|
|
Post by socold on Oct 11, 2009 20:32:51 GMT
socold. e not commented on this assertion. Because radiative transfer models are accurate enough to do that. Radiative forcing remember is simply the radiative imbalance caused by something before the climate responds to that imbalance. Therefore given that the absorption properties of co2 are well known from lab and experimental studies, ie the basis of the radiative transfer models, it's possible to put it all together to calculate the additional absorption if there was twice as much co2 in the atmosphere. This is not true, the so called 4 watt forcing came from so very early papers that used global circulation models. It can be calculated with models today. All you do is double the co2 and see how that causes the IR out decreases and there's your radiative forcing. Some definitions require the stratosphere to adjust for reasons I cannot recall. But the purpose is simply to quantify the imbalance such an action has so that it can be compared to other actions. |
|
|
|
Post by enough on Oct 11, 2009 21:21:17 GMT
This is not true, the so called 4 watt forcing came from so very early papers that used global circulation models. It can be calculated with models today. All you do is double the co2 and see how that causes the IR out decreases and there's your radiative forcing. Some definitions require the stratosphere to adjust for reasons I cannot recall. But the purpose is simply to quantify the imbalance such an action has so that it can be compared to other actions. Still waiting for a modern reference to this so called 4 watt forcing!!! Not to memtion any justification to Soloman's claim |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 11, 2009 23:10:16 GMT
It can be calculated with models today. All you do is double the co2 and see how that causes the IR out decreases and there's your radiative forcing. Some definitions require the stratosphere to adjust for reasons I cannot recall. But the purpose is simply to quantify the imbalance such an action has so that it can be compared to other actions. Still waiting for a modern reference to this so called 4 watt forcing!!! Myhree '98 Probably in Solomon 2009 |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 11, 2009 23:20:51 GMT
We can see by comparing potential 21st century forcings alone that the forcing from doubling of co2 is the most significant one. Nothing comes close to the 3.7wm-2 from doubling co2. . . . .I agree but the uncertainty range is firmly in the area of high climate sensitivity. In fact it's between high and very high. I would say thats a pretty ignorant view of the matter. Now a 3.7watt increase in sunlight hitting the surface would be subject to one level of sensitivity, while 3.7 watts at the top of the atmosphere would be subject to another. Yes and you can see the different responses between solar and co2 in the image here: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/But the sensitivities are not much different. Evidentially not as the above image shows. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 11, 2009 23:48:07 GMT
I would say thats a pretty ignorant view of the matter. Now a 3.7watt increase in sunlight hitting the surface would be subject to one level of sensitivity, while 3.7 watts at the top of the atmosphere would be subject to another. Yes and you can see the different responses between solar and co2 in the image here: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/But the sensitivities are not much different. Evidentially not as the above image shows. The only evidence you can produce is some cartoons from the hockey team? Thats not an argument. . . .those guys have no credibility left. |
|
|
|
Post by enough on Oct 12, 2009 1:37:27 GMT
Myhree '98 Probably in Solomon 2009 I have read Solom 2009, can you point at an abstract for Myhree? |
|
|
|
Post by enough on Oct 12, 2009 2:41:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 12, 2009 18:19:52 GMT
The only evidence you can produce is some cartoons from the hockey team? Thats not an argument. . . .those guys have no credibility left. You can follow the references I trust |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 12, 2009 18:22:18 GMT
Yes sorry that was it I put an extra e on the end of myhre somehow |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 12, 2009 22:41:00 GMT
The only evidence you can produce is some cartoons from the hockey team? Thats not an argument. . . .those guys have no credibility left. You can follow the references I trust Sure but those are the discredited ones. Jones, Hansen, Mann, and Briffa. How can you give any credance to any of them? Jones, the caretaker of the world's climate history. Spends years developing an added value database of global temperatures and can't even describe exactly what he did to add value. . . .or doesn't want anybody to find out. Hansen, endorses civil disobedience regarding CO2 emissions. Mann and Briffa are hockey stick makers. Trying to pass off rare and deformed trees as somekind of road marker to climate history. . . .like some con man selling forged treasure maps. |
|
|
|
Post by enough on Oct 13, 2009 0:45:55 GMT
Tracked down the Myhre 98 paper. As worthless as the Soloman 09 paper for providing any in sight.
Basically ran their model and said here are results. Compared with all the models we are with in 7% of others, but this one is a bit better.
Conclusion; All climate models are inbred (just like tree ring hockey sticks), falsify one they all fail.
Hansen did that with his run on ocean heat content.
|
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 14, 2009 18:35:24 GMT
You can follow the references I trust Sure but those are the discredited ones. Jones, Hansen, Mann, and Briffa. How can you give any credance to any of them? Because they haven't been "discredited" anymore than those darned evolutionists have been discredited by answersingenesis. But on-topic, the relevant reference in the page I cited was: data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Which shows this climate model has a hotspot for an increase in solar activity just as it has one for an increase in co2. Different pattern of warming (primarily stratospheric warming, not cooling), slightly different sensitivity, but a hotspot is there too and the absolute temperature response between the two is nothing close to even a 1:10 ratio. If doubling co2 could only causes 0.01C warming, then all our best science shows that a 1% increase in solar output would only be able to achieve a similar amount of warming. The idea that doubling co2 could cause only 0.01C warming while 1% solar increase could yeild 3C is not supported by any science whatsoever and is just pure fantasy. |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 14, 2009 18:40:52 GMT
Tracked down the Myhre 98 paper. As worthless as the Soloman 09 paper for providing any in sight. Basically ran their model and said here are results. Compared with all the models we are with in 7% of others, but this one is a bit better. It provides the insight of explaining just how they derived the forcing, which is all we can expect to get without say taking a lot of time to study radiation physics and the nature of radiative models of the atmosphere. I believe that may be described as "jumping to a conclusion" |
|
|
|
Post by itsthesunstupid on Oct 14, 2009 20:07:02 GMT
Sure but those are the discredited ones. Jones, Hansen, Mann, and Briffa. How can you give any credence to any of them? Because they haven't been "discredited" anymore than those darned evolutionists have been discredited by answersingenesis. But on-topic, the relevant reference in the page I cited was: data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Which shows this climate model has a hotspot for an increase in solar activity just as it has one for an increase in co2. Different pattern of warming (primarily stratospheric warming, not cooling), slightly different sensitivity, but a hotspot is there too and the absolute temperature response between the two is nothing close to even a 1:10 ratio. If doubling co2 could only causes 0.01C warming, then all our best science shows that a 1% increase in solar output would only be able to achieve a similar amount of warming. The idea that doubling co2 could cause only 0.01C warming while 1% solar increase could yeild 3C is not supported by any science whatsoever and is just pure fantasy. I would agree with the idea that solar output measured in radiance alone would not produce significant temperature increases. However, I only agree under the stipulation that the combined affects of solar activity and their ancillary effects on other climate influences are not considered as part of that assertion. The thought that CO2 could even come close to having the same impact on climate as solar activity (any aspect of solar influence) is what is preposterous. CO2 theory has been thoroughly discredited by the historical facts - indisputable except by AGW faithers such as s Oc Old. And I wish someone could tell me what happened to 1934! |
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 14, 2009 21:46:34 GMT
How can Earth gaining an additional 3.7wm-2 only cause 0.01C warming? Isn't it that which sounds the most preposterous?
|
|
