CO2 Residence Time (Soloman vs Segalstad)

[sigurdur]

My whole contention of why the 3.7Wm2 is about useless for anything. And the above confirms it. Even the IPCC recognizes this. The climate is not static, has never been, never will be.

To assert that there is any value in a slab models results when referring to a dynamic and chaotic system.....is.....well....absurd.

It just doesn't apply. That is NOT hard to understand.

[steve]

My whole contention of why the 3.7Wm2 is about useless for anything. And the above confirms it. Even the IPCC recognizes this. The climate is not static, has never been, never will be.

Sigurdur, will you *stop* making incorrect claims about what other people say. Before you said "everyone" thinks warming from doubling CO2 will be less than 1C. Now you say the IPCC thinks the radiative forcing number is "useless for everything".

1. The 3.7 number is empirically derived. It is a relatively simple calculation to do based on two reasonably well known sets of quantities - a profile of the earth's atmosphere and emission/absorption characteristics of materials and gases.

2. It is used as a useful metric to compare different causes of climate change - though it is not assumed that two things with the same forcing number will have the same effect.

Most of the comments do not see this point. For example, arguing that the figure is small compared with convection etc. is irrelevant. It is a similar sort of argument to saying that man's CO2 emissions are small compared to nature's. In both cases the change is a perturbation to what was there before. Establishing the approximate size of the perturbation is one problem. Establishing the impact is another.

Other comments argue that the definition is wrong or meaningless because it is unmeasurable or unphysical. Again, that is a diversion. The calculations that derive the figure are soundly based (as accepted by Spencer, Lindzen blah blah...), and validated by spectral analyses of the earth. The *impact*, though, is measured through a separate sets of experiments known as GCMs which don't include any sort of direct reference to the 3.7W/m^2 number. The fact that the IPCC definition is overly specific is simply down to the fact that if you want to measure different things to create a useful metric you have to at least agree to measure them consistently (remember that a 10% difference in, say, the calculation of SF6 forcing is probably neither here nor there for modelling climate but might be quite important to the magnesium production industry).

I'm happy to argue about GCMs and I'm happy to argue about radiative forcing, but trying to mix and match arguments is either a deliberate diversion or an admission of failure to understand the subject.

[radiant]

Oct 19, 2009 11:42:17 GMT steve said:

My whole contention of why the 3.7Wm2 is about useless for anything. And the above confirms it. Even the IPCC recognizes this. The climate is not static, has never been, never will be.

Sigurdur, will you *stop* making incorrect claims about what other people say. Before you said "everyone" thinks warming from doubling CO2 will be less than 1C. Now you say the IPCC thinks the radiative forcing number is "useless for everything".

1. The 3.7 number is empirically derived. It is a relatively simple calculation to do based on two reasonably well known sets of quantities - a profile of the earth's atmosphere and emission/absorption characteristics of materials and gases.

2. It is used as a useful metric to compare different causes of climate change - though it is not assumed that two things with the same forcing number will have the same effect.

Most of the comments do not see this point. For example, arguing that the figure is small compared with convection etc. is irrelevant. It is a similar sort of argument to saying that man's CO2 emissions are small compared to nature's. In both cases the change is a perturbation to what was there before. Establishing the approximate size of the perturbation is one problem. Establishing the impact is another.

Other comments argue that the definition is wrong or meaningless because it is unmeasurable or unphysical. Again, that is a diversion. The calculations that derive the figure are soundly based (as accepted by Spencer, Lindzen blah blah...), and validated by spectral analyses of the earth. The *impact*, though, is measured through a separate sets of experiments known as GCMs which don't include any sort of direct reference to the 3.7W/m^2 number. The fact that the IPCC definition is overly specific is simply down to the fact that if you want to measure different things to create a useful metric you have to at least agree to measure them consistently (remember that a 10% difference in, say, the calculation of SF6 forcing is probably neither here nor there for modelling climate but might be quite important to the magnesium production industry).

I'm happy to argue about GCMs and I'm happy to argue about radiative forcing, but trying to mix and match arguments is either a deliberate diversion or an admission of failure to understand the subject.

There is no spectra from space that supports your theoretical argument

Where is this spectra from space?

Where is this spectra of a known location at a known time?

It does not exist

Studies are showing nothing unless they cherry pick data and for all i know use observations of the earth over antarctica

All you can do is refer people to a model of reality

From my point of view it is like i am talking to some boys with airfix models about what it is like to fly a glider thousands of feet in the atmosphere

All they can do is imagine and dream like children

[hunter]

Oct 19, 2009 11:42:17 GMT steve said:

My whole contention of why the 3.7Wm2 is about useless for anything. And the above confirms it. Even the IPCC recognizes this. The climate is not static, has never been, never will be.

