|
Post by socold on Oct 19, 2009 18:54:11 GMT
socold writes "The radiative transfer models are used to derive a hypothetical situation - a doubling of co2 in the atmosphere with everything else remaining the same." IPCC Definition of Forcing: "The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values. Can you explain to me how radiative transfer models can accomodate both "AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium," and " but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values." I am afraid my knowledge of radiaitve transfer models is not by any means complete, but this I find difficult to understand. Radiative forcing can be calculated with and without adjustment for stratosphere. The difference is the forcing is slightly less with adjustment than without. I remember reading about it but can't remember the reason for adjusting to equilibrium in the stratosphere.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 19, 2009 18:59:24 GMT
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? One can measure the output of the sun increasing or decreasing 2% and it would be as useful, at this time, as the 3.7W-m2. We do NOT have good enough models, info, etc to know what would happen. WE can guess? ?, make assumptions, but we would not be able to predict with any kind of certainty. Hopefully, within 10-15 years or sooner, (which I would prefer), we will have enough data that passes muster to model and make said predictions.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Oct 19, 2009 19:06:43 GMT
SoCold - are you an automaton? We clarify that you are unaware of the workings of GCM and do not know the power of the climate to carry energy to the tropopause by other means other than radiation. I know energy is transfered upwards by convection (which has a cooling effect on the surface). But I don't have numbers. I know that a 3.7wm-2 reduction in energy loss has to be balanced. The climate cannot stay the same. Doubling co2 therefore cannot have "no effect" as skeptics such as Reid Bryson have tried to claim. Furthermore I know that people who have run the calculations for convection, lapse rate, etc have consistently found strong warming from a 3.7wm-2 radiative forcing and noone has been able to show calculations for how low climate sensitivity can plausibly work in the atmosphere. So it's simply an idea without any numerical basis. One thing I know is that modelers have been unable to show such a thing. They consistently find the change in the hydrological cycle involves an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere which causes additional warming. There is a negative feedback from lapse rate change, but this isn't as large as the positive feedback from water vapor increase.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Oct 19, 2009 20:19:00 GMT
SoCold - are you an automaton? We clarify that you are unaware of the workings of GCM and do not know the power of the climate to carry energy to the tropopause by other means other than radiation. I know energy is transfered upwards by convection (which has a cooling effect on the surface). But I don't have numbers. I know that a 3.7wm-2 reduction in energy loss has to be balanced. The climate cannot stay the same. Doubling co2 therefore cannot have "no effect" as skeptics such as Reid Bryson have tried to claim. Furthermore I know that people who have run the calculations for convection, lapse rate, etc have consistently found strong warming from a 3.7wm-2 radiative forcing and noone has been able to show calculations for how low climate sensitivity can plausibly work in the atmosphere. So it's simply an idea without any numerical basis. One thing I know is that modelers have been unable to show such a thing. They consistently find the change in the hydrological cycle involves an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere which causes additional warming. There is a negative feedback from lapse rate change, but this isn't as large as the positive feedback from water vapor increase. Socold: You proposed assumptions in your last paragraph about additional warming. The people who write the models do not understand the hydro cycle in real world conditions well enough to say it causes additional warming OR cooling. The lapse rate is being understood moreso, but even that is rather infant as of yet. Unless there are studies out there that I have not read. I do not read everything published, and would be more than happy for your direction to show me more information.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Oct 20, 2009 0:25:55 GMT
One thing I know is that modelers have been unable to show such a thing. They consistently find the change in the hydrological cycle involves an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere which causes additional warming. There is a negative feedback from lapse rate change, but this isn't as large as the positive feedback from water vapor increase. Thats so bogus!!!! Great example how ivory tower screwed up AGW alarmists are.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Oct 20, 2009 0:47:24 GMT
