|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 22, 2009 1:28:13 GMT
Seems to me GLC you are mixing metaphors above. Very clearly radiative forcing by definition is NOT a feedback.Fine - then why doesn't Shaviv tell us what the "amplification mechanism" is. Shaviv is saying it's not a feedback because that implies high (very high) sensitivity. This means there must be a separate (from TSI) forcing which is 5-7 times larger than the TSI forcing. But we don't know what this other forcing is. So how does Shaviv know that it's not a feedback effect? How, for that matter, does he know it's not an enhanced ghg effect. Actually I 've just read your post again . In particualr - this bit You say "the resultant forcing". Which implies to me you read it correctly but are just being stubborn. It appears clear to me the author is not venturing into the zone of trying to say what it is. . . .only you areI don't disagree with this. The conclusion is that the study tells us very little. Magellan was wrong to bring it up. You should read up the Kelvin Fallacy - one of its corollaries leads to claims that an empirical observation cannot be true if the mechanism is not apparent. Here we have just that empirical observation showing that the OHC reacts more than expected when TSI changes. This is an important item as NONE of the models have this level of reaction in OHC. Remember that it works in both negative and positive directions. Also as the climate does not rapidly change with TSI (as we have been told by yourself and SoCold repeatedly) it is also apparent that something is moderating the effect. This should be seen as a point of scientific enquiry - not as you apparently seem to want to do - discard it as it does not appear to support or disprove the GHG AGW hypotheses. OHC is probably THE most important metric in climate so this paper is important.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2009 4:36:47 GMT
We have one group of skeptics claiming recent warming is due to reduced cloud cover caused by cosmic rays. But we have a different group of skeptics claiming clouds respond to warming by increasing in cover therefore reducing any warming and acting as a strong negative feedback. One group is relying on clouds to amplify a weak solar signal. While the other is relying on clouds to dampen warming. Is this a contradiction? Im not certain but it doesn't on the face of it seem to make sense. Its not a contradiction. First of all what you have is a forcing the effect of is to reduce clouds that can be 10 to 20 times stronger of a forcing than a doubling of CO2. So if clouds are reduced you get a massive increase in heat, which begets a negative feedback of more clouds that moderates it. OTOH, AGW advocates acknowledging the weak forcing of CO2 is looking for something to increase its effect. . . .but they are standing on their head looking for it.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Sept 22, 2009 8:22:01 GMT
You all seem to be arguing over nothing In 1957 we were told by Petterson when the earth was already observed by him then that it might be cooling that 40% of the artic volume was gone and if the trend continued it would all be gone by 2000 By 1973 there were ice age fears Since about 1973 people have said that C02 is causing unprecidented warming in the last 30 years Meanwhile it seems clear that a warming and melting of arctic ice has been going on for well over 100 years now. TSI has been shown to vary by relatively tiny amounts If solar variation causes these observed warming and cooling cycles then it seems to require an amplification process One thing seems clear to me and that is there is a chaotic and random world out there that has tremendous ability to store heat in the earth as well as store the results of long time cooling in the earth All of this fussing over 20 or 30 years is more or less silly And denying what has been observed over longer periods also seems silly As for example it seems evident the northwest passage is more open now than Amundsens day or Franklins day Franklin was frozen in solid for years on end. To say it was not more icy back then seems another sillyness Warming has been going on for years But equally that warming was a recovery from a cooling Nobody here seems to be objective One group want to argue the cooling did not exist. One group want to argue the warming before the cooling was colder than today One group want to argue there has been no warming since the cooling at all I know this is the internet but it seems all a bit silly
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 22, 2009 13:04:43 GMT