Sigurdur, will you *stop* making incorrect claims about what other people say. Before you said "everyone" thinks warming from doubling CO2 will be less than 1C. Now you say the IPCC thinks the radiative forcing number is "useless for everything".

1. The 3.7 number is empirically derived. It is a relatively simple calculation to do based on two reasonably well known sets of quantities - a profile of the earth's atmosphere and emission/absorption characteristics of materials and gases.

2. It is used as a useful metric to compare different causes of climate change - though it is not assumed that two things with the same forcing number will have the same effect.

Most of the comments do not see this point. For example, arguing that the figure is small compared with convection etc. is irrelevant. It is a similar sort of argument to saying that man's CO2 emissions are small compared to nature's. In both cases the change is a perturbation to what was there before. Establishing the approximate size of the perturbation is one problem. Establishing the impact is another.

Other comments argue that the definition is wrong or meaningless because it is unmeasurable or unphysical. Again, that is a diversion. The calculations that derive the figure are soundly based (as accepted by Spencer, Lindzen blah blah...), and validated by spectral analyses of the earth. The *impact*, though, is measured through a separate sets of experiments known as GCMs which don't include any sort of direct reference to the 3.7W/m^2 number. The fact that the IPCC definition is overly specific is simply down to the fact that if you want to measure different things to create a useful metric you have to at least agree to measure them consistently (remember that a 10% difference in, say, the calculation of SF6 forcing is probably neither here nor there for modelling climate but might be quite important to the magnesium production industry).

I'm happy to argue about GCMs and I'm happy to argue about radiative forcing, but trying to mix and match arguments is either a deliberate diversion or an admission of failure to understand the subject.

When the GCMs match reality, it is due to their being tweaked to produce the known answer.
Sort of like with has happened with the hockey sticks:
If you exclude everything that is not a hockey stick you get a hockey stick.
As to the energy increase due to CO2, it is trivial.
As trivial as the 'evidence' the AGW community has relied on to sell their theory: within the margins of error and natural variability

[steve]

Radiant

There is no spectra from space that supports your theoretical argument

Yes there are. You know of at least three satellite spectra in two papers that we have recently discussed. Your theories about water vapour look to me like they are wrong. Happy to discuss in the other thread rather than here.

[sigurdur]

Oct 19, 2009 11:42:17 GMT steve said:

My whole contention of why the 3.7Wm2 is about useless for anything. And the above confirms it. Even the IPCC recognizes this. The climate is not static, has never been, never will be.

Sigurdur, will you *stop* making incorrect claims about what other people say. Before you said "everyone" thinks warming from doubling CO2 will be less than 1C. Now you say the IPCC thinks the radiative forcing number is "useless for everything".

1. The 3.7 number is empirically derived. It is a relatively simple calculation to do based on two reasonably well known sets of quantities - a profile of the earth's atmosphere and emission/absorption characteristics of materials and gases.

2. It is used as a useful metric to compare different causes of climate change - though it is not assumed that two things with the same forcing number will have the same effect.

Most of the comments do not see this point. For example, arguing that the figure is small compared with convection etc. is irrelevant. It is a similar sort of argument to saying that man's CO2 emissions are small compared to nature's. In both cases the change is a perturbation to what was there before. Establishing the approximate size of the perturbation is one problem. Establishing the impact is another.

Other comments argue that the definition is wrong or meaningless because it is unmeasurable or unphysical. Again, that is a diversion. The calculations that derive the figure are soundly based (as accepted by Spencer, Lindzen blah blah...), and validated by spectral analyses of the earth. The *impact*, though, is measured through a separate sets of experiments known as GCMs which don't include any sort of direct reference to the 3.7W/m^2 number. The fact that the IPCC definition is overly specific is simply down to the fact that if you want to measure different things to create a useful metric you have to at least agree to measure them consistently (remember that a 10% difference in, say, the calculation of SF6 forcing is probably neither here nor there for modelling climate but might be quite important to the magnesium production industry).

I'm happy to argue about GCMs and I'm happy to argue about radiative forcing, but trying to mix and match arguments is either a deliberate diversion or an admission of failure to understand the subject.

Steve:
You are missing my point. I do not question the 3.7W-m2 and understand the physics behind that number. I am questioning the usefullness of that number. The number is derived from a slab analysis which is fine. The application of that number in the very real climate is not, as the climate changes, so the 3.7 would also change as the reaction changes the metrics. Or am I missing something here?

