Global Warming and the Null Hypothesis...

[Billy_Bob]

You have no 'facts'. There is no longer any scientific debate over the reality of AGW. You're a delusional denier cult wacko arrogantly imagining that you are smarter and know more than the professional scientists who've studied this matter for decades. You are a joke but you're just too stupid to realize it.

Amazing... You have nothing. I have posted facts and links to those facts. Yet you troll on... You say there is no scientific debate, yet it is happening and the billions of dollars spent by the activists are being laid waste by mother nature herself and a group of true scientists.

I know personally many of those scientists who have studied this for decades and if you pose the questions to them like I did in the OP and ask specific questions the so called Consensus dies.

Is the globe warming? Questions asked like this are ambiguous, misleading and deceitful. You must ask, In the last fifty years has the globe warmed?, Then you must ask, How much of that warming is due to land use change and instrumentation creep? Are other previous rates of warming similar? If so, what are the rates of rise and what is the differential of that rise? With that differential what is cause by human emissions?

When you ask these questions in a logical manner, you find out that the majority agree that man must have some influence, but they will also agree they have no clue what that is because the differential is so small that instrumentation creep is greater than the differential.

Your consensus is a political ploy derived from bull shit science.

 

[Billy_Bob]

BTW:

A lot has been written about 60 yr period natural variations. A number of conjectures there to explain the "sinewave" sitting on the trend data. One of the more common is "center of solar mass" which gyrates with the pull of the local planets. A little hard to accept intuititively, but the same 60 year cycles show up in more ancient historical proxy data..

Ive dealt with the under the bridge guys may times. And thank you for the welcome.

As for the LOG of CO2 we have already spent 92-93% of the warming CO2 is capable of. I will spend some time on a post, on this item specifically, soon.

As for the solar input to our earths climatic systems, there are many aspects that most will not understand. Minute changes in spectrum output on the sun can make devastating changes on earth. Another post that will take some time to set up.

 

[flacaltenn]

BTW:

A lot has been written about 60 yr period natural variations. A number of conjectures there to explain the "sinewave" sitting on the trend data. One of the more common is "center of solar mass" which gyrates with the pull of the local planets. A little hard to accept intuititively, but the same 60 year cycles show up in more ancient historical proxy data..

Ive dealt with the under the bridge guys may times. And thank you for the welcome.

As for the LOG of CO2 we have already spent 92-93% of the warming CO2 is capable of. I will spend some time on a post, on this item specifically, soon.

As for the solar input to our earths climatic systems, there are many aspects that most will not understand. Minute changes in spectrum output on the sun can make devastating changes on earth. Another post that will take some time to set up.

We're gonna get along quite well. That spectral shift biz is CRITICAL given the width and overlap of GHGas absorption lines. And we've only had REALTIME sat data for about 20 years. Already seen spectral shifts with the solar cycle (we think) and a trend to much higher UV content.

Take a slow pace. It's a slow audience..


PS --- could you bring us a couple first string warmers PLEASE !!!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

More CO2...reduction in plants?

Not only does the AGWCult believe absolutely anything, they make up stuff on the spot to fit their failed "Theory"

 

[Crick]

Regarding the resurrected theories of Angstrom regarding the saturation of the CO2 effect, I suggest you look into the work of E. O. Hulburt showing convection to be the dominant transfer function in the lower troposphere and radiative above.

Then you might have a look at the work of Gilbert Plass regarding Angstrom's (and his followers') oversimplification of the CO2 absorption spectrum and the effects of pressure and temperature on spectral broadening.

Finally, consider the effect that the actual boundary to radiation of IR to space is the last layer of atmosphere which has sufficient density for its CO2 to block the radiation. For any given state of the atmosphere, this will happen at a given altitude. But what happens when we increase the atmosphere's temperature, as this trapped IR will do? The atmosphere expands. The boundary level ascends. The volume of atmosphere available for the retention of thermal energy expands.

