|
Post by steve on Apr 13, 2009 17:07:36 GMT
The mid-troposphere data is contaminated by stratospheric cooling, so it doesn't tell you anything. Roy Spencer reanalysed the data by looking at cross-sections of the atmosphere at different angles and came up with the T2LT dataset which tries to cancel out the contribution of the cooling stratosphere (something that is also partly caused by increased greenhouse gases). See this quote from quite an old UAH newsletter: www.uah.edu/news/newsread.php?newsID=153LOL! so all you are doing is obfusicating the basic truth that the models have been shown to be falsified. . . .or at least thats the obviously conclusion being drawn in your references. Additionally, I have to take the reference to carbon dioxide increases as a reason for stratopheric cooling with a grain of salt. There seems to be a pedantic tendency in the science community these days, even the good guys, to just repeat stuff they read somewhere else. That problem stems from funders looking for offhanded comments in science papers blaming CO2 for everything including your morning burnt toast. I have seen that first hand as it extends well beyond climate science. Ultimately that sort of mind pollution affects us all. But its hardly relevant to this discussion because when you actually bother to read your references you will find it actually supports the argument Magellan is making and bellylaughs at yours. Just because I link to an article and use a relevant quote from the article to make a point does not mean that I support everything in the article! The quote I took from my link supports what I said about the mid troposphere data not showing any warming because it is affected by stratospheric cooling. The source of the quote is relevant because it comes from the people who have created the T2LT data, and it is more likely to be trusted by sceptics here because it comes from "sceptics". I assume most here know that Christy and Spencer have been working for years trying to falsify the models. Obviously I am assuming they are (still) wrong and the models are (more) accurate.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 13, 2009 17:17:57 GMT
Magellan,
All that stuff about T2 and T2LT is off-topic. The topic is about whether or not CO2 is really "saturated". The argument about tropical tropospheric temperature trends is about whether models correctly respond to causes of warming, be they solar or greenhouse gas induced. So start a new thread if you want to discuss it.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 13, 2009 17:31:15 GMT
Magellan, Obviously, for your second point, you tried to set me a trap and I didn't fall into it. I said that increased near surface CO2 would not be detectable in the temperature record, and your data agrees with me. So I don't know what you are getting excited about. Even these sceptics agree with me: www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000GL012632.shtmlNow for your assumption that "skeptics" agree with you, it would have wise to do a bit more research and see what one of the authors actually states. www.co2science.org/subject/u/summaries/phxurbanco2dome.phpFirst warmers say UHI is negligible, now you say CO2 is. Interesting. Your link agrees with me explicitly. I said that CO2 levels might be higher near the surface, but would not be higher aloft. Your link says: 800hPa is not that high. I think that the important levels for the greenhouse effect are 3km-5km or higher which is roughly 660-500hPa if I've not cocked up my sums. For that reason I said that the excess CO2 would have hard to detect effect on temperatures. Your link says: So they agree with me (though I think their warming for a doubling of CO2 is a bit low - either they are in disagreement with the figures from eg. Myrhe 1998, or there is some context missing). www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98GL01908.shtml
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 13, 2009 17:39:44 GMT
This thread is about CO2's influence on climate. But it is not claiming that CO2 is the only influence on climate. It's very odd the way some geologists make similar points to Plimer's with regard to climate having never been "stable" etc. - it's almost as though they are being defensive about the way climate science is intruding onto their patch.
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Apr 14, 2009 2:34:22 GMT
My understanding, or lack thereof, was that the stratospheric cooling issue was something somewhere out into the future with continued increases in CO2.
