Does AR5 contain observed, measured, quantified data that supports the A in AGW

[Crick]

I believe 0 on your unlabeled, unsourced and unidentified graphic is 1950 at the latest. Try again.

 

[SSDD]

I believe 0 on your unlabeled, unsourced and unidentified graphic is 1950 at the latest. Try again.

But you do believe your unlabeled, unsourced, and unidentified graphic?

You are an idiot of the first order...did you know that? And what's the matter...don't want to acknowledge that your graph claims that the present is warmer than the holocene optimum by several degrees?

 

[Crick]

SID, if, as you have stated on numerous occasions, you believe the IPCC lies, is involved in a huge conspiracy and falsifies data, what is the point of this poll?

I do believe the present global temperature is warmer than the global temperature of the Holocene Optimum.

CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=466269

For the 2016 global temperature, add about 0.24 centigrade degrees. That would take it up about as high as the bottom of the "Recent Proxies" box.

 

[SSDD]

SID, if, as you have stated on numerous occasions, you believe the IPCC lies, is involved in a huge conspiracy and falsifies data, what is the point of this poll?

Aren't you able to read? The purpose of the poll is to ask whether AR5 contains observed, measured, quantified, empirical data that supports the A in AGW....clearly it does not.

I do believe the present global temperature is warmer than the global temperature of the Holocene Optimum.

Of course you do...what else could you possibly say? Even though it is patently ridiculous.. You believe what you believe and you have the fake data to prove it.

 

[Crick]

What an effective argumentative technique. Simply reject anything your opponents present. The result is quite predictable: you are marked a fool who has nothing (in hand or upstairs) with which to argue.

 

[jc456]

What an effective argumentative technique. Simply reject anything your opponents present. The result is quite predictable: you are marked a fool who has nothing (in hand or upstairs) with which to argue.

you haven't presented anything. So how can there even be an argument? He's asked you and asked you and you have deflected and stayed silent. now you want to post a message that says he has nothing? Huh? Present the data he's asked from the observed, measured empirical evidence from the IPCC AR5 report you keep referencing with a mere link. Your silence justifies his argument only and makes your post here comedy.

 

[Crick]

If you present a link to an article that you believe contains something we all should see - as the USMB rules urge us to do, can I then accuse you of posting nothing?

 

[jc456]

If you present a link to an article that you believe contains something we all should see - as the USMB rules urge us to do, can I then accuse you of posting nothing?

i know right? I've been waiting for your excerpt for almost five different threads. Where is it?

BTW, post one of mine where I did that.

 

[Crick]

You don't post links to support your arguments? Sorry to hear that.

 

[jc456]

You don't post links to support your arguments? Sorry to hear that.

I don't? Example please!

 

[Crick]

When you said "Post one of mine where I did that", I presumed you were telling me you didn't post links.

 

[jc456]

When you said "Post one of mine where I did that", I presumed you were telling me you didn't post links.

When I post a link, I always provide an excerpt to my point. You? Nope

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.

There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.

The Greenhouse Effect is there, so any additional GHGs will add a warming influence. But there are many other factors involved as well which are not so easily understood or explained or quantified.

One huge factor is clouds. The uncertainty in the effect of timing and type of clouds totally swamps the effect of CO2. But that does not mean that CO2's contribution is not there, it is.

Catastrophic global warming depends not on the simply calculated CO2 influence but on the the highly speculative feedbacks in response. That is why the climate models continue to churn out incorrect numbers.

The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. The best liars believe their lies. The climate science community has followed an error cascade to a point where they cannot easily back up from their mistakes. Political groups have run with the catastrophic predictions and made it even more difficult to correct the mistakes. The media one-sidedly reports predictions of Doom while ignoring any evidence of mistakes or exaggerations.

CRE evidence and observations show the IPCC model failure. A massive failure of -1.62 deg C of forcing per doubling of CO2. The models have failed miserably due to failed understanding of how the water cycle actually works.

Willis Eschenbach eviscerates AR5 Working group 5's work with empirical evidence..

Cloud Feedback

 

[IanC]

The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.

There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.

The Greenhouse Effect is there, so any additional GHGs will add a warming influence. But there are many other factors involved as well which are not so easily understood or explained or quantified.

One huge factor is clouds. The uncertainty in the effect of timing and type of clouds totally swamps the effect of CO2. But that does not mean that CO2's contribution is not there, it is.

Catastrophic global warming depends not on the simply calculated CO2 influence but on the the highly speculative feedbacks in response. That is why the climate models continue to churn out incorrect numbers.

The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. The best liars believe their lies. The climate science community has followed an error cascade to a point where they cannot easily back up from their mistakes. Political groups have run with the catastrophic predictions and made it even more difficult to correct the mistakes. The media one-sidedly reports predictions of Doom while ignoring any evidence of mistakes or exaggerations.

CRE evidence and observations show the IPCC model failure. A massive failure of -1.62 deg C of forcing per doubling of CO2. The models have failed miserably due to failed understanding of how the water cycle actually works.

