|
Post by socold on Aug 2, 2009 12:42:09 GMT
In fact if radiative forcing took into account the response it would always be zero. Double solar output? Radiative forcing = zero Quadruple solar output? Radiative forcing = zero Pointless. I cant follow this. If you double the solar output the earth immediately begins with a radiation emmision insufficient to cool the earth and therefore it warms until the extra inwards heat is balanced by the extra outwards heat. After the warming there is no longer any further radiative forcing There's no more energy inbalance and therefore if you define radiative forcing as nautonnier wants as the change in energy balance after the response (instead of before which is how radiative forcing is actually defined), you would always get a radiative forcing of zero. As nautonnier points out the response could be that albedo increases sufficiently that no temperature increase is needed to resolve the energy inbalance.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Aug 2, 2009 14:22:20 GMT
You mention the atmosphere will "react". The reaction is an effect of a cause. What cause? An energy inbalance. How do we quantify that inbalance - radiative forcing. You've dismissed radiative forcing, so have dismissed the metric for quantifying the cause. Its an arbitrary inbalance that is a small percent of change that occurs on a diurnal basis. Around these parts each morning starts out with a heavy overcast caused by the reversal of the daytime onshore flow. The land warms, air rises and flows back out to sea, while a strong onshore flow makes for afternoon whitecaps nearby the shore. At night the wind dies and the moist air rises and condenses into thick clouds, pushing inland several miles overnight. Morning comes and its heavy overcast. As the land inland of the overcast rapidly heats it sucks air in from the coast to replace the rising air and the clouds get pushed back to the shore and offshore. Thats being driven by a force a couple of orders of magnitude greater than your "metric of forcing". . . .and the diurnal results are certainly at least a couple of orders of magnitude greater too. Interestingly my friends who live 50 miles inland in a completely different climate that doesn't vary by just a couple of degrees of temperature are still surviving. The AGW movement is in deep deep doo doo. What we have is a small contingent of scientists constantly manipulating and concealing data, while mouth pieces try to tell American citizens the world is getting warmer, all the while thousands of communities are actually noticing on their skin its getting cooler. Folks might like to think it was a few inadvised loans to disqualified borrowers that caused our financial crisis or if from the other side of the aisle it was evil and conniving Wall Street brokerages. But what nobody has seem to put their finger on is how food prices have soared over the past few years. Driven in part by a cooling climate, and in part by politics trying to cool the climate. Nothing drives the economy like food does. The movement has run out of explanations. We are left with Socold going "but. . . .but. . . .bu. . . .bu. . . .it all about the metric of forcing!" all the while kneeling at the statue of James Hansen and praying for El Nino. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 2, 2009 19:37:28 GMT
To "bypass" all these greenhouse gases, the convection has to rise above the layers where a lot of radiation escapes to space. But such convection would also lift water vapour up to these layers, so reducing the amount of radiation escaping to space (because water vapour is a greenhouse gas). Not exactly correct and its the worst kind of inaccuracy. Not only does the convection involved in the water cycle pretty much negate its own absorption of outgoing IR...it maintains the temperature gradient with such unimaginable power that CO2 is utterly incapable of doing anything noticeable. As evidence I give you this one pice of information. Every day roughly 1350 cubic kilometers of water vaporizes and moves through the troposphere. Calculate how much energy that takes and compare it to the total energy budget of earth. After you change your pants...come back here and try to explain how CO2's trivial contribution is going to force the new gradient in the troposphere that will cause global warming.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 2, 2009 23:43:17 GMT