The cooling we are seeing today is due to a decline in solar activity, not CO2. The rate of change in atmospheric thickness has been much too steep for a methodical increasing of CO2.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 14, 2009 3:41:08 GMT
Magellan, All that stuff about T2 and T2LT is off-topic. The topic is about whether or not CO2 is really "saturated". The argument about tropical tropospheric temperature trends is about whether models correctly respond to causes of warming, be they solar or greenhouse gas induced. So start a new thread if you want to discuss it. Technically since the thread is an answer to mine...it's not about saturation. The 5th had analogy was about the fact that the earth is already getting rid of essentially all of the energy that CO2 has bound up. CO2 has little chance to do more because the energy's already been offloaded to entirely different bandwidths. At this point it doesn't matter how much insulation you add to those bands...the earth's main loss of energy is in OTHER bands. What you're suggesting is that no matter how cold it gets...you could still insulate yourself against it with nothing more than hats on your head. The earth is already losing all its energy through the other bands. The other frequencies already have higher outputs. Most of CO2's energy is already offloaded to other wavelengths. There is essentially no affect in the deepening of CO2's trough, only in widening it BUT you have to keep in mind that those frequencies ALSO have a significant portion of their energy offloaded already. The more of a barrier you put up, the more efficient the offloading process becomes. There IS some additional warming from CO2 and that warming is insignificant, not unlike the warming you get from wearing a 5th hat.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Apr 14, 2009 6:53:23 GMT
Enough hats, and the weight will tip you over. Is that a "tipping point" ;D
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 14, 2009 10:41:18 GMT
Magellan, All that stuff about T2 and T2LT is off-topic. The topic is about whether or not CO2 is really "saturated". The argument about tropical tropospheric temperature trends is about whether models correctly respond to causes of warming, be they solar or greenhouse gas induced. So start a new thread if you want to discuss it. Technically since the thread is an answer to mine...it's not about saturation. The 5th had analogy was about the fact that the earth is already getting rid of essentially all of the energy that CO2 has bound up. CO2 has little chance to do more because the energy's already been offloaded to entirely different bandwidths. At this point it doesn't matter how much insulation you add to those bands...the earth's main loss of energy is in OTHER bands. What you're suggesting is that no matter how cold it gets...you could still insulate yourself against it with nothing more than hats on your head. The spectrum of the earth indicates that there is still some energy being emitted in the bands that CO2 absorbs. At 15 microns it amounts to at least 20 Watts per metre squared, and there are other bands with some importance. The "hat" analogy breaks down because you are losing energy from elsewhere on your body, and because so many hats end up being a long way from your head, so aren't covering up anything at all. It is incorrect to make an analogy between this and between the different CO2 bands. Extra CO2 adds an extra, evenly spread, covering to the whole earth. So some of this radiation being emitted around 15 microns must be affected by it. Strangely, I got accused earlier of making a "hand-waving" argument. There is nothing more hand-waving than vague statements about "offloading of energy into other spectral bands". A warm blob of CO2-containing atmosphere will always emit in the 15 micron band however much CO2 you add. The only reason you get an absorption line is because the colder layers overlaying the warmer layers are emitting less at 15 microns than they are absorbing. It's small (a 2% reduction in global emissions) but not insignificant.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 14, 2009 15:15:42 GMT
The spectrum of the earth indicates that there is still some energy being emitted in the bands that CO2 absorbs. At 15 microns it amounts to at least 20 Watts per metre squared, and there are other bands with some importance. The "hat" analogy breaks down because you are losing energy from elsewhere on your body, and because so many hats end up being a long way from your head, so aren't covering up anything at all. It is incorrect to make an analogy between this and between the different CO2 bands. WOW! You managed to touch on all the information that explains EXACTLY why CO2 forcing is a steaming pile of $#!+ and then essentially say "therefore it must cause warming" YES!!! The hats don't cover your whole body...just as CO2 covers NOT ALL of the emission spectrum of the earth. It does cover some of it quite well...and oh look, so well it's already having to go "around" (NOT wavelenghts affecte by CO2) to get out. Then you point out
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 14, 2009 16:13:03 GMT
The spectrum of the earth indicates that there is still some energy being emitted in the bands that CO2 absorbs. At 15 microns it amounts to at least 20 Watts per metre squared, and there are other bands with some importance. The "hat" analogy breaks down because you are losing energy from elsewhere on your body, and because so many hats end up being a long way from your head, so aren't covering up anything at all. It is incorrect to make an analogy between this and between the different CO2 bands. WOW! You managed to touch on all the information that explains EXACTLY why CO2 forcing is a steaming pile of $#!+ and then essentially say "therefore it must cause warming" YES!!! The hats don't cover your whole body...just as CO2 covers NOT ALL of the emission spectrum of the earth. It does cover some of it quite well...and oh look, so well it's already having to go "around" (NOT wavelenghts affecte by CO2) to get out. Then you point out Oops! You've read one of the key points of why the "greenhouse effect" warms the planet and assumed it's an accidental "admission" by me Remember the CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) both absorbs and emits at the same wavelengths. The amount it absorbs will be proportional to the amount of incident radiation and dependent on amount of CO2 (if half of the radiation is absorbed by X ppm then 3/4 will be absorbed by 2X ppm etc). The amount it emits depends on the temperature (proportional to T to the power 4) and (less so) on the CO2 concentration. That's a bit hand-wavey. You can either pick holes and complain, or put some effort in to try to understand.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Apr 14, 2009 18:00:56 GMT
William, a) We don't have to ignore the question as to whether "the troposphere is or is not saturated". Clearly the plot shows emission of radiation into space between 14 and 16 microns of about 2W/m^2/steradian/micron. Clearly if you increase the CO2, some of this radiation will be affected in some way. b) There are proportionally very few ions in the troposphere. And the troposphere *is* warming - check out the research by John Christy and Roy Spencer as well as others; and the stratosphere is cooling - another predicted effect of increasing CO2. The mid-troposphere has not warmed as much as the near-surface layer, however, which contradicts predicted impacts of increased C02. So things aren't so cut and dried.
