|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 19, 2009 20:43:26 GMT
Hi Ken! You write, "The heat that is wicked away from the surface doesn't disappear, it is still there at the higher levels in the atmosphere, where the increased concentration of CO2 makes it's presence felt with the increased greenhouse effect. CO2 operates at levels in the atmosphere that are far higher than water vapor exists." Like a lot of people on this site, I look at the temperatures in the higher levels of the atmosphere nearly daily here: discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/A couple of things for you to explain: 1. How is it that CO2 has transported all of this heat to the upper atmosphere, given that current trends at most levels in the upper atmosphere show cooling over the last 10 years? (You might want to cite a few articles here, since your position runs counter to IPCC predictions and Real Climate predictions and dogma that the greenhouse effect should be most pronounced in the tropical troposphere where there's plenty of H2O.) If you take a glance at the AMSU data, you'll notice that at the highest altitude measured by satellite we are currently at the lowest point temperature-wise. 2. Surely, you'll grant that the oceans are the more significant heat sink when compared to the atmosphere? How would the (non-existent) heat you posit in the upper atmosphere be transferred into the seas to create the scary El Ninos that Al Gore says will become a permanent feature any time now? After explaining these two things, I wonder if you might respond to a last question? Have you ever lived through a real winter, i.e. snow, ice, and dangerous wind chills? UAH Middle Troposphere, where it is supposed to be warming faster than the surface, but last year Warmologists claim they didn't really mean that I forgot to plot the CO2 ramp which has a near zero correlation, but it is self-evident. Thank you for that graph, it is very telling. Why won't AGW alarmists acknowledge that the data is not following theory? No matter what the surface record shows, the warming should be just as great or actually greater in the mid-troposphere - that is a foundational part of AGW/CO2 warming theory. But there is simply NO evidence this is happening.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 19, 2009 22:04:42 GMT
Here's a good diagram of the spread of modelled mid troposphere warming and the spread of various measurements of it:
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 20, 2009 7:44:24 GMT
Here's a good diagram of the spread of modelled mid troposphere warming and the spread of various measurements of it: Aside from it being nearly impossible to follow, what do you think that graph proves?
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 21, 2009 16:08:06 GMT
It shows that the uncertainty in lower and middle troposphere temperature trend measurements (satellite and radiosonde) overlaps the uncertainty in model predictions of lower and middle troposphere temperature trend. Ie there is no clear discrepancy between the models and measurements in atmospheric warming because the uncertainty range in both is so wide.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Mar 21, 2009 16:30:44 GMT
Actually, it shows there is almost an inverse relationship between the models and the measurements, that at nearly every point the models are warmer than in reality and that random chance would have produced a closer correlation.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 22, 2009 22:29:36 GMT
It shows that the uncertainty in lower and middle troposphere temperature trend measurements (satellite and radiosonde) overlaps the uncertainty in model predictions of lower and middle troposphere temperature trend. Ie there is no clear discrepancy between the models and measurements in atmospheric warming because the uncertainty range in both is so wide. Nevermind that it also shows the mean of the temperature trends is well below the mean of the model predictions. When there is so much spread, both in models and measurements, than the mean should be more important.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 22, 2009 22:32:28 GMT
No....
When there's so much spread in the measurements let alone the models then it's simply not clear what the actuals are and whether they do in fact overlap.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 22, 2009 22:41:57 GMT
No.... When there's so much spread in the measurements let alone the models then it's simply not clear what the actuals are and whether they do in fact overlap. Well, a lot of things in science are not perfectly clear, but we try to make the best assumptions possible based on what we know. Given the information we have, the best assumption for the mid troposphere at this point is that it is NOT warming as much as predicted. Again, if you want to question the validity of this statement/data, you must question many other things as well.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 22, 2009 23:13:36 GMT
Well, a lot of things in science are not perfectly clear, but we try to make the best assumptions possible based on what we know. And that's why I accept manmade global warming
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 22, 2009 23:30:29 GMT
No.... When there's so much spread in the measurements let alone the models then it's simply not clear what the actuals are and whether they do in fact overlap. That certainly isn't the party line. Isn't Hansen saying its 99% certain they overlap? .
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Mar 22, 2009 23:34:01 GMT
Well, a lot of things in science are not perfectly clear, but we try to make the best assumptions possible based on what we know. And that's why I accept manmade global warming If you were truly open-minded, you would question it for the same reasons. And way to avoid the real issue about mid-troposphere data not matching expectations. This is such a significant part of AGW theory, it would be foolish to downplay the discrepancy.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 23, 2009 13:53:57 GMT
I look at it to the cambrian explosion of AGW. Ie it is a problem, but not necessarily a fatal one. There was a time when the lower troposphere UAH showed no warming remember. That was a problem too...
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 25, 2009 20:56:27 GMT
Everyone acknowledges that the sun, which on average produces 1,365 watts per meter squared, drives the climate.
It's just that that last 1.5 watts/meter squared difference between solar min and solar max can't explain the current warming, while the increase in greenhouse gases does. The 1.5 watts/meter squared actually becomes 0.26 watts/meter squared when you factor in albedo (30% so multiply by 0.7) and spread it over the surface of the earth (divide by 4). Greenhouse gases currently contribute 2.6 watts/meter squared of forcing, or 10 times the amount of the sun.
|
|
|
Post by jimcripwell on Mar 25, 2009 21:12:50 GMT
Kenfeldman writes "Greenhouse gases currently contribute 2.6 watts/meter squared of forcing, or 10 times the amount of the sun."
This assumes that the only way the sun can affect climate is by a change in solar constant. I know of no reason, whatsoever, why anyone in their right mind would believe this. The sun controls the heliosphere in all sorts of different ways, and the earth is in the heliosphere. Why would anyone assume that all the other effects of the sun dont affect the world's climate?
|
|
|
Post by kenfeldman on Mar 25, 2009 22:54:18 GMT
Probably because in all of the attempts to find another cause (cosmic rays, UV effects in the stratosphere, etc...) they haven't found one that correlates the changes from the sun to the changes in the climate.
That and the fact that the changes in the climate can be clearly shown to be caused by the changes in forcings from TSI, greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic pollutants and volcanic forcings using the proven principles of quantum mechanics and thermodynamics make AGW the leading candidate for explaining the changes that have been very well documented.
These changes include not just the surface temperature rise, but also the sea level rise, melting glaciers, loss of mass from Greenland and Antarctica, change in biological ranges for species, expansion of the Hadley cells, cooling of the stratosphere, and many other effects predicted by AGW but not by solar or other theories.
Why would anyone keep looking for another cause when all of this evidence is staring them in the face?
|
|