[radiant]

Oct 19, 2009 14:05:37 GMT steve said:

Radiant

There is no spectra from space that supports your theoretical argument

Yes there are. You know of at least three satellite spectra in two papers that we have recently discussed. Your theories about water vapour look to me like they are wrong. Happy to discuss in the other thread rather than here.

I find it amazing how people here seem to think they know everything and can leanrn nothing and they set themselves up as experts while knowing more or less nothing

www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/FIRST-chile.html

Nasa is planning to launch a satellite to measure water vapours far infrared influence upon the troposphere

According to Nasa the far infrared from 15 to 100 microns has never been measured from space and rarely from earth.

When a team from NASA's Langley Research Center wanted to study water vapor in the atmosphere, they decided to go to one of the driest places on Earth. From a mobile lab on a mountain-top in Chile's Atacama Desert, the Langley-led team has spent months observing water vapor's effect on the climate. The remote and dry location allows for better scientific observations.

Using a new instrument called Far-Infrared Spectroscopy of the Troposphere (FIRST), the team is taking measurements of water vapor emissions in the "far infrared." This part of the spectrum has rarely been measured from the ground, and has never been measured thoroughly from space, though it is thought to account for half of the Earth's cooling emissions to space.[/color]

[nautonnier]

The problem is that the IPCC needed to meet its initial remit, which was to show that anthropogenic carbon emissions were a causing detrimental climate change The main impetus for this was from Margaret Thatcher who had been in a dispute with the UK Coal Miners and was pushing to increase nuclear power.

So it appears that all the definitions and requirements were written not to understand the climate but to show that carbon emissions were causing hazardous climate change. More sensible and workable definitions for radiation metrics would have been to use the Top of the Atmosphere (TOA) as the measurement point. However, using the tropopause and explicitly ignoring and discounting convective transport of heat to the tropopause is in-line with the approach which was to highlight minor absorption of IR by anthropogenic emissions as the major driver of hazardous climate change.

[steve]

Steve:
You are missing my point. I do not question the 3.7W-m2 and understand the physics behind that number. I am questioning the usefullness of that number. The number is derived from a slab analysis which is fine. The application of that number in the very real climate is not, as the climate changes, so the 3.7 would also change as the reaction changes the metrics. Or am I missing something here?

Your post implied the IPCC agreed with you that the number was not useful. Though on rereading it the comment on the IPCC looks like it was supposed to refer to the "climate is not static" bit.

So If I said that there is no point in measuring the strength of the sun because the sun warming or cooling by 2% (the equivalent of the calculated doubling or halving of CO2) will tell us nothing about what will happen to the earth's climate you will be entirely happy?

[nautonnier]

Oct 19, 2009 11:42:17 GMT steve said:

My whole contention of why the 3.7Wm2 is about useless for anything. And the above confirms it. Even the IPCC recognizes this. The climate is not static, has never been, never will be.

Sigurdur, will you *stop* making incorrect claims about what other people say. Before you said "everyone" thinks warming from doubling CO2 will be less than 1C. Now you say the IPCC thinks the radiative forcing number is "useless for everything".

1. The 3.7 number is empirically derived. It is a relatively simple calculation to do based on two reasonably well known sets of quantities - a profile of the earth's atmosphere and emission/absorption characteristics of materials and gases.

2. It is used as a useful metric to compare different causes of climate change - though it is not assumed that two things with the same forcing number will have the same effect.

Most of the comments do not see this point. For example, arguing that the figure is small compared with convection etc. is irrelevant. It is a similar sort of argument to saying that man's CO2 emissions are small compared to nature's. In both cases the change is a perturbation to what was there before. Establishing the approximate size of the perturbation is one problem. Establishing the impact is another.

Other comments argue that the definition is wrong or meaningless because it is unmeasurable or unphysical. Again, that is a diversion. The calculations that derive the figure are soundly based (as accepted by Spencer, Lindzen blah blah...), and validated by spectral analyses of the earth. The *impact*, though, is measured through a separate sets of experiments known as GCMs which don't include any sort of direct reference to the 3.7W/m^2 number. The fact that the IPCC definition is overly specific is simply down to the fact that if you want to measure different things to create a useful metric you have to at least agree to measure them consistently (remember that a 10% difference in, say, the calculation of SF6 forcing is probably neither here nor there for modelling climate but might be quite important to the magnesium production industry).