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Apr 14, 2009 18:17:40 GMT
Your analogy is false because the CO2 is covering the whole earth. The hat is covering a tiny part of your body. You keep getting hung up on the atmosphere covering the whole planet. You just can't wrap your head around the idea that a lot of the energy just streams off the surface unhindered, can you? Every single time CO2 absorbs any radiation one of two things happens. Either it emits again and there's a big chance that water vapor will grab it...OR it goes into heat and once again...it radiates (most of the time, NOT in the same wavelengths) Every time water vapor intercepts the energy or it reradiates as black body radiation...MOST of the energy ends up outside the spectrum of CO2. This is where that "offloading" occurs. Every time the energy is absorbed MOST of the energy gets away. It's already being stopped repeatedly so you're only left with that piddly increase in it's rate of absorption (which is NOT temperature) We are NOT inside some ultra-restrictive lab experiment seeing how much a tube of CO2 at various concentrations blocks before it hits a sensor on the other side. This is a dynamic atmosphere in which we're concerned with ALL the frequencies. The atmosphere is almost completely opaque, completely transparent and various levels between...all at once. Higher CO2 levels amount to an extra hat over the parts that were already almost completely opaque. There's still plenty of "exposed skin", so to speak, as far as the other wavelengths are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Apr 15, 2009 12:06:29 GMT
Your analogy is false because the CO2 is covering the whole earth. The hat is covering a tiny part of your body. You keep getting hung up on the atmosphere covering the whole planet. You just can't wrap your head around the idea that a lot of the energy just streams off the surface unhindered, can you? Every single time CO2 absorbs any radiation one of two things happens. Either it emits again and there's a big chance that water vapor will grab it...OR it goes into heat and once again...it radiates (most of the time, NOT in the same wavelengths) Every time water vapor intercepts the energy or it reradiates as black body radiation...MOST of the energy ends up outside the spectrum of CO2. This is where that "offloading" occurs. Every time the energy is absorbed MOST of the energy gets away. It's already being stopped repeatedly so you're only left with that piddly increase in it's rate of absorption (which is NOT temperature) We are NOT inside some ultra-restrictive lab experiment seeing how much a tube of CO2 at various concentrations blocks before it hits a sensor on the other side. This is a dynamic atmosphere in which we're concerned with ALL the frequencies. The atmosphere is almost completely opaque, completely transparent and various levels between...all at once. Higher CO2 levels amount to an extra hat over the parts that were already almost completely opaque. There's still plenty of "exposed skin", so to speak, as far as the other wavelengths are concerned. I disagree with almost every word of this for reasons already given, a lot of which is completely misunderstanding what I've said. Your last paragraph is once again in complete disagreement with the observations that show that at least 20 Watts per metre squared are being emitted within the spectral region that CO2 absorbs (around 15 microns). I think that we will just have to accept that I, Roy Spencer, John Christy and Richard Lindzen (as well as a load of "IPCC scientists") disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Apr 15, 2009 14:09:09 GMT
Steve I do not know if it was you, but thank you for taking Kiwi's name from the top of this thread. It raised my opinion of you as a person but has not helped with respect to your technical thinking.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 15, 2009 15:11:30 GMT
Just because I link to an article and use a relevant quote from the article to make a point does not mean that I support everything in the article! The quote I took from my link supports what I said about the mid troposphere data not showing any warming because it is affected by stratospheric cooling. The source of the quote is relevant because it comes from the people who have created the T2LT data, and it is more likely to be trusted by sceptics here because it comes from "sceptics". I assume most here know that Christy and Spencer have been working for years trying to falsify the models. Obviously I am assuming they are (still) wrong and the models are (more) accurate. Working for years? !!!!! I wasn't aware of really any "work" they have done to falsify the models. Unless of course you are talking about their observations and how their opinions have evolved as a result of those observations. . . .but I am not sure that qualifies as "working for years trying to falsify the models" except in maybe some kind of a paranoid mind. I have been involved in several big modeling projects. Fact is a model is nothing more than an untested hypothesis. So when you tell me you have faith in the models I am intensely interested in why. So if you could, could you provide me any published climate model and show me how it accurately predicted the future from its publication date to the present date. (without any alterations). Inserting alterations are OK but the tracking needs to be from the alternation date. . . .meaning any tracking up until the alteration date doesn't count. And out of fairness when determining whether such a model meets the standard, no observations are allowed from persons or persons supervised by those who have advocated civil disobedience to force political action on the topic of climate. I see that as too much of a breach of perception of independence or integrity of the data far too great to be acceptable.
|
|