You all seem to be arguing over nothing In 1957 we were told by Petterson when the earth was already observed by him then that it might be cooling that 40% of the artic volume was gone and if the trend continued it would all be gone by 2000 By 1973 there were ice age fears Since about 1973 people have said that C02 is causing unprecidented warming in the last 30 years Meanwhile it seems clear that a warming and melting of arctic ice has been going on for well over 100 years now. TSI has been shown to vary by relatively tiny amounts If solar variation causes these observed warming and cooling cycles then it seems to require an amplification process One thing seems clear to me and that is there is a chaotic and random world out there that has tremendous ability to store heat in the earth as well as store the results of long time cooling in the earth All of this fussing over 20 or 30 years is more or less silly And denying what has been observed over longer periods also seems silly As for example it seems evident the northwest passage is more open now than Amundsens day or Franklins day Franklin was frozen in solid for years on end. To say it was not more icy back then seems another sillyness Warming has been going on for years But equally that warming was a recovery from a cooling Nobody here seems to be objective One group want to argue the cooling did not exist. One group want to argue the warming before the cooling was colder than today One group want to argue there has been no warming since the cooling at all I know this is the internet but it seems all a bit silly I know this is the internet but it seems all a bit silly It is silly until one realizes Green is the new Red, and that AGW believers and scientists are useful idiots for the more radical political aspirations of those (including certain "scientists") who wish to control our everyday lives through taxation, regulation and elimination of capitalism. This is easily provable and is happening in real time.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2009 15:20:32 GMT
As for example it seems evident the northwest passage is more open now than Amundsens day or Franklins day Franklin was frozen in solid for years on end. To say it was not more icy back then seems another sillyness It seems common sense that there has been somewhat less ice lately. . . .but still discrete areas in the passage remain frozen in year after year. In an age when a modern icebreaker can come get you within days of becoming icebound its very unlikely you will now get frozen in for years. . . .but only for that reason is that true.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 22, 2009 19:25:21 GMT
Co2 on every graph that I know off, and that is quit a few is a lagging indicator of temp. I know you will tell me Real Climate took care of that, and shows that it is mutual of temps, but one question that never got posted.....or I should say got posted but didn't get through the censors, was why does co2, in everyyyy period keep rising when the temp drops at the end of a warm period. That is a million dollar question is it not? IF co2 was such a strong driver, the temp should keep rising as it rises, but historically that is not the case. The temp peaks, co2 keeps climbing for 100's of years as the temp falls. Give me an example and I'll run the numbers to see if I can answer your question. What did co2 increase from and to in this period and how much did temperature fall?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 22, 2009 19:31:10 GMT
We have one group of skeptics claiming recent warming is due to reduced cloud cover caused by cosmic rays. But we have a different group of skeptics claiming clouds respond to warming by increasing in cover therefore reducing any warming and acting as a strong negative feedback. One group is relying on clouds to amplify a weak solar signal. While the other is relying on clouds to dampen warming. Is this a contradiction? Im not certain but it doesn't on the face of it seem to make sense. Its not a contradiction. First of all what you have is a forcing the effect of is to reduce clouds that can be 10 to 20 times stronger of a forcing than a doubling of CO2. So if clouds are reduced you get a massive increase in heat, which begets a negative feedback of more clouds that moderates it. That makes sense, thanks. So effectively the negative feedback would be reducing the cloud loss not negating it. The co2 forcing at the rate we are increasing it in the atmosphere is actually quite strong for example increasing co2 50% produces about 10 times the forcing as that of solar cycle minimum to maximum.
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Sept 22, 2009 21:09:34 GMT
socold.
The co2 forcing at the rate we are increasing it in the atmosphere is actually quite strong for example increasing co2 50% produces about 10 times the forcing as that of solar cycle minimum to maximum.