I'm happy to argue about GCMs and I'm happy to argue about radiative forcing, but trying to mix and match arguments is either a deliberate diversion or an admission of failure to understand the subject.

"Most of the comments do not see this point. For example, arguing that the figure is small compared with convection etc. is irrelevant. It is a similar sort of argument to saying that man's CO2 emissions are small compared to nature's. In both cases the change is a perturbation to what was there before. Establishing the approximate size of the perturbation is one problem. Establishing the impact is another."

Steve I think everyone accepts that there is a perturbation, what is NOT accepted is the AGW hypothesis that says the result of that perturbation is solely a positive feedback.

The results from ERBE appear to show that there is NOT a positive feedback and that the other major systems such as convection merely increase slightly to reverse the very small perturbation in a negative feedback.

So arguing that the perturbation is small and easily overcome by a negative feedback in convection is extremely relevant and would appear to demonstrate a good grasp of the atmospheres reaction to perturbation. Which unsurprisingly is less obvious in mathematicians using a slab unreactive atmosphere for their calculations.

[steve]

Radiant

I find it amazing how people here seem to think they know everything and can leanrn nothing and they set themselves up as experts while knowing more or less nothing

Thanks to you, I've been forced to learn lot more about the spectrum of water and water vapour now than I did a week or so ago. I have never claimed to be an expert.

On the other hand, you appear to be basing all your belief on the findings of a scientist 150 years ago. So which of us is reluctant to learn something?

The links I've just added to the other thread suggest that you have either misunderstood the findings of Tyndall, or that Tyndall was wrong in some respects.

[radiant]

Oct 19, 2009 16:00:33 GMT steve said:

Radiant

I find it amazing how people here seem to think they know everything and can leanrn nothing and they set themselves up as experts while knowing more or less nothing

Thanks to you, I've been forced to learn lot more about the spectrum of water and water vapour now than I did a week or so ago. I have never claimed to be an expert.

On the other hand, you appear to be basing all your belief on the findings of a scientist 150 years ago. So which of us is reluctant to learn something?

The links I've just added to the other thread suggest that you have either misunderstood the findings of Tyndall, or that Tyndall was wrong in some respects.

I have already shown the kind of wrong thinking that creates such notions

Tyndall said:

Nature is full of anomalies which no forsight can predict, and which experiment alone can reveal

Your attitude is that you know more than me and my understanding is faulty

And you continue with this wrongheaded notion even when it is shown that no studies have been done of the full Ir spectrum of earth from space

If you have a spectrum of water vapour then present it - dont just tell me i am wrong and do so endlessly because you know better.

The only spectrum of water vapour known to exist so far to me is from 2.6 micron to 3.6 micron whereas NASA are to launch a satellite one day to measure up to 100 micron

If you have a better water vapour spectrum to show how wrong Tyndall was then how about you do more than say the man was wrong with zero experimental evidence to support that other than words and opinions?

[magellan]

Oct 19, 2009 11:42:17 GMT steve said:

My whole contention of why the 3.7Wm2 is about useless for anything. And the above confirms it. Even the IPCC recognizes this. The climate is not static, has never been, never will be.

Sigurdur, will you *stop* making incorrect claims about what other people say. Before you said "everyone" thinks warming from doubling CO2 will be less than 1C. Now you say the IPCC thinks the radiative forcing number is "useless for everything".

1. The 3.7 number is empirically derived. It is a relatively simple calculation to do based on two reasonably well known sets of quantities - a profile of the earth's atmosphere and emission/absorption characteristics of materials and gases.

2. It is used as a useful metric to compare different causes of climate change - though it is not assumed that two things with the same forcing number will have the same effect.

Most of the comments do not see this point. For example, arguing that the figure is small compared with convection etc. is irrelevant. It is a similar sort of argument to saying that man's CO2 emissions are small compared to nature's. In both cases the change is a perturbation to what was there before. Establishing the approximate size of the perturbation is one problem. Establishing the impact is another.

Other comments argue that the definition is wrong or meaningless because it is unmeasurable or unphysical. Again, that is a diversion. The calculations that derive the figure are soundly based (as accepted by Spencer, Lindzen blah blah...), and validated by spectral analyses of the earth. The *impact*, though, is measured through a separate sets of experiments known as GCMs which don't include any sort of direct reference to the 3.7W/m^2 number. The fact that the IPCC definition is overly specific is simply down to the fact that if you want to measure different things to create a useful metric you have to at least agree to measure them consistently (remember that a 10% difference in, say, the calculation of SF6 forcing is probably neither here nor there for modelling climate but might be quite important to the magnesium production industry).