Regarding the absorption of the IR by CO2, the Earth's climate system is a very, very long ways from "saturated".

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets dissect these myths one at a time, shall we?

Regarding the resurrected theories of Angstrom regarding the saturation of the CO2 effect, I suggest you look into the work of E. O. Hulburt showing convection to be the dominant transfer function in the lower troposphere and radiative above.

We will start with CO2 saturation. When you look at the earths prevailing winds and time of year you find a gradient of 100ppm from pole to equator and areas of much lower CO2 levels above the oceans. CO2 is NOT well mixed in our atmosphere due to its molecular weight.

CO2 Climate sensitivity overestimated by a factor of 7

A new model is out today from Dr Craig Loehle. (Paper here)

Abstract

Climate sensitivity summarizes the net effect of a change in forcing on Earth's surface temperature. Estimates based on energy balance calculations give generally lower values for sensitivity (<2 °C per doubling of forcing) than those based on general circulation models, but utilize uncertain historical data and make various assumptions about forcings. A minimal model was used that has the fewest possible assumptions and the least data uncertainty. Using only the historical surface temperature record, the periodic temperature oscillations often associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation were estimated and subtracted from the surface temperature data, leaving a linear warming trend identified as an anthropogenic signal. This estimated rate of warming was related to the fraction of a log CO2 doubling from 1959 to 2013 to give an estimated transient sensitivity of 1.093 °C (0.96–1.23 °C 95% confidence limits) and equilibrium climate sensitivity of 1.99 °C (1.75–2.23 °C). It is argued that higher estimates derived from climate models are incorrect because they disagree with empirical estimates.

What i find very interesting is that they used a minimal model and still got less than a 1 deg C rise per doubling of CO2. When you add in solar forcings and other known factors if further reduces the potential climate sensitivity of CO2 to less than 0.4 deg C. This means that current GCM modeling has over estimated CO2's roll by some 7.6 times.

Dr loehle is actually defending his paper and explaining his reasoning's at WUWT

This is what you call open science. Dr Loehle has even offered in comments to send his paper in full to those requesting it. Now this is how science should be done. With levels like he has shown the CO2 monster has already expended all of its power and AGW is dead. Climate sensitivity of less than a one to one per doubling means CO2 is meaningless.

Then you might have a look at the work of Gilbert Plass regarding Angstrom's (and his followers') oversimplification of the CO2 absorption spectrum and the effects of pressure and temperature on spectral broadening.

Finally, consider the effect that the actual boundary to radiation of IR to space is the last layer of atmosphere which has sufficient density for its CO2 to block the radiation. For any given state of the atmosphere, this will happen at a given altitude. But what happens when we increase the atmosphere's temperature, as this trapped IR will do? The atmosphere expands. The boundary level ascends. The volume of atmosphere available for the retention of thermal energy expands.

Regarding the absorption of the IR by CO2, the Earth's climate system is a very, very long ways from "saturated".

As for Saturation we are most certainly at the point of.

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming
Where We Stand on the Issue

C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena....


...The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.

They really do not pull any punches.

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.

The PDF of their stance on Global Warming is very precise and leaves little to doubt. Definitely worth the read time and they even show statistical reasons that CAGW is nothing more than a figment of the alarmists imaginations.

 

[Crick]

"Open science" = NO PEER REVIEW

Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change = front group created by the Idso's, employs industry lobbyist Robert Ferguson and is funded solely by Exxon and the Scaife Foundation.

Complete crap.

 

[SixFoot]

Keep that warmth and CO2 coming, folks. My crops depend on your first world problems of getting that household thermostat just right.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"Open science" = NO PEER REVIEW

Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change = front group created by the Idso's, employs industry lobbyist Robert Ferguson and is funded solely by Exxon and the Scaife Foundation.

Complete crap.

