Climate "Science" 101: Excess Heat

[Toddsterpatriot]

The rightwingnut fruitloops started out stating that there was no warming going on at all. When the warming became evident enough that all could see that they were totally wrong, they changed over to 'but it's all natural'. Now that they have been called out on the fact that there are no natural forcing to account for the increase in temperature in the atmosphere and ocean, they have gone to a two pronged attack.

One, well, who are those scientists to tell us what temperature is best, in any case. Total admission that AGW is a fact, and only saying that 'Try it, you might like it'. Of course, the increase in extreme weather events is affecting enough people and nations that this is becoming untenable, as the world's population is finding that they really don't like it.

Two. All these scientists from all the different nations and cultures are in on a gigantic conspiracy, one so tightly knit that no one has come forward to reveal the nature or purpose of this conspiracy. The old tin hat stuff that the rightwingnutjobs thrive on. And the rest of us find amazingly humorous. The same way a drunk harmless old uncle is humored in his nonsensical ramblings.

As the agreement in Paris has demonstrated, the nut jobs have lost, and the President's budget, including the funds for meeting the agreed targets, passed. One more time you fruitloops lose.

Of course, the increase in extreme weather events is affecting enough people and nations that this is becoming untenable, as the world's population is finding that they really don't like it.


When was this magical period in history when we had no extreme weather?
How exactly did we determine the proper number of extreme weather events, so we'd know that the number we have now is abnormally high?

 

[Old Rocks]

National Climate Assessment

Just one point at this site.

 

[Old Rocks]

Heavy precipitation

Are heavy rain events becoming more frequent due to climate change? That is a difficult question to answer, since reliable records are not available at all in many parts of the world, and extend back only a few decades elsewhere. However, we do have a fairly good set of precipitation records for many parts of the globe, and those records show that the heaviest types of rains--those likely to cause flooding--have increased in recent years. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report, "The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas". Indeed, global warming theory has long predicted an increase in heavy precipitation events. As the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 IPCC report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. Satellite measurements (Trenberth et al., 2005) have shown a 1.3% per decade increase in water vapor over the global oceans since 1988. Santer et al. (2007) used a climate model to study the relative contribution of natural and human-caused effects on increasing water vapor, and concluded that this increase was "primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases". This was also the conclusion of Willet et al. (2007).

More water vapor equals more precipitation
This increase in water vapor has very likely led to an increase in global precipitation. For instance, over the U.S., where we have very good precipitation records, annual average precipitation has increased 7% over the past century (Groisman et al., 2004). The same study also found a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events over the U.S. in the past century. Kunkel et al. (2003) also found an increase in heavy precipitation events over the U.S. in recent decades, but noted that heavy precipitation events were nearly as frequent at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, though the data is not as reliable back then. Thus, there is a large natural variation in extreme precipitation events.

Extreme Weather | Weather Underground

More points.

 

[Old Rocks]

Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial.

 

[jc456]

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991

A Description of the Correlated k Distribution Method for Modeling Nongray Gaseous Absorption, Thermal Emission, and Multiple Scattering in Vertically Inhomogeneous Atmospheres

ANDREW A. LACIS

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, New York VALDAR 0INAS Queensborough Community College of CUNY, New York STX, Incorporated, New York

We describe a radiative transfer method for treating nongray gaseous absorption and thermal emission in vertically inhomogeneous multiple scattering atmospheres. We derive probability density distributions of absorption coefficient strength from line-by-line calculations to construct line-by-line and band model based k distributions. The monotonic ordering of absorption coefficient strengths in these k distributions implicitly preserves the monochromatic structure of the atmosphere at different pressure levels, thus simulating monochromatic spectral integration at a fraction of the line-by-line computing cost. The k distribution approach also permits accurate modeling of overlapping absorption by different atmospheric gases and accurate treatment of nongray absorption in multiple scattering media. To help verify the accuracy of the correlated k distribution method, we compare radiative cooling rates by atmospheric water vapor, CO2, and ozone against line-by-line calculations. The results show the correlated k distribution method is capable of achieving numerical accuracy to within 1% of cooling rates obtained with line-by-line calculations throughout the troposphere and most of the stratosphere. 1.