I'm happy to argue about GCMs and I'm happy to argue about radiative forcing, but trying to mix and match arguments is either a deliberate diversion or an admission of failure to understand the subject.

1. The 3.7 number is empirically derived. It is a relatively simple calculation to do based on two reasonably well known sets of quantities - a profile of the earth's atmosphere and emission/absorption characteristics of materials and gases.

It is an estimate based on tunable parameters, it is not empirical. It is questionable if you even understand what empirically derived means. You also fail to mention earlier estimates in IPCC were placed at 4.3 Wm², which was also derived from parametrization. When observations did not support such high estimates, including 3.7, the aerosol card was played to explain this inconsistency.

You also make this curious statement:

The *impact*, though, is measured through a separate sets of experiments known as GCMs which don't include any sort of direct reference to the 3.7W/m^2 number.

By definition an experiment is used to test a hypothesis. A GCM is by itself a hypothesis, so tell us how a hypothesis can be used to test a hypothesis.

This is why you cannot provide sources which place this 3.7 Wm² derivation as a first principle component, because it does not exist.

However, as you have been challenged several times to address the recent Lindzen paper which is based on empirical data, again now by nautonnier, you have avoided it like the plague. No aerosol cooling effect can explain this.

Your AGW (caused by rising levels of CO2) house of cards are collapsing before your eyes.

[steve]

Oct 19, 2009 16:39:02 GMT magellan said:

1. The 3.7 number is empirically derived. It is a relatively simple calculation to do based on two reasonably well known sets of quantities - a profile of the earth's atmosphere and emission/absorption characteristics of materials and gases.

It is an estimate based on tunable parameters, it is not empirical. It is questionable if you even understand what empirically derived means. You also fail to mention earlier estimates in IPCC were placed at 4.3 Wm², which was also derived from parametrization. When observations did not support such high estimates, including 3.7, the aerosol card was played to explain this inconsistency.

Why does it matter what I call it. Empirical is fine I think because it is based on application of radiative transfer to an atmosphere profile based on observations rather than it being any sort of innate effect of CO2. Criticising what I call it, and bringing in suggestions of "tunable parameters" doesn't really change the fact that largely the figure is accepted as likely being close to the right answer.

Also, I don't really care if it used to be 4.3. I don't think the world is 15% safer for the change. It is a detailed calculation, and the science moves on. As it happens the change is not attributed to aerosols by Myhre 1998, and I doubt very much that any observations were sufficient to spot the 15% error. Mr Cripwell will be asking you for that paper if it truly exists .

You also make this curious statement:

The *impact*, though, is measured through a separate sets of experiments known as GCMs which don't include any sort of direct reference to the 3.7W/m^2 number.

By definition an experiment is used to test a hypothesis. A GCM is by itself a hypothesis, so tell us how a hypothesis can be used to test a hypothesis.

This is why you cannot provide sources which place this 3.7 Wm² derivation as a first principle component, because it does not exist.

However, as you have been challenged several times to address the recent Lindzen paper which is based on empirical data, again now by nautonnier, you have avoided it like the plague. No aerosol cooling effect can explain this.

Your AGW (caused by rising levels of CO2) house of cards are collapsing before your eyes.

The GCM is of course tested against observations. I don't quite see where you get this testing a hypothesis against a hypothesis from/

We're aready enough off-topic, and I'm hardly an expert, so I'll just say that negative feedbacks between 1985 and 1999 do not appear to square with observed ocean and atmosphere warming over the same period. Lindzen appears to have looked at a subset of periods within this time based on periods of rapid SST change, and he has looked in the tropics. A possible solution to the conundrum is that the periods and the locations are overly selective.

Perhaps in the real world, the processes that cause a rise in SSTs are correlated with the processes that cause clear skies. His model comparisons are atmosphere-only models where the SST changes are an input to the model. Probably he needs to run GCMs (ie. models which include an ocean model) and then look at the GCM output to find periods where the ocean SSTs change in the same way as the observations, and then compare the radiation balance. That would be a fairer comparison surely.

[socold]

Oct 18, 2009 20:58:42 GMT radiant said:

If C02 was significantly emitting radiation back to earth why cant you see this from places with low water vapour like antarctica? Even with extraordinaryly low levels of water vapour in the entire atmosphere above the detectors water emissions are the ones that are detected

Perhaps that's because the water vapor near the surface absorbs most of the IR emitted by co2 higher up. Or perhaps not. But it's known that co2 emits IR and how much it does emit so that cannot be in question.