I know energy is transfered upwards by convection (which has a cooling effect on the surface). But I don't have numbers. I know that a 3.7wm-2 reduction in energy loss has to be balanced. The climate cannot stay the same. Doubling co2 therefore cannot have "no effect" as skeptics such as Reid Bryson have tried to claim. Furthermore I know that people who have run the calculations for convection, lapse rate, etc have consistently found strong warming from a 3.7wm-2 radiative forcing and noone has been able to show calculations for how low climate sensitivity can plausibly work in the atmosphere. So it's simply an idea without any numerical basis. One thing I know is that modelers have been unable to show such a thing. They consistently find the change in the hydrological cycle involves an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere which causes additional warming. There is a negative feedback from lapse rate change, but this isn't as large as the positive feedback from water vapor increase. Socold: You proposed assumptions in your last paragraph about additional warming. The people who write the models do not understand the hydro cycle in real world conditions well enough to say it causes additional warming OR cooling. The lapse rate is being understood moreso, but even that is rather infant as of yet. Unless there are studies out there that I have not read. I do not read everything published, and would be more than happy for your direction to show me more information. Feedback erroneously assumed to be positive. www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 20, 2009 6:20:33 GMT
esto.nasa.gov/conferences/estc-2002/Papers/B4P2(Mlynczak).pdfIII. PRIOR AND EXISTING FAR-IR MEASUREMENTS Despite the recognized importance of the far-IR, there are no currently identified NASA, NOAA, NPOESS or international missions or selected mission candidates with capability to directly (spectrally) sense the Earth and atmosphere far-IR emission. The far-IR spectrum beyond 15 mm was last measured from space on two Russian Meteor spacecraft launched 26 years ago [32] and over 30 years ago by the IRIS instruments on the NASA Nimbus III and IV spacecraft [33, 34], and then only to 25 mm (400 cm-1) (ie 25 micron) with relatively coarse spectral (several cm-1) and spatial resolution. The primary difficulty in measuring the far-IR with high spatial resolution (and high precision) has been the cryogenic cooling demands of prior long-wave detectors and optical systems. Advances in passively cooled pyroelectric detectors and microbolometers [35-38] offer the potential for far-IR measurements to be made with passively cooled detector systems. At present and in the foreseeable future there are no planned space-based spectral measurements extending out beyond about 15 mm. Spectral instruments flying on NASA's Earth Observing System (AIRS and MODIS) do not have channels that measure the far-IR and are not sensitive beyond 15.4 mm. The IASI instrument on the European METOP satellite (launch ~ 2003) is another spectral instrument sensitive only to 15.5 mm. But in breaking news: NASA are planning a launch to remedy the gap in our knowledge of water and are currently testing a system with balloons out in the desert. www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/FIRST-chile.htmlAnd that is why when you look at climate 'science' you get poor resolution spectra of earth from 1974 that leave out over half of the emissions of water vapour and why the earths spectra have to be modeled using MODTRAN simulations.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 20, 2009 8:27:38 GMT
Radiant, read your paper again for goodness sake. It says the last measurement was IRIS (which was the older of the two spectra in the Nature paper I linked in the early 1970s), and that they are talking about beyond 15 microns, which is what I said - the newer spectrum in the paper I linked showed the edge of the 15 micron CO2 line, not the whole line. You are avoiding the fact that MODTRAN is not dependent on measurments from space. As stated in the other thread it is easy to find ground based observations of the spectral region 6-13 microns where there is a water vapour "window" that all the scientists seem to accept - even the non-climate scientists from times before Gore invented Global Warming and the Internet
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 20, 2009 8:50:00 GMT
Radiant, read your paper again for goodness sake. It says the last measurement was IRIS (which was the older of the two spectra in the Nature paper I linked in the early 1970s), and that they are talking about beyond 15 microns, which is what I said - the newer spectrum in the paper I linked showed the edge of the 15 micron CO2 line, not the whole line. You are avoiding the fact that MODTRAN is not dependent on measurments from space. As stated in the other thread it is easy to find ground based observations of the spectral region 6-13 microns where there is a water vapour "window" that all the scientists seem to accept - even the non-climate scientists from times before Gore invented Global Warming and the Internet IRIS measured up to 25 micron 30 years ago. There are no devices in space today for measuring beyond 15.5 microns. Ground based measurements are taken from mountains or Antarctica as i have already said or they were taken from very dry conditions at lower altitude in exceptional conditions. As you point out Modtran has nothing to do with a space based measurement So we have models which have nothing to do with what is observed from space.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 20, 2009 9:13:30 GMT
Such as an autumn afternoon in the arid desert of Central England I wasn't expecting "the laws of physics are different in space" argument, I have to say (nor "the laws of physics were different when IRIS was flying 25-30 years ago"). Perhaps the laws of physics were also different when Tyndall did his experiments?
