|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2009 21:01:25 GMT
The warmistas have found it necessary to minimize the stronger forcings by building false hockey sticks that claims historical temperature variations were insignificant in relationship to recent variations. They need to do that because without doing this they have to admit that it is in fact unlikely that a significant portion of recent warming was caused by CO2 rather than from a stronger natural forcing. (unless you want to claim that a tenth of a degree/century is significant) This is all incorrect. Even if there was a medieval warm period many degrees warmer than present - and evidence is that there wasn't - it would still be the case that recent warming is likely strongly contributed by rising greenhouse gases. And what stronger forcings are you claiming have been minimized? Here's a list - which ones have been minimized? upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/600px-Radiative-forcings.svg.pngThe magnitude of all the forcings in the table I linked to are calculated from physics, that would be no different Clouds and ice are not model forcings. As you don't even understand the foundation of what the models do then it's remarkable that you still out of your way to claim you know anyway and then make arguments based on it. Why don't you just admit you don't have a clue and therefore your belief that co2 is a weak greenhouse gas is faith based?
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Nov 2, 2009 21:49:13 GMT
Here is the fourth power law charted to show the radiation decrease or increase as the temperature changes: This illustrates what happens if we assume a centre point of 15C and look at how radiation increases as the temp rises or decreases as the temp falls. This isn't to imply that T should be 15, but rather, that at ANY temperature, any increase in T is opposed by increased radiation, and vice versa. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 2, 2009 22:02:34 GMT
The warmistas have found it necessary to minimize the stronger forcings by building false hockey sticks that claims historical temperature variations were insignificant in relationship to recent variations. They need to do that because without doing this they have to admit that it is in fact unlikely that a significant portion of recent warming was caused by CO2 rather than from a stronger natural forcing. (unless you want to claim that a tenth of a degree/century is significant) This is all incorrect. Even if there was a medieval warm period many degrees warmer than present - and evidence is that there wasn't - it would still be the case that recent warming is likely strongly contributed by rising greenhouse gases. And what stronger forcings are you claiming have been minimized? Here's a list - which ones have been minimized? upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/600px-Radiative-forcings.svg.pngThe magnitude of all the forcings in the table I linked to are calculated from physics, that would be no different Clouds and ice are not model forcings. As you don't even understand the foundation of what the models do then it's remarkable that you still out of your way to claim you know anyway and then make arguments based on it. Why don't you just admit you don't have a clue and therefore your belief that co2 is a weak greenhouse gas is faith based? Socodl: In your link there is no h2o vapor as a greenhouse gas. One would think that it would be there unless you don't think it is a greenhouse gas?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Nov 2, 2009 22:04:27 GMT
Here is the fourth power law charted to show the radiation decrease or increase as the temperature changes: This illustrates what happens if we assume a centre point of 15C and look at how radiation increases as the temp rises or decreases as the temp falls. This isn't to imply that T should be 15, but rather, that at ANY temperature, any increase in T is opposed by increased radiation, and vice versa. Kiwistonewall: You have to understand science to understand what you are repeating over and over. Or, in my case, as least attempt to understand it.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2009 23:01:48 GMT
No, nautonnier, you won't find a quotation by me that states that "the only way energy can get to the tropopause is by radiation". It's a misconception by you, not by AGW folk. But if you could tell me how much energy is transported by convection and latent heat, say between the surface and 1km up, 1km-5km and 5km to the tropopause, then that would be interesting. Rough numbers would be acceptable. Thanks Steve - but I gave this same challenge to you SoCold and glc some months ago - and you couldn't do it. So what we get from that is YOU DO NOT KNOW EITHER - you have no idea of the large quantities of energy being transported past the denser layers of the atmosphere. This of course, means all the minutiae of your calculations about radiation are of little merit. We do know that a huge amount of energy is transported to the tropopause by convection and the hydrologic cycle, and that these increase if the Earth is hotter. Convection, clouds and the hydrologic cycle also will happen in the absence of CO 2 so they are not 'just a feedback' they can drive the climate themselves, although they will also respond to any perturbation from CO 2 scattering IR and warming the lower layers of the tropospher. Ignorance of and ignoring the hydrologic cycle and its sheer power will not make it go away.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2009 23:10:23 GMT