You mention the atmosphere will "react". The reaction is an effect of a cause. What cause? An energy inbalance. How do we quantify that inbalance - radiative forcing. You've dismissed radiative forcing, so have dismissed the metric for quantifying the cause. Its an arbitrary inbalance that is a small percent of change that occurs on a diurnal basis. The sun increasing in output by 1% would be such an "arbitary inbalance" but the Earth will react to it nevertheless, irregardless of "change that occurs on a diurnal basis". So the phrase "arbitary inbalance" is the real meaningless concept here, not radiative forcing. Conspiracy theories followed with anecdotes sure. Standard skeptic fare. My role on this thread has been to defend the radiative forcing concept from misguided attempts to imagine it away. I have not preached that "it all about the metric of forcing". Quite the contrary, I suspect the people trying to dismiss the radiative forcing concept don't realize what it is enough to realize it didn't exist it wouldn't change climate theory. I can't remember the last time on this forum I tried to push something, I don't bother. I defend stuff like people's attempts to imagine ways to deny co2 rise is human caused or imagine ways to deny the greenhouse effect or that rising co2 causes any warming at all. Think of me as injecting a little common sense. When people go a bit too and propose ideas that would in consequence require a vast conspiracy to exist, I will be there to point that out.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 2, 2009 23:55:39 GMT
Its an arbitrary inbalance that is a small percent of change that occurs on a diurnal basis. The sun increasing in output by 1% would be such an "arbitary inbalance" but the Earth will react to it nevertheless, irregardless of "change that occurs on a diurnal basis". So the phrase "arbitary inbalance" is the real meaningless concept here, not radiative forcing. Conspiracy theories followed with anecdotes sure. Standard skeptic fare. My role on this thread has been to defend the radiative forcing concept from misguided attempts to imagine it away. I have not preached that "it all about the metric of forcing". Quite the contrary, I suspect the people trying to dismiss the radiative forcing concept don't realize what it is enough to realize it didn't exist it wouldn't change climate theory. I can't remember the last time on this forum I tried to push something, I don't bother. I defend stuff like people's attempts to imagine ways to deny co2 rise is human caused or imagine ways to deny the greenhouse effect or that rising co2 causes any warming at all. Think of me as injecting a little common sense. When people go a bit too and propose ideas that would in consequence require a vast conspiracy to exist, I will be there to point that out. Socold: I enjoy your posts, but you do have to understand that the change in co2 is not only human caused. The second thing that is hugely important, which we have discussed in the past is the sensativity to that co2. So far, I have not read in the real science, anywhere that the sensativity is more than .3 or at most .5C rise in temps from a doubling of co2. And those numbers are qualified, as the person writing that realized that co2 is just a bit player in climate. There are two main sources that drive our climate. I am open to more as my knowledge is quit small. But from what I understand, the sun is the main driver, h2o is the 2nd driver. Both of these completely dwarf anything else. The IPCC admits it can't model h2o vapor, and doesn't understand all of the forces that the sun emits. It seems it is way more than TSI. TSI is important, but there are correlations to other forces it seems. Out on the edge starting to be recognized. If the projections were an increase to temps never experienced before, I would be alarmed. But they aren't. In fact, another 2-3C would be very very benificial for mankind as a whole as there are huge landmasses that are currently not productive, that would respond very favorably to a warmer climate. The population of earth is increasing dramatically. The resources are not. That is going to lead to one of two things. Either we figure out how to grow more food in a cold climate, or else reduce the population. I think the 2nd is what is going to happen as the warming, no matter how welcome, just won't come soon enough to offset the population increase. Conflict will prob take care of the population increase.....and that is the sad thing, but prob inevitable.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Aug 3, 2009 5:55:28 GMT
To "bypass" all these greenhouse gases, the convection has to rise above the layers where a lot of radiation escapes to space. But such convection would also lift water vapour up to these layers, so reducing the amount of radiation escaping to space (because water vapour is a greenhouse gas). Not exactly correct and its the worst kind of inaccuracy. As evidence I give you this one pice of information. Every day roughly 1350 cubic kilometers of water vaporizes and moves through the troposphere. Are you suggesting that 1350 cubic kilometers of water does not condense out of the atmosphere?
