Best shows some charts which, if it weren’t so cumbersome, I’d copy here. But they show that essentially no 15 micron photons are escaping the atmosphere at the present time which would indicate that all the 15 micron photons are being absorbed (presumably by CO2) and therefore, additional atmospheric CO2 would have no impact because there is nothing to absorb. (He does go on to say that there still may be a way that additional CO2 would absorb more photons, but let’s just focus on his first statement quoted above.) Unless I’m missing something the charts he shows don’t seem to be consistent with other charts I have seen. Using a satellite it is easy to measure the wavelength distribution and amount (flux) of the photons coming from the sun to the top of the atmosphere because it doesn’t change significantly from day to day. Measuring the outgoing photons (outgoing long wave radiation or OLR), from the earth at the top of the atmosphere is a problem because it’s different for every part of the world every day. It’s significantly affected by variations in temperatures and clouds and surface (land vs ocean). If you link to the paper below, Chart 4a show a computer generated average radiated flux (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere. From the chart you can also get an idea of how much of the 15 micron wavelength photons is absorbed by CO2. This would indicate there is a lot of radiation which is not currently absorbed. onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wea.2072/pdfI’ve seem a chart like the one above several times in the past. I don’t know why the chart shown by Clive Best is so different. |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 4, 2017 22:40:29 GMT
Will you be using cryogenics, Duwayne? Only if he's wrong Ratty. We need a new hobby, MissouriBoy.  |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 5, 2017 12:58:30 GMT
Hey, but what's an order of magnitude among friends? My estimate has been around .35 I like to see predictions. You've probably posted this before but can you remind me of the rationale behind your number? |
|
|
|
Post by duwayne on Oct 5, 2017 15:12:48 GMT
Will you be using cryogenics, Duwayne? Only if he's wrong Ratty. You're right. If my prediction goes way off track, I won't be telling everyone every 6 months that my forecasts are crap. For my predictions to work out the AMO needs to begin to trend down towards zero in the next year or so and then continue into negative territory for several years. |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 5, 2017 15:32:57 GMT
Only if he's wrong Ratty. You're right. If my prediction goes way off track, I won't be telling everyone every 6 months that my forecasts are crap. For my predictions to work out the AMO needs to begin to trend down towards zero in the next year or so and then continue into negative territory for several years. I had assumed there was a downward trend but check out the uptick. Must be the atmosphere warming the ocean 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 6, 2017 2:39:29 GMT
My estimate has been around .35 I like to see predictions. You've probably posted this before but can you remind me of the rationale behind your number? Well it was several years ago. My notes are around somewhere. But it was inspired by Dr. Syun Akasofu. Nothing fancy here its just a reasonableness check where you check for consistency of application and correlation over time. Later Dr. Roy Spencer did his cloud feedback observations can came up with negative feedback that would if applied solely to a doubling of CO2 based upon the raw forcing generated in the Modtran model used by the warmists would arrive at virtually the same figure. Finally, and a work still in progress, I am doing a physics-based observationally based blueprint for the greenhouse effect. I don't have a final figure for it yet but the high end of the range seems unlikely to exceed .4C. And when I say high end of the range its possibly zero or even possibly negative. Now I guess I can add Dr Gray to the list. I haven't carefully read his paper yet but intend to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 6, 2017 12:09:46 GMT
I like to see predictions. You've probably posted this before but can you remind me of the rationale behind your number? Well it was several years ago. My notes are around somewhere. But it was inspired by Dr. Syun Akasofu. Nothing fancy here its just a reasonableness check where you check for consistency of application and correlation over time. Later Dr. Roy Spencer did his cloud feedback observations can came up with negative feedback that would if applied solely to a doubling of CO2 based upon the raw forcing generated in the Modtran model used by the warmists would arrive at virtually the same figure. Finally, and a work still in progress, I am doing a physics-based observationally based blueprint for the greenhouse effect. I don't have a final figure for it yet but the high end of the range seems unlikely to exceed .4C. And when I say high end of the range its possibly zero or even possibly negative. Now I guess I can add Dr Gray to the list. I haven't carefully read his paper yet but intend to do so. Don’t say it too loud icefisher. www.drroyspencer.com/2017/04/shots-fired-into-the-christyspencer-building-at-uah/ |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 6, 2017 15:17:17 GMT
Blustnmtn....now your on here your being monitored by the 'anti-denier' section of CIA.
Just so you know 😉
|
|
|
|
Post by blustnmtn on Oct 6, 2017 15:58:23 GMT
Blustnmtn....now your on here your being monitored by the 'anti-denier' section of CIA. Just so you know 😉 I keep showing up on so many of their lists...I’m an over achiever. |
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 6, 2017 18:53:56 GMT
You're right. If my prediction goes way off track, I won't be telling everyone every 6 months that my forecasts are crap. For my predictions to work out the AMO needs to begin to trend down towards zero in the next year or so and then continue into negative territory for several years. I had assumed there was a downward trend but check out the uptick. Must be the atmosphere warming the ocean 😉 Assuming no shenanigans, the reason is that the AMO is measured across the entire North Atlantic. To date, the strong declines in the north (45+ Lat) have been offset by increases south of 45 N and west of ~40 W. I need to re-run the latest Argo data. |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Oct 6, 2017 19:40:04 GMT
www.climate4you.com/I had assumed there was a downward trend but check out the uptick. Must be the atmosphere warming the ocean 😉 Assuming no shenanigans, the reason is that the AMO is measured across the entire North Atlantic. To date, the strong declines in the north (45+ Lat) have been offset by increases south of 45 N and west of ~40 W. I need to re-run the latest Argo data. Thanks!! 😊😊 |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 7, 2017 0:55:10 GMT
www.climate4you.com/I had assumed there was a downward trend but check out the uptick. Must be the atmosphere warming the ocean 😉 Assuming no shenanigans, the reason is that the AMO is measured across the entire North Atlantic. To date, the strong declines in the north (45+ Lat) have been offset by increases south of 45 N and west of ~40 W. I need to re-run the latest Argo data. Anytime works for me Missouri!! |
|