This is all incorrect. Even if there was a medieval warm period many degrees warmer than present - and evidence is that there wasn't - it would still be the case that recent warming is likely strongly contributed by rising greenhouse gases. And what stronger forcings are you claiming have been minimized? Here's a list - which ones have been minimized? upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Radiative-forcings.svg/600px-Radiative-forcings.svg.pngThe magnitude of all the forcings in the table I linked to are calculated from physics, that would be no different Clouds and ice are not model forcings. As you don't even understand the foundation of what the models do then it's remarkable that you still out of your way to claim you know anyway and then make arguments based on it. Why don't you just admit you don't have a clue and therefore your belief that co2 is a weak greenhouse gas is faith based? Socodl: In your link there is no h2o vapor as a greenhouse gas. One would think that it would be there unless you don't think it is a greenhouse gas? It's a feedback, not forcing. Ie the amount in the atmosphere is determined by temperature rather than forcing temperature. Where it can force temperature (stratosphere) it is included. I also believe near surface changes are included in land use changes.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 2, 2009 23:11:36 GMT
No, nautonnier, you won't find a quotation by me that states that "the only way energy can get to the tropopause is by radiation". It's a misconception by you, not by AGW folk. But if you could tell me how much energy is transported by convection and latent heat, say between the surface and 1km up, 1km-5km and 5km to the tropopause, then that would be interesting. Rough numbers would be acceptable. Thanks Steve - but I gave this same challenge to you SoCold and glc some months ago - and you couldn't do it. So what we get from that is YOU DO NOT KNOW EITHER - you have no idea of the large quantities of energy being transported past the denser layers of the atmosphere. This of course, means all the minutiae of your calculations about radiation are of little merit. We don't need to know. The calculations are not ours, the calculations are in the models which do quantify the amount of energy being transported up through the atmosphere by convection. The idea that high climate sensitivity is found by ignoring the hydrological cycle is pure bunk. In fact if the hydrological cycle was ignored climate sensitivity would be a lot lower than GCMs find it.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2009 23:22:13 GMT
Socodl: In your link there is no h2o vapor as a greenhouse gas. One would think that it would be there unless you don't think it is a greenhouse gas? It's a feedback, not forcing. Ie the amount in the atmosphere is determined by temperature rather than forcing temperature. Where it can force temperature (stratosphere) it is included. I also believe near surface changes are included in land use changes. SoCold you have many times exposed your ignorance of meteorology and you are doing it again. The warmth at the equator is transferred polewards thorough a series of convective cells - Hadley - Ferrel - Polar vortex etc and by the oceans in similar convective thermohaline currents. Where the water is warm it evaporates - this will happen in the regardless of the presence or absence of CO 2 when the warm wet air rises water condenses out dumping heat into the volume of air that then rises faster... this rising air is replaced by air drawn in below it that itself picks up water - thus the water vapor amplifies the convection in these large cells. ....The direction of the airflow is then modified by the Coriolis force and you start getting the trade winds then blow the hot water surface westward in the Pacific and can cause a la Nina and if the tradewinds drop the returning hot water causes an El Nino ... all of this DOES NOT NEED CO 2. yes CO 2 may have a trivial effect but it is extremely small compared to the energy in these cells. The reason that the IPCC left out convection and the hydrologic cycle and its effects is that it was too difficult. It is STILL too difficult although there is a lot of work being done in the area. Repeatedly saying that clouds are only a feedback to CO 2 does not make it so and highlights a lack of understanding of atmospheric physics.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 2, 2009 23:29:46 GMT
Thanks Steve - but I gave this same challenge to you SoCold and glc some months ago - and you couldn't do it. So what we get from that is YOU DO NOT KNOW EITHER - you have no idea of the large quantities of energy being transported past the denser layers of the atmosphere. This of course, means all the minutiae of your calculations about radiation are of little merit. We don't need to know. The calculations are not ours, the calculations are in the models which do quantify the amount of energy being transported up through the atmosphere by convection. The idea that high climate sensitivity is found by ignoring the hydrological cycle is pure bunk. In fact if the hydrological cycle was ignored climate sensitivity would be a lot lower than GCMs find it. Socold can I congratulate you on your rapid learning .... only recently you were saying.... Socold: "The GCMs show the planet warming up and the hydrological cycle increasing, so evidentially speeding up the hydrological cycle doesn't necessitate low warming from a doubling of co2.