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 3, 2009 6:21:27 GMT
The sun increasing in output by 1% would be such an "arbitary inbalance" but the Earth will react to it nevertheless, irregardless of "change that occurs on a diurnal basis". So the phrase "arbitary inbalance" is the real meaningless concept here, not radiative forcing. Conspiracy theories followed with anecdotes sure. Standard skeptic fare. My role on this thread has been to defend the radiative forcing concept from misguided attempts to imagine it away. I have not preached that "it all about the metric of forcing". Quite the contrary, I suspect the people trying to dismiss the radiative forcing concept don't realize what it is enough to realize it didn't exist it wouldn't change climate theory. I can't remember the last time on this forum I tried to push something, I don't bother. I defend stuff like people's attempts to imagine ways to deny co2 rise is human caused or imagine ways to deny the greenhouse effect or that rising co2 causes any warming at all. Think of me as injecting a little common sense. When people go a bit too and propose ideas that would in consequence require a vast conspiracy to exist, I will be there to point that out. Socold: I enjoy your posts, but you do have to understand that the change in co2 is not only human caused. The second thing that is hugely important, which we have discussed in the past is the sensativity to that co2. So far, I have not read in the real science, anywhere that the sensativity is more than .3 or at most .5C rise in temps from a doubling of co2. And those numbers are qualified, Sigurdur, you seem kind of stuck on the notion that even though fossil fuel burning statistics are sufficient to account for at least twice the change in current CO2 levels, and additionally that there are man-made changes to land use that are also significant, it is worth trying to belittle man's input to CO2 levels. Secondly, if you have not read any "real science" sensitivity figures of greater than 0.5C then you haven't read very widely. There are a number of papers that I've linked to, one that looks at observed rates of energy uptake in the oceans, one that looks at a cold period and a warm period in paleoclimate and one that looks at the relationship between silicate weathering rates, CO2 levels and temperature in past climates, all of which set sensitivity of at least 1.5C. That's without looking very hard.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 3, 2009 6:30:26 GMT
To "bypass" all these greenhouse gases, the convection has to rise above the layers where a lot of radiation escapes to space. But such convection would also lift water vapour up to these layers, so reducing the amount of radiation escaping to space (because water vapour is a greenhouse gas). Not exactly correct and its the worst kind of inaccuracy. Not only does the convection involved in the water cycle pretty much negate its own absorption of outgoing IR...it maintains the temperature gradient with such unimaginable power that CO2 is utterly incapable of doing anything noticeable. As evidence I give you this one pice of information. Every day roughly 1350 cubic kilometers of water vaporizes and moves through the troposphere. Calculate how much energy that takes and compare it to the total energy budget of earth. After you change your pants...come back here and try to explain how CO2's trivial contribution is going to force the new gradient in the troposphere that will cause global warming. Your point has absolutely nothing to do with my quote. How much of this vapour reaches 1km? How much reaches 2km? How much reaches 3km etc.? How much do these numbers change if the climate warms by 1C? What is the effect on the humidity of 1km, 2km, 3km etc.? You can throw as big a number as you like at me, but I'm not frightened because as a physicist, I've seen bigger ones (10 to the power of (10 to the power of 123) is my personal best).
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Aug 3, 2009 12:36:04 GMT
Socold: I enjoy your posts, but you do have to understand that the change in co2 is not only human caused. The second thing that is hugely important, which we have discussed in the past is the sensativity to that co2. So far, I have not read in the real science, anywhere that the sensativity is more than .3 or at most .5C rise in temps from a doubling of co2. And those numbers are qualified, Sigurdur, you seem kind of stuck on the notion that even though fossil fuel burning statistics are sufficient to account for at least twice the change in current CO2 levels, and additionally that there are man-made changes to land use that are also significant, it is worth trying to belittle man's input to CO2 levels. Secondly, if you have not read any "real science" sensitivity figures of greater than 0.5C then you haven't read very widely. There are a number of papers that I've linked to, one that looks at observed rates of energy uptake in the oceans, one that looks at a cold period and a warm period in paleoclimate and one that looks at the relationship between silicate weathering rates, CO2 levels and temperature in past climates, all of which set sensitivity of at least 1.5C. That's without looking very hard. Steve: I recognize that there are papers that set the sensativity at 1.5C. Just as there are papers that set it lower, and some even attempt to show it as negative. Being there is so much difference within the scientific community, I have used .5 as the probable outcome as it is within the range of the extremes I have read. Do I think mans land use changes have added to the co2 load. OF course, that is common sense. Does burning fossil fuels add to the load? Of course again. Does the co2 addition cause huge climatic swings? It would appear that it doesn't. You can prob show me what causes what is called the normal temp fluxuations in the past. I have read numerous attempts at doing so, but I don't have much confidence in what I have read. You are a more learned man than I am in this area, so I look forward to what you have gleaned from the papers as to cause.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 3, 2009 13:45:33 GMT