Peer Review = How Nazis do science

 

[Crick]

How unsurprising that you'd take that position.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Regarding CO2;

The hypothesis is formed from a closed cylinder containing Argon gas and CO2 in varying concentrations. (argon does not interfere with down-welling high frequency solar radiation) They then passed sun light through the cylinder and measured the reflected amount of heat returning to the green surface below the cylinder. ( they measured original pass then placed the green screen and measured the heat reflection.) it resulted in this graph:

The problem comes when they take this graph and apply it in a non-linear atmosphere. Water vapor can render the gases traits null. when you consider that the gas can reflect high frequency energy it should cause some warming. The flip side of this coin is Black Body or long wave IR radiation. CO2 thins the water vapor so at night LWIR escapes easily in higher concentrations.

The offset is almost a 1-1 ratio. But then we add clouds, wind, oceans, etc and that warming effect is essentially gone.

The hypothesis is formed in the lab but in the functioning ecosystem of earth it is laid irrelevant. As I showed in the second post of this thread there is no coupling of temperature rise with CO2 levels. CO2 always lags temp by 200 years or so. We will be well into a cooling cycle before CO2 drops significantly.

IF you follow the X and Y axis notations you will see Degrees of temp rise Vs. Level of CO2 in PPM. From about O ppm to 270 ppm is 90% of the heat reflecting capability of this trace gas. above 270 to our current level of 398ppm we see just 0.4 deg C of potential warming. From our point today out to above 1000ppm we will see roughly 0.4 deg C potential from this trace gas.

The so called Sensitivity is how water vapor responds to this trace gas and as empirical evidence has shown, they are decoupled and may even be a Negative factor allowing greater cooling at the poles due to extended darkness and LWIR release. Just the opposite of what the alarmists have been stating.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Open science" = NO PEER REVIEW

Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change = front group created by the Idso's, employs industry lobbyist Robert Ferguson and is funded solely by Exxon and the Scaife Foundation.

Complete crap.

And yet YOU provided no facts to base your belief on. It's curious that such a belief for a scientist is based on the bloviation of Think Progress or Media Splatters(matters).... and devoid of facts.

When an alarmist says "no peer review" they mean no PAL review. Science is supposed to be open for all to see, repeat, and observe. This means all disciplines, not just those you deem relevant.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Open science" = NO PEER REVIEW

Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change = front group created by the Idso's, employs industry lobbyist Robert Ferguson and is funded solely by Exxon and the Scaife Foundation.

Complete crap.

Peer Review = How <snip> do science

No. That's how alarmists do science. Isn't PAL review grand.. Peer review has been corrupted and holds no credibility these days. Most credible Scientists use Bloggs, closed access discussions, and post all of their work/data for fellow scientific discussion. Climategate revealed how the Journals have been controlled and corrupted. Real scientists are finding ways to continue their craft openly with credibility.

The current incestuous relationship of Government, Journals, and Universities has made it a circle of pals. Grants are controlled by the journals who publish work, Universities get grants from government seeking a certain outcome, The PHD's Of universities are the ones controlling who gets published with input from the Dept Of Ed.

If your not following the agenda you dont get published, you dont get grants, and you dont get promoted in the learning environment... Gobbell's would be proud of this propaganda and indoctrination machine that liberals have built...... ITS BROKEN!

 

[flacaltenn]

Regarding CO2;

The hypothesis is formed from a closed cylinder containing Argon gas and CO2 in varying concentrations. (argon does no interfere with down-welling high frequency solar radiation) They then passed sun light through the cylinder and measured the reflected amount of heat returning to the green surface below the cylinder. ( they measured original pass then placed the green screen and measured the heat reflection.) it resulted in this graph:

View attachment 31627

The problem comes when they take this graph and apply it in a non-linear atmosphere. Water vapor can render the gases traits null. when you consider that the gas can reflect high frequency energy it should cause some warming. The flip side of this coin is Black Body or long wave IR radiation. CO2 thins the water vapor so at night LWIR escapes easily in higher concentrations.

