|
Post by jurinko on Jun 16, 2009 17:03:59 GMT
Had been the 7K temp increase by CO2 doubling realistic, we would have seen some 4K of it already, since we are almost halfway to it. We saw some 0,6C during the last 100 years, most of that happening in the first half. It renders the hyper-scenarios, based on positive water vapor feedback, totally off.
I doubt even about 1K increase based on CO2 doubling - we would see 0,6K of it already, but with Sun activity constant. We did saw 0,6K increase - but together with return from LIA sunspot minimum to Grand Solar Maximum.
Either the whole radiative astrology is wrong, or negative feedbacks negate the CO2 effect, or it is so miniscule that it is not recognizable.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 18:15:59 GMT
For example remove everything but co2 and 26% of the greenhouse effect remains. Remove only co2 and 91% of the greenhouse effect remains. The two don't add up to 100% because of overlap. So the question "how much as a percentage does co2 contribute to the greenhouse effect?" doesn't make a lot of sense. The best that can be done is give a range. It's 9 to 26% depending on how you define it. LOL! I agree with your point but unfortunately you somehow fail to see the problem. Even by your own figures here...water vapor cuts the affect of CO2 by more than 65%! (Note...your absorption figures never include water vapor) The figures are not mine and they do include water vapor. The overlap is not a problem. AGW accepts and includes the overlap in calculations. In fact these very figures came out of a climate model. The 3.4 (or 3.7) wm-2 is after taking into account the water vapor overlap.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 18:20:16 GMT
Had been the 7K temp increase by CO2 doubling realistic, we would have seen some 4K if it already, since we are almost halfway to it. We saw some 0,6C during the last 100 years, most of that happening in the first half. It renders the hyper-scenarios, based on positive water vapor feedback, totally off. I doubt even about 1K increase based on CO2 doubling - we would see 0,6K of it already, but with Sun activity constant. We did saw 0,6K increase - but together with return from LIA sunspot minimum to Grand Solar Maximum. Either the whole radiative astrology is wrong, or negative feedbacks negate the CO2 effect, or it is so miniscule that it is not recognizable. It's not instantaneous, the ocean is a massive heat sink and delays the full extent of any warming. Also contribution to temperature change contains both warming and cooling effects. So the warming component is larger than the temperature change itself.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 16, 2009 18:41:25 GMT
soclod: "It's not instantaneous, the ocean is a massive heat sink and delays the full extent of any warming."
You forgot to mention the part about the heat hiding somewhere in the oceans, where it can't be measured by our puny thermometers.
soclod: "Also contribution to temperature change contains both warming and cooling effects. So the warming component is larger than the temperature change itself."
Or the warming component is a lot smaller than your dogma says it is. According to glc, we should expect a net warming of .05C per decade.
In any case the politicians are reading the will of the people, which is telling them that the people ain't worried by the hysterical hollering about catastrophic AGW. Kyoto.2 will be a joke, just like Kyoto.1. The Chicken Littles are losing the closed debate. Those flat SPOTS are killing you.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 18:46:21 GMT
soclod: "It's not instantaneous, the ocean is a massive heat sink and delays the full extent of any warming." You forgot to mention the part about the heat hiding somewhere in the oceans, where it can't be measured by our puny thermometers. soclod: "Also contribution to temperature change contains both warming and cooling effects. So the warming component is larger than the temperature change itself." Or the warming component is a lot smaller than your dogma says it is. According to glc, we should expect a net warming of .05C per decade. In any case the politicians are reading the will of the people, which is telling them that the people ain't worried by the hysterical hollering about catastrophic AGW. Kyoto.2 will be a joke, just like Kyoto.1. The Chicken Littles are losing the closed debate. Those flat SPOTS are killing you. The warming component of the temperature change can hardly be less than the temperature change itself! ;D
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 16, 2009 19:07:39 GMT
soclod: "The warming component of the temperature change can hardly be less than the temperature change itself!"
Who said that it could be? You missed the point. When the warming that the hysterical types expect does not materialize, one of the ways they deal with the MISSING HEAT is to add in some imaginary cooling. Never admit that the expected warming was too high. That would reveal chinks in the armor and GOD FORBID, might re-open the debate. Quibble all you like, you are losing.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 16, 2009 20:19:47 GMT
LOL! I agree with your point but unfortunately you somehow fail to see the problem. Even by your own figures here...water vapor cuts the affect of CO2 by more than 65%! (Note...your absorption figures never include water vapor) The figures are not mine and they do include water vapor. The overlap is not a problem. AGW accepts and includes the overlap in calculations. In fact these very figures came out of a climate model. The 3.4 (or 3.7) wm-2 is after taking into account the water vapor overlap. Actually, even you've agreed that 3.4 is actually the theoretical maximum based solely on the temperature of the atmosphere...water vapor robs it of still more potential by radiating away a portion of that potential along the way.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 16, 2009 22:59:20 GMT
The figures are not mine and they do include water vapor. The overlap is not a problem. AGW accepts and includes the overlap in calculations. In fact these very figures came out of a climate model. The 3.4 (or 3.7) wm-2 is after taking into account the water vapor overlap. Actually, even you've agreed that 3.4 is actually the theoretical maximum based solely on the temperature of the atmosphere...water vapor robs it of still more potential by radiating away a portion of that potential along the way. I can't remember ever using the number 3.4 or calculating based "solely on the temperature of the atmosphere". The radiative forcing from a doubling of co2 takes the absorption from water vapor into account.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 17, 2009 1:21:22 GMT
Actually, even you've agreed that 3.4 is actually the theoretical maximum based solely on the temperature of the atmosphere...water vapor robs it of still more potential by radiating away a portion of that potential along the way. I can't remember ever using the number 3.4 or calculating based "solely on the temperature of the atmosphere". The radiative forcing from a doubling of co2 takes the absorption from water vapor into account. Ah, the problem of the missing heat has not gone away much to the puzzlement of Warmologists www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.