That's assuming all cloud feedbacks are positive of course. If they are negative as many scientists are now discovering then the solar cycle/cosmic ray influence produces about ten times the forcing of a 50% of co2 increase. Co2 then vanishes into trace effect.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 22, 2009 23:02:38 GMT
The co2 forcing at the rate we are increasing it in the atmosphere is actually quite strong for example increasing co2 50% produces about 10 times the forcing as that of solar cycle minimum to maximum. I don't buy that. I have had to deal with too many people with a "mission" to buy any kind of black box science. Clearly feedback is the weak link in AGW alarmism. About the only difference between a global and human anatomical cooling system is how water is conserved. Humans conserve water by selectively making it available, the earth conserves it via gravity. Both have their limits but both are very strong variable influences on the object they cool. It became pretty obvious when the scientists on a mission started suggesting that earth's primary cooling system is a warming system instead via positive feedback to CO2 warming. . . .after such hogwash as that everything becomes suspect. And when the agencies, universities, and scientists start claiming confidential agreements over the most basic data that tells us what is actually happening out there, the stage is set for possibility of a real case of treason. Its fair or anybody to have an opinion but falsification of data, manipulating datasets for the purpose of releasing climate studies and/or supporting a coverup of such falsifications amount to a capital case of treason in my view. I could care less how convinced you are. . . .until somebody provides full disclosure on the case for CO2 forcing it remains forever locked into the "its common sense that a gas that makes up less than a tenth of a percent of the atmosphere is not controlling climate.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 23, 2009 18:43:09 GMT
The co2 forcing at the rate we are increasing it in the atmosphere is actually quite strong for example increasing co2 50% produces about 10 times the forcing as that of solar cycle minimum to maximum. I don't buy that. I have had to deal with too many people with a "mission" to buy any kind of black box science. The forcing from a 50% increase in co2 is about 2wm-2 wheras the forcing from solar cycle min to solar max it's about 0.2wm-2. Climate feedback is the weak link in climate in general. Equally I couldn't care less how unconvinced you are. Until skeptics actually run some numbers and demonstrate how a climate with low climate sensitivity is both theoretically possible and compatible with reality, I remain unconvinced.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Sept 23, 2009 18:48:24 GMT
socold. The co2 forcing at the rate we are increasing it in the atmosphere is actually quite strong for example increasing co2 50% produces about 10 times the forcing as that of solar cycle minimum to maximum. That's assuming all cloud feedbacks are positive of course. If they are negative as many scientists are now discovering then the solar cycle/cosmic ray influence produces about ten times the forcing of a 50% of co2 increase. Co2 then vanishes into trace effect. Most scientific studies have found net feedback to be positive and climate sensitivity to be high. So if this boils down to an appeal to authority I think I am on the right side. The solar cycle/cosmic ray influence isn't even yet quantified theoretically. Indeed questions still remain whether it will hold up. Initial estimates from a number of studies on cloud/cosmic ray correlations find it is insufficient to explain recent warming in any case.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Sept 23, 2009 21:50:49 GMT
Most scientific studies have found net feedback to be positive and climate sensitivity to be high. So if this boils down to an appeal to authority I think I am on the right side. And yet temperatures haven't even gone up by enough for their feedbacks to be correct. There's this crazy thing called "reality" and it makes no difference how many "scientists" say this or that. Reality just does whatever it does. If your hypothesis doesn't match reality...its almost always wrong. Climatologists are acting like they have all the answers but they've failed miserably over and over again.
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Sept 23, 2009 22:43:43 GMT
The solar cycle/cosmic ray CO2 influence isn't even yet quantified theoretically real. Indeed questions still remain whether it will hold up is believed even by its proponents. Initial estimates from a number of studies on cloud/cosmic ray CO2/temperature correlations find it is insufficient to explain recent any warming in any case time period.
There, fixed it.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 24, 2009 1:20:51 GMT
Equally I couldn't care less how unconvinced you are. Until skeptics actually run some numbers and demonstrate how a climate with low climate sensitivity is both theoretically possible and compatible with reality, I remain unconvinced. Who asked you?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 24, 2009 2:26:53 GMT
Co2 on every graph that I know off, and that is quit a few is a lagging indicator of temp. I know you will tell me Real Climate took care of that, and shows that it is mutual of temps, but one question that never got posted.....or I should say got posted but didn't get through the censors, was why does co2, in everyyyy period keep rising when the temp drops at the end of a warm period. That is a million dollar question is it not? IF co2 was such a strong driver, the temp should keep rising as it rises, but historically that is not the case. The temp peaks, co2 keeps climbing for 100's of years as the temp falls. Give me an example and I'll run the numbers to see if I can answer your question. What did co2 increase from and to in this period and how much did temperature fall? Take a look at all the geo co2 data. The co2 keeps rising long after temp falls. I don't have time tonight to look up the graphs, but I will use the graph is Gore's movie as the main example. The co2 lags temp by 800 years....that is accepted is it not? On a geo time scale, the co2 keeps rising.......the temp falls. Those ice core co2 data are what I am talking about Socold. Thanks in advance for running some numbers. Gotta get shuteye, finally harvesting hard.
|
|