Willis Eschenbach eviscerates AR5 Working group 5's work with empirical evidence..

Cloud Feedback

??????

I cannot see how that article is anything but supportive of my position over the last 5+ years of posting here.

Do you think that Willis denies the mechanism of greenhouse gas warming, or the ridiculous exaggerations of the IPCC feedbacks?

 

[Crick]

Careful Ian, he's an atmospheric physicist. And Willis Eschenbach! He's a... he's a... I guess he's a blogger with a BA in psychology. I can see why Billy would go that direction for some real expertise.

An awful lot of folks, more qualified than any of us, have been working on climate sensitivity for quite a few years. I really think the reality of transient response of the system as a whole (including those multipliers) cannot at this point be found to be below 3.0.

 

[IanC]

Careful Ian, he's an atmospheric physicist. And Willis Eschenbach! He's a... he's a... I guess he's a blogger with a BA in psychology. I can see why Billy would go that direction for some real expertise.

An awful lot of folks, more qualified than any of us, have been working on climate sensitivity for quite a few years. I really think the reality of transient response of the system as a whole (including those multipliers) cannot at this point be found to be below 3.0.

Someone, Reagan perhaps, said that liberals are dangerous because so much of what they 'know' simply isn't true. Crick is a prime example of this. Transient response has never been 3 degrees.

I am sure Crick has seen the graph estimates for both transient and equilibrium responses done over the last 15 years. Both have been going down and appear to be converging to 1.0 and 1.5C.

Before AR5 was released I questioned how they would handle these changes. They simply kept their 1.5-4.5 range and refused to provide a best guess central estimate. The projections for 2100 temperature did not go down, and the SLR predictions actually went up!

Willis is a very creative polymath even if he hasn't got formal training and credentials. His latest article references a paper that showed the large range of estimates for different factors in a number of climate models. Isn't it odd that such highly divergent quantities always seem to add up to similar end values? It's almost as if they peeked at the end result and tuned the models to agree with each other.

Crick believes in every new paper (that agrees with his opinion) and refuses to acknowledge any criticisms. If the article disagrees with his position he simply reverses his formula and only acknowledges the criticisms while denigrating the ideas and character of the authors.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.

There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.

The Greenhouse Effect is there, so any additional GHGs will add a warming influence. But there are many other factors involved as well which are not so easily understood or explained or quantified.

One huge factor is clouds. The uncertainty in the effect of timing and type of clouds totally swamps the effect of CO2. But that does not mean that CO2's contribution is not there, it is.

Catastrophic global warming depends not on the simply calculated CO2 influence but on the the highly speculative feedbacks in response. That is why the climate models continue to churn out incorrect numbers.

The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. The best liars believe their lies. The climate science community has followed an error cascade to a point where they cannot easily back up from their mistakes. Political groups have run with the catastrophic predictions and made it even more difficult to correct the mistakes. The media one-sidedly reports predictions of Doom while ignoring any evidence of mistakes or exaggerations.

CRE evidence and observations show the IPCC model failure. A massive failure of -1.62 deg C of forcing per doubling of CO2. The models have failed miserably due to failed understanding of how the water cycle actually works.

Willis Eschenbach eviscerates AR5 Working group 5's work with empirical evidence..

Cloud Feedback

??????

I cannot see how that article is anything but supportive of my position over the last 5+ years of posting here.

Do you think that Willis denies the mechanism of greenhouse gas warming, or the ridiculous exaggerations of the IPCC feedbacks?

Willis simply does the math.. Uses the equations used in the IPCC modeling and compares it to empirical evidence. Willis understands the theoretical energy loss retardation of GHG's but he also questions their validity by showing how it simply doesn't add up.

What no one has been able to do is show, empirically, what CO2 is capable of in our atmosphere. Their so called "end of times trigger levels of CO2" can easily be shown a deception and outright lie by looking at the paleo records.

There still is no hard empirical evidence to suggest AGW is dangerous or if we can even influence natural changes or shifts beyond a localized influence.

The US-CRN shows no warming now for over 17 years and a cooling trend for 13 years. Quite the opposite of the UHI induced, localized changes, which affect only aggregate records such as our satellite records.

When we look at just areas of the planet not influenced by man directly the AGW premise falls apart, as it shows no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.. No correlation is even observed.

 

[IanC]

The Greenhouse Effect predates the recent global warming Scare. This effect is necessary to explain the difference between solar input and the actual surface temperature. Roughly 30C difference.

There are well known physical processes that describe why this mechanism is in place, has to be in place.

The Greenhouse Effect is there, so any additional GHGs will add a warming influence. But there are many other factors involved as well which are not so easily understood or explained or quantified.

One huge factor is clouds. The uncertainty in the effect of timing and type of clouds totally swamps the effect of CO2. But that does not mean that CO2's contribution is not there, it is.

Catastrophic global warming depends not on the simply calculated CO2 influence but on the the highly speculative feedbacks in response. That is why the climate models continue to churn out incorrect numbers.