INTRODUCTION Accurate determination of atmospheric heating and cooling rates is essential for understanding the radiation balance of the Earth and the changes that occur in climate. Direct measurements are available only for the troposphere, where the radiative flux divergences are largest [e.g., Smith et al., 1977; Cox and Griffith, 1979]. Also, the limited sampling in time and space of such in situ measurements precludes global monitoring. Further, in order to usefully interpret measurements of radiative flux divergences, simultaneous knowledge is required of the contributing absorber amounts and their vertical distributions.

http://folk.uio.no/jegill/gef4320/Lacis_Oinas_1991_JGR.pdf

Many, many such document available in Google Scholar. For this one, the complete document available at the link. Not that I expect you to read it, or even be capable of beginning to understand it if you did open that link.

highlight the empirical part of that excerpt. The one that says CO2 causes warming. That is what I asked for.

 

[jc456]

Heavy precipitation

Are heavy rain events becoming more frequent due to climate change? That is a difficult question to answer, since reliable records are not available at all in many parts of the world, and extend back only a few decades elsewhere. However, we do have a fairly good set of precipitation records for many parts of the globe, and those records show that the heaviest types of rains--those likely to cause flooding--have increased in recent years. According to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report, "The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas". Indeed, global warming theory has long predicted an increase in heavy precipitation events. As the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air. According to the 2007 IPCC report, water vapor in the global atmosphere has increased by about 5% over the 20th century, and 4% since 1970. Satellite measurements (Trenberth et al., 2005) have shown a 1.3% per decade increase in water vapor over the global oceans since 1988. Santer et al. (2007) used a climate model to study the relative contribution of natural and human-caused effects on increasing water vapor, and concluded that this increase was "primarily due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases". This was also the conclusion of Willet et al. (2007).

More water vapor equals more precipitation
This increase in water vapor has very likely led to an increase in global precipitation. For instance, over the U.S., where we have very good precipitation records, annual average precipitation has increased 7% over the past century (Groisman et al., 2004). The same study also found a 14% increase in heavy (top 5%) and 20% increase in very heavy (top 1%) precipitation events over the U.S. in the past century. Kunkel et al. (2003) also found an increase in heavy precipitation events over the U.S. in recent decades, but noted that heavy precipitation events were nearly as frequent at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, though the data is not as reliable back then. Thus, there is a large natural variation in extreme precipitation events.

Extreme Weather | Weather Underground

More points.

so why haven't there been more incidents of extreme weather, like Hurricanes ? The link here seems to say the opposite.

U.S. Hurricane Strikes by Decade

 

[SSDD]

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991

A Description of the Correlated k Distribution Method for Modeling Nongray Gaseous Absorption, Thermal Emission, and Multiple Scattering in Vertically Inhomogeneous Atmospheres

ANDREW A. LACIS

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, New York VALDAR 0INAS Queensborough Community College of CUNY, New York STX, Incorporated, New York

We describe a radiative transfer method for treating nongray gaseous absorption and thermal emission in vertically inhomogeneous multiple scattering atmospheres. We derive probability density distributions of absorption coefficient strength from line-by-line calculations to construct line-by-line and band model based k distributions. The monotonic ordering of absorption coefficient strengths in these k distributions implicitly preserves the monochromatic structure of the atmosphere at different pressure levels, thus simulating monochromatic spectral integration at a fraction of the line-by-line computing cost. The k distribution approach also permits accurate modeling of overlapping absorption by different atmospheric gases and accurate treatment of nongray absorption in multiple scattering media. To help verify the accuracy of the correlated k distribution method, we compare radiative cooling rates by atmospheric water vapor, CO2, and ozone against line-by-line calculations. The results show the correlated k distribution method is capable of achieving numerical accuracy to within 1% of cooling rates obtained with line-by-line calculations throughout the troposphere and most of the stratosphere. 1.

INTRODUCTION Accurate determination of atmospheric heating and cooling rates is essential for understanding the radiation balance of the Earth and the changes that occur in climate. Direct measurements are available only for the troposphere, where the radiative flux divergences are largest [e.g., Smith et al., 1977; Cox and Griffith, 1979]. Also, the limited sampling in time and space of such in situ measurements precludes global monitoring. Further, in order to usefully interpret measurements of radiative flux divergences, simultaneous knowledge is required of the contributing absorber amounts and their vertical distributions.

http://folk.uio.no/jegill/gef4320/Lacis_Oinas_1991_JGR.pdf

Many, many such document available in Google Scholar. For this one, the complete document available at the link. Not that I expect you to read it, or even be capable of beginning to understand it if you did open that link.