That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.
"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.
Oh, but it's all settled! Going out into space? How can that be when CO2 is capable trapping all that heat? Which is more important? 80-90% of warming attributable to oceans, or 10-20% on land?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 17, 2009 3:37:46 GMT
Actually, even you've agreed that 3.4 is actually the theoretical maximum based solely on the temperature of the atmosphere...water vapor robs it of still more potential by radiating away a portion of that potential along the way. I can't remember ever using the number 3.4 or calculating based "solely on the temperature of the atmosphere". The radiative forcing from a doubling of co2 takes the absorption from water vapor into account. Oh, my bad...I went back and looked and you hadn't...just a doubling. LOL, well you need to base it partly on temperature because the amount of radiation CO2 can absorb at a given concentration is based on temperature. 220k is the lowest temperature in the atmosphere. At that temperature it begins emitting at black body levels for its strongest bands or on the weaker bands lets some of it through (as well as emitting). This is the reason the theoretical maximum increase in absorption will always provide incorrect results...it's only half the math. The increase in absorption must be scaled to that curve. This is all we could EVER see from additional CO2.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 17, 2009 19:55:44 GMT
The 3.4 (or 3.7) wm-2 is after taking into account the water vapor overlap. So what does that matter in regards to the range of estimates for the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. If the range is 9 to 26%, that translates into a range of effects from CO2 based upon physical radiation models of additional CO2 having an equivalent uncertainty range. If the 3.7watt/m2 was calculated on a central value (say 17.5%) then the range for the forcing would range roughly between 2watts and 5.5watts. OTOH, if the 3.7 is towards the top of the range, the range would be between about 1.25 watts and 3.7watts.
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 17, 2009 23:18:18 GMT
I hope soclod is OK. I think he is really worried about the flat SPOT.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 18, 2009 19:05:33 GMT
I can't remember ever using the number 3.4 or calculating based "solely on the temperature of the atmosphere". The radiative forcing from a doubling of co2 takes the absorption from water vapor into account. Oh, my bad...I went back and looked and you hadn't...just a doubling. LOL, well you need to base it partly on temperature because the amount of radiation CO2 can absorb at a given concentration is based on temperature. 220k is the lowest temperature in the atmosphere. At that temperature it begins emitting at black body levels for its strongest bands or on the weaker bands lets some of it through (as well as emitting). This is the reason the theoretical maximum increase in absorption will always provide incorrect results...it's only half the math. The 3.7wm-2 is based on all the math and not half the math. Try doubling co2 here for example: geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.html
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 18, 2009 19:08:39 GMT
The 3.4 (or 3.7) wm-2 is after taking into account the water vapor overlap. So what does that matter in regards to the range of estimates for the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. It matters to the post I was replying to, which wasn't one of yours. It's something like 3.7wm-2 +-0.2wm-2
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 19, 2009 5:38:14 GMT
Oh, my bad...I went back and looked and you hadn't...just a doubling. LOL, well you need to base it partly on temperature because the amount of radiation CO2 can absorb at a given concentration is based on temperature. 220k is the lowest temperature in the atmosphere. At that temperature it begins emitting at black body levels for its strongest bands or on the weaker bands lets some of it through (as well as emitting). This is the reason the theoretical maximum increase in absorption will always provide incorrect results...it's only half the math. The 3.7wm-2 is based on all the math and not half the math. Try doubling co2 here for example: geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/cgimodels/radiation.htmlLOL, according to them it's 3.4 for a 280ppm to 600ppm (3.17 for 300 > 600) increase and only 1.987 for going from current levels to 600ppm or 3.297 if we somehow managed to find enough fossil fuels to go to 800ppm. So...since we've only had about .8C of warming (smoothed warm period peak to warm period peak) on the way to 390ppm, we shouldn't hit more than 1C higher by the time we hit 600ppm (about 2.15X pre-industrial levels). Of course, we're pretty sure some of that was just a recovery from the little ice age so... An interesting side note...offsetting the ground temperature by .97C offsets 280 to 600ppm's absorption completely and 1.35C offsets the 800ppm CO2 absorption. For 390 to 600ppm it's only .55 to offset the "imbalance" and .93 offsets the 800ppm levels So... you agree (since this IS your source) that we shouldn't really expect to see more than an additional 1C, right? Edit: Oh, and just to drive this point home...if the temperature of the earth went up by 4C at 600PPM the radiative output would actually INCREASE by 11 watts per square meter!
|
|