The offset is almost a 1-1 ratio. But then we add clouds, wind, oceans, etc and that warming effect is essentially gone.

The hypothesis is formed in the lab but in the functioning ecosystem of earth it is laid irrelevant. As I showed in the second post of this thread there is no coupling of temperature rise with CO2 levels. CO2 always lags temp by 200 years or so. We will be well into a cooling cycle before CO2 drops significantly.

IF you follow the X and Y axis notations you will see Degrees of temp rise Vs. Level of CO2 in PPM. From about O ppm to 270 ppm is 90% of the heat reflecting capability of this trace gas. above 270 to our current level of 398ppm we see just 0.4 deg C of potential warming. From our point today out to above 1000ppm we will see roughly 0.4 deg C potential from this trace gas.

The so called Sensitivity is how water vapor responds to this trace gas and as empirical evidence has shown, they are decoupled and may even be a Negative factor allowing greater cooling at the poles due to extended darkness. Just the opposite of what the alarmists have been stating.

Hey.. @skookerasbil --- THERE IS YOUR EXPERIMENT THAT YOUVE BEEN DEMANDING.. Not the kind of result that will fry the planet anytime soon..

 

[konradv]

"Open science" = NO PEER REVIEW

Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change = front group created by the Idso's, employs industry lobbyist Robert Ferguson and is funded solely by Exxon and the Scaife Foundation.

Complete crap.

Peer Review = How Nazis do science

Frank's just a troll. Ignore him. He wouldn't know science if it come up and introduced itself.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"Open science" = NO PEER REVIEW

Center for Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change = front group created by the Idso's, employs industry lobbyist Robert Ferguson and is funded solely by Exxon and the Scaife Foundation.

Complete crap.

Peer Review = How Nazis do science

Frank's just a troll. Ignore him. He wouldn't know science if it come up and introduced itself.

While I disagree with the term Frank used he definitely has a grasp of science and the current delema that pseudo scientists and corrupted journals have created. Unlike some others who refuse to assess their own short sightedness.

 

[Crick]

This post was in response to the charge that I had presented no evidence to back up my position.

Go to www.ipcc.ch and read AR5. If that's too much for you, just read WG-I at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf If that's too much for you, just read the Summary for Policymakers at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

You should find enough evidence there to tide you over.

Finally. This is the note I couldn't post. I deleted and then replaced all the links. Now it works.

 

[Billy_Bob]

This post was in response to the charge that I had presented no evidence to back up my position.

Go to www.ipcc.ch and read AR5. If that's too much for you, just read WG-I at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf If that's too much for you, just read the Summary for Policymakers at http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

You should find enough evidence there to tide you over.

Finally. This is the note I couldn't post. I deleted and then replaced all the links. Now it works.

The IPCC AR5 report has been shredded many times. But I will be happy to do it again. The UN's IPCC is a POLITICAL ORGANIZATION set on implementing the UN Agenda 21. As for the "Summary for Policymakers" It is pure propaganda as are Obama's recent reports and the EPA's information.. You want to go here? Really?

 

[Crick]

While I disagree with the term Frank used he definitely has a grasp of science and the current delema that pseudo scientists and corrupted journals have created. Unlike some others who refuse to assess their own short sightedness.

Name a journal you believe to have corrupted the process, incidences of such corruption and your evidence for believing so. You might also identify pseudo scientists you find my side of this argument to be using.

 

[Billy_Bob]

While I disagree with the term Frank used he definitely has a grasp of science and the current delema that pseudo scientists and corrupted journals have created. Unlike some others who refuse to assess their own short sightedness.

Name a journal you believe to have corrupted the process, incidences of such corruption and your evidence for believing so. You might also identify pseudo scientists you find my side of this argument to be using.

The better question is which ones are not corrupt. Simply put, that list is very short.