And which part of that do you believe represents empirical proof that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming?

 

[jc456]

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991

A Description of the Correlated k Distribution Method for Modeling Nongray Gaseous Absorption, Thermal Emission, and Multiple Scattering in Vertically Inhomogeneous Atmospheres

ANDREW A. LACIS

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, New York VALDAR 0INAS Queensborough Community College of CUNY, New York STX, Incorporated, New York

We describe a radiative transfer method for treating nongray gaseous absorption and thermal emission in vertically inhomogeneous multiple scattering atmospheres. We derive probability density distributions of absorption coefficient strength from line-by-line calculations to construct line-by-line and band model based k distributions. The monotonic ordering of absorption coefficient strengths in these k distributions implicitly preserves the monochromatic structure of the atmosphere at different pressure levels, thus simulating monochromatic spectral integration at a fraction of the line-by-line computing cost. The k distribution approach also permits accurate modeling of overlapping absorption by different atmospheric gases and accurate treatment of nongray absorption in multiple scattering media. To help verify the accuracy of the correlated k distribution method, we compare radiative cooling rates by atmospheric water vapor, CO2, and ozone against line-by-line calculations. The results show the correlated k distribution method is capable of achieving numerical accuracy to within 1% of cooling rates obtained with line-by-line calculations throughout the troposphere and most of the stratosphere. 1.

INTRODUCTION Accurate determination of atmospheric heating and cooling rates is essential for understanding the radiation balance of the Earth and the changes that occur in climate. Direct measurements are available only for the troposphere, where the radiative flux divergences are largest [e.g., Smith et al., 1977; Cox and Griffith, 1979]. Also, the limited sampling in time and space of such in situ measurements precludes global monitoring. Further, in order to usefully interpret measurements of radiative flux divergences, simultaneous knowledge is required of the contributing absorber amounts and their vertical distributions.

http://folk.uio.no/jegill/gef4320/Lacis_Oinas_1991_JGR.pdf

Many, many such document available in Google Scholar. For this one, the complete document available at the link. Not that I expect you to read it, or even be capable of beginning to understand it if you did open that link.

And which part of that do you believe represents empirical proof that proves that adding CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming?

I hate it when facts get in the way of a good story

 

[9thIDdoc]

Wonder if underwater volcanic activity might not be a factor.

 

[Old Rocks]

Wonder if underwater volcanic activity might not be a factor.

Not according to the geologists at the USGS, and the equivelent services of other nations.

 

[Old Rocks]

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991

A Description of the Correlated k Distribution Method for Modeling Nongray Gaseous Absorption, Thermal Emission, and Multiple Scattering in Vertically Inhomogeneous Atmospheres

ANDREW A. LACIS

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, New York VALDAR 0INAS Queensborough Community College of CUNY, New York STX, Incorporated, New York

We describe a radiative transfer method for treating nongray gaseous absorption and thermal emission in vertically inhomogeneous multiple scattering atmospheres. We derive probability density distributions of absorption coefficient strength from line-by-line calculations to construct line-by-line and band model based k distributions. The monotonic ordering of absorption coefficient strengths in these k distributions implicitly preserves the monochromatic structure of the atmosphere at different pressure levels, thus simulating monochromatic spectral integration at a fraction of the line-by-line computing cost. The k distribution approach also permits accurate modeling of overlapping absorption by different atmospheric gases and accurate treatment of nongray absorption in multiple scattering media. To help verify the accuracy of the correlated k distribution method, we compare radiative cooling rates by atmospheric water vapor, CO2, and ozone against line-by-line calculations. The results show the correlated k distribution method is capable of achieving numerical accuracy to within 1% of cooling rates obtained with line-by-line calculations throughout the troposphere and most of the stratosphere. 1.