Sigurdur, you seem kind of stuck on the notion that even though fossil fuel burning statistics are sufficient to account for at least twice the change in current CO2 levels, and additionally that there are man-made changes to land use that are also significant, it is worth trying to belittle man's input to CO2 levels. Secondly, if you have not read any "real science" sensitivity figures of greater than 0.5C then you haven't read very widely. There are a number of papers that I've linked to, one that looks at observed rates of energy uptake in the oceans, one that looks at a cold period and a warm period in paleoclimate and one that looks at the relationship between silicate weathering rates, CO2 levels and temperature in past climates, all of which set sensitivity of at least 1.5C. That's without looking very hard. Steve: I recognize that there are papers that set the sensativity at 1.5C. Just as there are papers that set it lower, and some even attempt to show it as negative. Being there is so much difference within the scientific community, I have used .5 as the probable outcome as it is within the range of the extremes I have read. Do I think mans land use changes have added to the co2 load. OF course, that is common sense. Does burning fossil fuels add to the load? Of course again. But what you said was you hadn't read *any* real science that set it above 0.5C. Also, note I was referring to papers saying that sensitivity was *no lower* than 1.5C. If you are prepared to accept the denialist low figures, you should also consider the most alarmist as well. Figures of 6C are not out of the bounds of some findings, and some of the climateprediction.net ensembles hit 11C. So you probably need to revise your "probable outcome" to 5.5C to be completely impartial
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 3, 2009 17:13:13 GMT
Steve: I recognize that there are papers that set the sensativity at 1.5C. Just as there are papers that set it lower, and some even attempt to show it as negative. Being there is so much difference within the scientific community, I have used .5 as the probable outcome as it is within the range of the extremes I have read. Do I think mans land use changes have added to the co2 load. OF course, that is common sense. Does burning fossil fuels add to the load? Of course again. But what you said was you hadn't read *any* real science that set it above 0.5C. Also, note I was referring to papers saying that sensitivity was *no lower* than 1.5C. If you are prepared to accept the denialist low figures, you should also consider the most alarmist as well. Figures of 6C are not out of the bounds of some findings, and some of the climateprediction.net ensembles hit 11C. So you probably need to revise your "probable outcome" to 5.5C to be completely impartial LOL, let's not toss absurd figures like 6C in there with observed figures like .5C, ok? Even if we put on blinders and only look at the warming period (which...you know...was warming) the observed rate of warming was insufficient to reach 2.5C. That observed part has a eerily science-like quality to it that GCMs lack. I still say the atmosphere is being dominated but the 1.35e18 CC of water being evaporated and condensed back out every day. That number does look rather suspiciously like it might be high enough to fight any significant warming by CO2 and enough to make the whole atmosphere work a little like a giant column still (at least...in terms of maintaining the gradient)
|
|
|
Post by socold on Aug 3, 2009 19:59:48 GMT
Why is it that skeptics tell me to ignore what climate models show because the "theory they are built on is useless", and then start telling their own far substandard theoretical explainations and expect me to believe them.
|
|
|
Post by northsphinx on Aug 3, 2009 21:29:11 GMT
I have enjoyed myself by actually reading some the scientific paper the AGW theory is based on. Digged backwards from references and found some really strange paper. With todays knowledge. This one for example which more or less every AGW scientist refer to direct or indirectly: ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0469/21/4/pdf/i1520-0469-21-4-361.pdf"Thermal Equilibrium of the atmosphere and with convective adjustment" Manabe and Strickler. Interesting paper indeed. It even have specified CO2 and H20 absorption as function of pressure. However do I still not understand how radiative net flux can go from a colder to a warmer body or in this case from a cold slab of the atmosphere to a warm one. Or how the radiative temperature change can be a function of the lapse rate. As on p 363. That is to overestimate the radiative flux INSIDE each slab of the atmosphere. The temperature difference between slabs or inside slabs cant provide a radiation flux according to stefan boltzmann law in that order.
|
|