The best lies incorporate as much truth as possible. The best liars believe their lies. The climate science community has followed an error cascade to a point where they cannot easily back up from their mistakes. Political groups have run with the catastrophic predictions and made it even more difficult to correct the mistakes. The media one-sidedly reports predictions of Doom while ignoring any evidence of mistakes or exaggerations.

CRE evidence and observations show the IPCC model failure. A massive failure of -1.62 deg C of forcing per doubling of CO2. The models have failed miserably due to failed understanding of how the water cycle actually works.

Willis Eschenbach eviscerates AR5 Working group 5's work with empirical evidence..

Cloud Feedback

??????

I cannot see how that article is anything but supportive of my position over the last 5+ years of posting here.

Do you think that Willis denies the mechanism of greenhouse gas warming, or the ridiculous exaggerations of the IPCC feedbacks?

Willis simply does the math.. Uses the equations used in the IPCC modeling and compares it to empirical evidence. Willis understands the theoretical energy loss retardation of GHG's but he also questions their validity by showing how it simply doesn't add up.

What no one has been able to do is show, empirically, what CO2 is capable of in our atmosphere. Their so called "end of times trigger levels of CO2" can easily be shown a deception and outright lie by looking at the paleo records.

There still is no hard empirical evidence to suggest AGW is dangerous or if we can even influence natural changes or shifts beyond a localized influence.

The US-CRN shows no warming now for over 17 years and a cooling trend for 13 years. Quite the opposite of the UHI induced, localized changes, which affect only aggregate records such as our satellite records.

When we look at just areas of the planet not influenced by man directly the AGW premise falls apart, as it shows no warming despite increasing CO2 levels.. No correlation is even observed.

Natural factors can easily overwhelm CO2 influence. That does not mean that CO2 doesn't have an influence.

You saying CO2 is inconsequential is just as bad as the warmers saying CO2 will cause doom.

 

[Crick]

Transient response has never been 3 degrees.

You are correct, I erred. I should have said "equilibrium climate sensitivity.

EQUILIBRIUM CLIMATE SENSITIVITY

TRANSIENT CLIMATE SENSITIVITY

Equilibrium and transient climate sensitivity
(Wikipedia - Climate Sensitivity)
The equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the equilibrium change in global mean near-surface air temperature that would result from a sustained doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) carbon dioxide concentration (ΔTx2). As estimated by the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) "there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikelyless than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C."[4] This is a change from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), which said it was likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C, and is very unlikely to be less than 1.5 °C. Values substantially higher than 4.5 °C cannot be excluded, but agreement of models with observations is not as good for those values.[5] The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) said it was "likely to be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 °C".[6] Other estimates of climate sensitivity are discussed later on.

A model estimate of equilibrium sensitivity thus requires a very long model integration; fully equilibrating ocean temperatures requires integrations of thousands of model years. A measure requiring shorter integrations is the transient climate response (TCR) which is defined as the average temperature response over a twenty-year period centered at CO2doubling in a transient simulation with CO2 increasing at 1% per year.[7] The transient response is lower than the equilibrium sensitivity, due to the "inertia" of ocean heat uptake.

Over the 50–100 year timescale, the climate response to forcing is likely to follow the TCR; for considerations of climate stabilization, the ECS is more useful.

An estimate of the equilibrium climate sensitivity may be made from combining the transient climate sensitivity with the known properties of the ocean reservoirs and the surface heat fluxes; this is the effective climate sensitivity. This "may vary with forcing history and climate state".[8] [9]

A less commonly used concept, the Earth system sensitivity (ESS), can be defined which includes the effects of slower feedbacks, such as the albedo change from melting the large ice sheets that covered much of the northern hemisphere during the last glacial maximum. These extra feedbacks make the ESS larger than the ECS — possibly twice as large — but also mean that it may well not apply to current conditions.[10]

 

[SSDD]

There was a previous thread that the odds of an emitted photon being absorbed by CO2 are about 1 in a billion.

Here is a cut and paste from the original post....

Q: What is the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom (usually N2) out in the open atmosphere?

A: About 1 nanosecond

Q: Can you tell me how many times longer the mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is than the mean time between molecular collisions through which an excited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom?

A: The mean decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon is around 1 second....how much longer is that than the mean time between molecular collisions through which unexcited CO2 molecule might transfer its energy to another atom...why its about a billion times as long.

Q: Ccan you tell me what the ramifications of the difference between those times is for the idea of CO2 molecules absorbing and emitting IR photons in all directions?

A: Well, since the mean time between molecular collisions is so much shorter than the decay time for an excited CO2 molecule to emit an IR photon, the CO2 molecule will transfer its energy to another atom or molecule 99.9999999% of the time... This means that the popular mental image of a CO2 molecules emitting IR photons off in all directions which is the basis for the AGW hypothesis only happens once in every billion energy exchanges...Direct energy exchange between the CO2 and another atom or molecule happens the other 999,999,999 times. In other words; insofar as moving energy out of the atmosphere, convection rules....radiation is a bit player of such minute proportions that it hardly rates mention.