INTRODUCTION Accurate determination of atmospheric heating and cooling rates is essential for understanding the radiation balance of the Earth and the changes that occur in climate. Direct measurements are available only for the troposphere, where the radiative flux divergences are largest [e.g., Smith et al., 1977; Cox and Griffith, 1979]. Also, the limited sampling in time and space of such in situ measurements precludes global monitoring. Further, in order to usefully interpret measurements of radiative flux divergences, simultaneous knowledge is required of the contributing absorber amounts and their vertical distributions.

http://folk.uio.no/jegill/gef4320/Lacis_Oinas_1991_JGR.pdf

Many, many such document available in Google Scholar. For this one, the complete document available at the link. Not that I expect you to read it, or even be capable of beginning to understand it if you did open that link.

highlight the empirical part of that excerpt. The one that says CO2 causes warming. That is what I asked for.

You have what you asked for. That you are too ignorant to understand it is not my problem.

 

[jc456]

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991

A Description of the Correlated k Distribution Method for Modeling Nongray Gaseous Absorption, Thermal Emission, and Multiple Scattering in Vertically Inhomogeneous Atmospheres

ANDREW A. LACIS

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, New York VALDAR 0INAS Queensborough Community College of CUNY, New York STX, Incorporated, New York

We describe a radiative transfer method for treating nongray gaseous absorption and thermal emission in vertically inhomogeneous multiple scattering atmospheres. We derive probability density distributions of absorption coefficient strength from line-by-line calculations to construct line-by-line and band model based k distributions. The monotonic ordering of absorption coefficient strengths in these k distributions implicitly preserves the monochromatic structure of the atmosphere at different pressure levels, thus simulating monochromatic spectral integration at a fraction of the line-by-line computing cost. The k distribution approach also permits accurate modeling of overlapping absorption by different atmospheric gases and accurate treatment of nongray absorption in multiple scattering media. To help verify the accuracy of the correlated k distribution method, we compare radiative cooling rates by atmospheric water vapor, CO2, and ozone against line-by-line calculations. The results show the correlated k distribution method is capable of achieving numerical accuracy to within 1% of cooling rates obtained with line-by-line calculations throughout the troposphere and most of the stratosphere. 1.

INTRODUCTION Accurate determination of atmospheric heating and cooling rates is essential for understanding the radiation balance of the Earth and the changes that occur in climate. Direct measurements are available only for the troposphere, where the radiative flux divergences are largest [e.g., Smith et al., 1977; Cox and Griffith, 1979]. Also, the limited sampling in time and space of such in situ measurements precludes global monitoring. Further, in order to usefully interpret measurements of radiative flux divergences, simultaneous knowledge is required of the contributing absorber amounts and their vertical distributions.

http://folk.uio.no/jegill/gef4320/Lacis_Oinas_1991_JGR.pdf

Many, many such document available in Google Scholar. For this one, the complete document available at the link. Not that I expect you to read it, or even be capable of beginning to understand it if you did open that link.

highlight the empirical part of that excerpt. The one that says CO2 causes warming. That is what I asked for.

You have what you asked for. That you are too ignorant to understand it is not my problem.

Well I agree that you are ignorant and do not understand what you posted didn't show any evidence of CO2 causing warmer temps. I get it, you choose to be ignorant.

 

[SSDD]

highlight the empirical part of that excerpt. The one that says CO2 causes warming. That is what I asked for.

You have what you asked for. That you are too ignorant to understand it is not my problem.[/QUOTE]

Either you know as well as we do that there is nothing there that even approaches being empirical evidence to prove anything and you are a lying sack....or you are an idiot child who actually believes that there is some empirical evidence there but are to afraid to point it out for the very reasonable fear that you will be laughed at. Which is it because there is no other alternative...

 

[SSDD]

Well I agree that you are ignorant and do not understand what you posted didn't show any evidence of CO2 causing warmer temps. I get it, you choose to be ignorant.

You didn't actually expect for him to highlight what he thinks is empirical evidence of anything there did you? He is constantly talking out of his ass...making claims that this evidence exists or that evidence exists when he either knows full well that it doesn't exist and he is just a lying sack...or he is just so stupid that he believes that someone making a claim that he likes represents empirical evidence.

When you back them up against the wall and demand specific evidence that they claim to have at their disposal, they start sounding like young earth bible thumpers when you ask them about fossils...the faithful make all the claims they care to make but when you ask for evidence, they act just like rocks, crick and company....

 

[jc456]

Well I agree that you are ignorant and do not understand what you posted didn't show any evidence of CO2 causing warmer temps. I get it, you choose to be ignorant.