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Oct 20, 2009 9:22:08 GMT
Its easy to claim positive feedback...its an entirely different thing all together to actually say such drivel as some sort of established fact in light of the real facts...that temperature increases are BELOW those suggested by this supposed CO2 forcing (by definition...low overall feedback). It's a sad realization that we're being led to the edge of oblivion by a group that are too stupid to read a damn thermometer.
You can try all the silly diversions you want, socold...while many of the dim alarmists in the world may be unobservant enough for a bit of hand-waving to distract them...skeptics cannot be fooled by such a simple diversion. There's an elephant in the room with us in the form observational data. Try as you might, you cannot make your assertions reality. Tweak all they want, but the modelers can never tweak enough parameters and variables to force the world into compliance with the models.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 20, 2009 10:31:40 GMT
Such as an autumn afternoon in the arid desert of Central England I wasn't expecting "the laws of physics are different in space" argument, I have to say (nor "the laws of physics were different when IRIS was flying 25-30 years ago"). Perhaps the laws of physics were also different when Tyndall did his experiments? You constantly deliberately cheat and mislead. I said no space based measurements are available towards a known observation place with known absorptions. Then you bring up modtran simulations and keep repeating that IRIS only measured to 25 microns when the far infrared extends to 100 microns and water continues to absorb past that into i believe the microwave region. There are no space observations of the earth. All that exists is low resolution partial spectra. The british observations were taken from a tethered balloon in exceptionally clear conditions. Conditions which are associated with low humidity. Your other quote was over 6000 feet up a mountain These are facts regardless of your opinion. Models are your only reality and you have to invent the rest by cheating and lying You like to bamboozle people with your expertise when in reality you know squat about the real world and seem intent on remaining ignorant
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 20, 2009 10:41:54 GMT
People often get upset and abusive when they realise they are in the wrong.
And *you* are the one who keeps bringing up MODTRAN which is why *I* am the one who is bringing up *observational evidence* of the fact that there is a window between 6-13microns where water vapour does not absorb as much as you think it does.
Why do you keep saying it was a "tethered balloon". Why is that relevant?
To be honest you are doing a good enough job bamboozling yourself.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Oct 20, 2009 10:46:12 GMT
People often get upset and abusive when they realise they are in the wrong. And *you* are the one who keeps bringing up MODTRAN which is why *I* am the one who is bringing up *observational evidence* of the fact that there is a window between 6-13microns where water vapour does not absorb as much as you think it does. Why do you keep saying it was a "tethered balloon". Why is that relevant? To be honest you are doing a good enough job bamboozling yourself. Rubbish. You have no idea what honesty means When you produce a spectra of this window at sea level in normal humidity people will realise i dont know what i am talking about. So far you have done it from a tethered balloon in exceptional visibility and from the top of the best observational high altitude site in the USA leaving me to find out that you were hiding the fact you knew it was not an honest representation. Cheating is your nature Even when i present to this forum evidence that the far infrared spectrum of earth is unmeasured by humans you still want to lie and cheat to cover up your fraudulent nature
|
|
|
Post by steve on Oct 20, 2009 10:48:29 GMT
Magellan
Please could you remind me where I was reading the criticisms of studies based on models, and particularly those based on simple models with simple slab oceans?
|
|