Furthermore are you suggesting that doubling co2 speeds up the global hydrological cycle? If so then you seem to be saying doubling co2 does have a significant effect on climate afterall."SoCold - I was asking you to quantify the size of the energy transfer to the tropopause by the hydrologic cycle - you repeatedly say the GCMs have this information - great - tell us what it is from your expertise in GCMs. What expertize in GCMs? I can't quantify those numbers because I have never worked with a GCM or GCM results nor do I understand the workings of the hydrological cycle. I won't find this because I am not running any calculation. The models do and they don't find this. Whether any heat is transported by the hydrological cycle to the tropopause is a quesiton in itself. Also radiation from Earth into space crosses the tropopause but isn't from the tropopause.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 0:42:20 GMT
It's a feedback, not forcing. Ie the amount in the atmosphere is determined by temperature rather than forcing temperature. Where it can force temperature (stratosphere) it is included. I also believe near surface changes are included in land use changes. SoCold you have many times exposed your ignorance of meteorology and you are doing it again. The warmth at the equator You evidentially don't understand what forcing or feedback are in context of climate do you... So you posted some irrelevant essay about how weather systems work. Oh well
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 0:45:29 GMT
Socold can I congratulate you on your rapid learning .... only recently you were saying.... Either your or my reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. That's twice in a row I can't derive any sense from your posts. Here's a recommendation: Be a lot more specific. Simply quoting one of my posts with a vague comment is failing to get through to me. Here you have simply quoted two of my posts with the insinuation that they contradict somehow. I can't for the life of me see any contradiction. Please cite the specific sentence or sentences you are talking about in future.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2009 1:20:52 GMT
It's a feedback, not forcing. Ie the amount in the atmosphere is determined by temperature rather than forcing temperature. Where it can force temperature (stratosphere) it is included. I also believe near surface changes are included in land use changes. The argument that clouds are not a forcing is simply framing an argument that violates the "negative proof fallacy" other wise known as the "argument from ignorance". Your argument is we don't know if clouds are changing from a forcing we are unaware of; therefore, clouds are not changing from a forcing we are unaware of. Its simply an argument from ignorance. . . .and its almost incomprehensible how far this argument has carried the AGW movement.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 1:43:05 GMT
It's a feedback, not forcing. Ie the amount in the atmosphere is determined by temperature rather than forcing temperature. Where it can force temperature (stratosphere) it is included. I also believe near surface changes are included in land use changes. The argument that clouds are not a forcing is simply framing an argument that violates the "negative proof fallacy" other wise known as the "argument from ignorance". Your argument is we don't know if clouds are changing from a forcing we are unaware of; therefore, clouds are not changing from a forcing we are unaware of. No that isn't my argument and in fact if you scroll up you'll see my response was to a question about water vapor, not clouds. The question was why water vapor doesn't appear on the IPCC report forcing list.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Nov 3, 2009 2:07:23 GMT
The argument that clouds are not a forcing is simply framing an argument that violates the "negative proof fallacy" other wise known as the "argument from ignorance". Your argument is we don't know if clouds are changing from a forcing we are unaware of; therefore, clouds are not changing from a forcing we are unaware of. No that isn't my argument and in fact if you scroll up you'll see my response was to a question about water vapor, not clouds. The question was why water vapor doesn't appear on the IPCC report forcing list. It most certainly was your response. In your response to my previous post you provided a link to a list of forcings and asked: " what stronger forcings are you claiming have been minimized? Here's a list - which ones have been minimized?" then you provided a list of forcings that didn't even include any natural forcings that cause natural temperature variations. I give you folks far far far too much credit. You don't just minimize the forcings that cause natural variations in temperature. . . .you just assume they don't exist. That in fact is the "argument from ignorance" argument. Then your cohorts produce falsified studies on cherry picked treerings and other such nonsense to make a case there are no natural temperature variations on climatic time scales. Exactly as I described with the exact fallacy at its heart.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Nov 3, 2009 2:31:50 GMT
No that isn't my argument and in fact if you scroll up you'll see my response was to a question about water vapor, not clouds. The question was why water vapor doesn't appear on the IPCC report forcing list. It most certainly was your response. In your response to my previous post you provided a link to a list of forcings and asked: " what stronger forcings are you claiming have been minimized? Here's a list - which ones have been minimized?" then you provided a list of forcings that didn't even include any natural forcings that cause natural temperature variations. You replied to the wrong post. You replied to my response to sigurdur about water vapor. When someone quotes one of my posts in a reply I take that as a response to that post, not to a different post. The table of forcings summarizes current knowledge of forcings. It doesn't say "nothing else can exist". In fact how can we ever conclude that nothing else might exist? However other forcings have eluded detection thus far. I think the better question therefore is why you assume they do exist? Can past climate variation not be accounted for by those forcings plus feedbacks in the climate system? We could even have some unforced internal climate variation in the mix on some timescales. There clearly are natural temperature variations in the reconstructions:
|
|