You didn't actually expect for him to highlight what he thinks is empirical evidence of anything there did you? He is constantly talking out of his ass...making claims that this evidence exists or that evidence exists when he either knows full well that it doesn't exist and he is just a lying sack...or he is just so stupid that he believes that someone making a claim that he likes represents empirical evidence.

When you back them up against the wall and demand specific evidence that they claim to have at their disposal, they start sounding like young earth bible thumpers when you ask them about fossils...the faithful make all the claims they care to make but when you ask for evidence, they act just like rocks, crick and company....

nope, I knew he wouldn't. He has no idea what it is.

 

[westwall]

Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial.

No. What's amazing is this graph doesn't take into account inflation. Nor does it take into account the population increases etc. In other words, as a useful piece of information...it isn't.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Empirical evidence may be found in AR5. You will simply lie to us and say it isn't there. Well, that would be YOUR problem.

I don't claim proof. I claim overwhelming evidence. Despite numerous lectures on the point, you still don't understand the very basics of the natural sciences.

You don't have any models because no models without AGW work. That would be why you can make no projections. Forecasts, predictions and projections all take models. Again, your problem.

Where's the "EMPERICAL evidence" that the oceans absorbed 93% of the "excess heat"

The EMPERICAL has no clothes

 

[Old Rocks]

Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial.

No. What's amazing is this graph doesn't take into account inflation. Nor does it take into account the population increases etc. In other words, as a useful piece of information...it isn't.

LOL. Inflation? The first graph is number of events. From 1980 to to 2011 graph represents only the billion plus events per state. A comparison of events per state, not the increase in cost. Apparently you never learned to read simple graphs.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D5, PAGES 9027-9063, MAY 20, 1991

A Description of the Correlated k Distribution Method for Modeling Nongray Gaseous Absorption, Thermal Emission, and Multiple Scattering in Vertically Inhomogeneous Atmospheres

ANDREW A. LACIS

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, New York VALDAR 0INAS Queensborough Community College of CUNY, New York STX, Incorporated, New York

We describe a radiative transfer method for treating nongray gaseous absorption and thermal emission in vertically inhomogeneous multiple scattering atmospheres. We derive probability density distributions of absorption coefficient strength from line-by-line calculations to construct line-by-line and band model based k distributions. The monotonic ordering of absorption coefficient strengths in these k distributions implicitly preserves the monochromatic structure of the atmosphere at different pressure levels, thus simulating monochromatic spectral integration at a fraction of the line-by-line computing cost. The k distribution approach also permits accurate modeling of overlapping absorption by different atmospheric gases and accurate treatment of nongray absorption in multiple scattering media. To help verify the accuracy of the correlated k distribution method, we compare radiative cooling rates by atmospheric water vapor, CO2, and ozone against line-by-line calculations. The results show the correlated k distribution method is capable of achieving numerical accuracy to within 1% of cooling rates obtained with line-by-line calculations throughout the troposphere and most of the stratosphere. 1.

INTRODUCTION Accurate determination of atmospheric heating and cooling rates is essential for understanding the radiation balance of the Earth and the changes that occur in climate. Direct measurements are available only for the troposphere, where the radiative flux divergences are largest [e.g., Smith et al., 1977; Cox and Griffith, 1979]. Also, the limited sampling in time and space of such in situ measurements precludes global monitoring. Further, in order to usefully interpret measurements of radiative flux divergences, simultaneous knowledge is required of the contributing absorber amounts and their vertical distributions.

http://folk.uio.no/jegill/gef4320/Lacis_Oinas_1991_JGR.pdf

Many, many such document available in Google Scholar. For this one, the complete document available at the link. Not that I expect you to read it, or even be capable of beginning to understand it if you did open that link.

I'll have to read the article oldrocks didn't bother to read before posting.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Isn't it amazing, the people being hurt most at present are the very people that are in full denial.

No. What's amazing is this graph doesn't take into account inflation. Nor does it take into account the population increases etc. In other words, as a useful piece of information...it isn't.

LOL. Inflation? The first graph is number of events. From 1980 to to 2011 graph represents only the billion plus events per state. A comparison of events per state, not the increase in cost. Apparently you never learned to read simple graphs.

LOL. Inflation?

Wow, you are even dumber than I thought.