New paper shows that sulfur from developing country's are stopping global warming

[ScienceRocks]

Quote:
The increase in sulfur emissions slows the increase in radiative forcing due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations (Fig. 1). Net anthropogenic forcing rises 0.13 W∕m2 between 2002 and 2007, which is smaller than the 0.24 W∕m2 rise between 1997 and 2002. The smaller net increase in anthropogenic forcing is accompanied by a 0.18 W∕m2 decline in solar insolation caused by the declining phase of the eleven year solar cycle, such that the sum of modeled forcings increases little after 1998 and declines after 2002 (Fig. 1). This cooling effect is amplified by a net increase in the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI)

As indicated in Fig. 1, anthropogenic activities that warm and cool the planet largely
cancel after 1998, which allows natural variables to play a more significant role.
Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998



Looks like they're now blaming China sulfur emissions for the non-warming after 1998. In they admit that the solar minimum has caused .18 w/m2 decline of solar isolation after 2002. Proving that the sun has a big effect.

So they have just admitted that the sun causes nearly as much effect on the climate as there global warming. Plus add in the sulfur. lol

So let me get this straight

The Anthropogenic forcing=man made.
Co2=.24 watts per meter^2-.13 net balance=-.11 watts per meter^2 is the forcing from china's sulfur emissions.

So all together the anthropogenic forcing is .13 watts per meter^2
Now we're in the solar minimum from heck, which makes up .18 watts per meter^2
So .13-.18=-.05 watts per meter^2.

.13+(-.18)=-.05 or a negative forcing when you consider the sun. So unless the effects of co2 have grown since 1997-2002 period over the period of 2002-2007 then we would have a negative forcing right now. In considering the sun is even deeper in a grand minimum now from 2007-2011 then you would expect that has grown and the sulfur from china is growing. Both is a negative and growing in strength faster then the co2 forcing. Truthfully it is a good thing it is there because we would be much colder now.

I'm surprised that we have NOT seen a cooling with 2007-2011 being even deeper solar minimum; even to the point of the biggest in over 100 years. Weak max to boot. maybe the co2 forcing has increased with it to counter that a little?

If your co2 emissions are going up your forcing is NOT going to go down. So it is at least .24 watt per meter^2 in likely more. So that is one variable you can count on. Your solar forcing is also likely even more in the negative, most likely within the -.2 watts per meter^2 now. China hasn't stopped adding sulfur into the system so it is more then -.11 watts per meter^2.

Lets assume(Lets pull a guess) that the co2 in reality is near .27 now, but solar is -.22 and sulfur is -.14. Just as a case in point.

.27+(-.36)=-.09 watts per meter^2

but the funny thing is 2010 couldn't of happened if this is so. 2010 was half super nina and we would of had to warm between 2005-2010 ever so slightly(Slightly as in .03-.05c) to even start to make that likely. Can't have a negative. So co2 forcing is high enough to have a positive effect.

You have to consider that the sulfur is even more of a negative in 2011 and the solar, oh hell, is even more so because this is a very weak max. It is all in the compounding effect that causes the cool and warm cycles.

When you consider all this you can arrive to the conclusion that co2 forcing is near or over .3 watts per meter^2 right now.

These global warmers believe that the 1950s-1970s cooling was caused because of the western world---being Europe and the US sulfur emissions. With the conclusion made above of .3+ watts per meter^2, we can jump to the case that when the developing world cleans up its sulfur emissions that the world will warmed faster then the 1980's and 1990s. .18-.2c per decade was the rate, so I'd guess .25c per decade???

Of course I'm assuming and pulling things out of thin air, but many theories and idea's have been made this way. It is called thinking through things and seeing where they end up.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Lets say I'm right and the developing world cleans up its sulfur emissions by the 2020. Lets say 2030 are again largely positive forcing. So 2030 onward would be positive forcing.

Lets assume we get .1c of warming in the 2010's, .25c of warming in the 2020's, .3c in the 2030s. That is .65c of warming or .79+.65c(1.44c) of warming since 1880. If you add more positive of course the rate of warming shall increase and as things get cleaner that should help with that with less negative forcing.

The variable that we must watch IS the sun.


See unlike what the IPCC thinks the sun and negative forcing is very very important. I can't believe that they didn't see what happened in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s occurring right before there eyes with a decrease in solar output. It fucked them up and hurt them with the population of the whole world. I knew the sun was causing a cooling effect for about 5-6 years. If I'm right with what I posted in my op post then they fucked there selfs over and hurt there cause.

Me I'd would of explained to the population that the climate system is far more complex then just a mere positive forcing and straight warming trend. I would of made it clear that natural facts have a effect within the short term and things like sulfur and volcano's cause negative forcing...I'd also explain that the sun IS not going to stay put and has effects on the climate system.

If people would understand that co2 is just a part of the process it would of been more accepting, but now there is so much mistrust with the public I doubt they could change any minds even if there was clear data that shown that we where on the verge of 2-3c warming in the next 89 years.

Truth of the matter it is all a guess off of what could happen.... Hell the sun could go into another little ice age like output for the next 200 years with all we know. This is NOT a simple warming trend, but a balancing game of negative and positive forcing.

 

[wirebender]

So what they are suggesting is that man made global warming is cancelling out manmade global warming?

It amazes me that anyone, I mean ANYONE gives warmists anything even approaching serious attention any more.

Here is figure 1 from the paper in question:

Note that their own data shows zero effect by sulfur emissions on the global temperature since 1998.

 

[konradv]

So what they are suggesting is that man made global warming is cancelling out manmade global warming?

NO, as usual you spin the facts to fit your bias. Most people see "particulate pollution cancels out AGW", but since your objection is poltical backed up by pseudo-science, you see things through your own set of glasses that other, honest people, don't.

 

[wirebender]

NO, as usual you spin the facts to fit your bias. Most people see "particulate pollution cancels out AGW", but since your objection is poltical backed up by pseudo-science, you see things through your own set of glasses that other, honest people, don't.

Still waiting for you, or any of your hand wringing buds to point out, and prove any error in my proof that CO2 is not driving the climate. Till you can come up with said proof, don't pretend that you are on the side of honesty. Warmists are no more than an inherently dishonest cult using fabricated pseudoscience in an effort to achieve a poliitcal agenda.

And my "bias" is towards hard, observed, repeatable evidence that provides an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. To bad neither you, nor your dishonest quasi religious cult has any.

 

[konradv]

NO, as usual you spin the facts to fit your bias. Most people see "particulate pollution cancels out AGW", but since your objection is poltical backed up by pseudo-science, you see things through your own set of glasses that other, honest people, don't.

Still waiting for you, or any of your hand wringing buds to point out, and prove any error in my proof that CO2 is not driving the climate. Till you can come up with said proof, don't pretend that you are on the side of honesty. Warmists are no more than an inherently dishonest cult using fabricated pseudoscience in an effort to achieve a poliitcal agenda.

And my "bias" is towards hard, observed, repeatable evidence that provides an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. To bad neither you, nor your dishonest quasi religious cult has any.

You've never provided any such proof. Made up science doesn't count. If you don't realize that CO2 can trap energy and send it back towards earth, thereby warming it to a temp higher than if there were no CO2, we don't really have anything to talk about.

 

[IanC]

Lindzen pointed out a decade ago that the climate models added any amount of aerosols that were needed to get the right numbers. and that different models used different amounts. still business as usual I see.

and konradv, why are you castigating skeptics for a proAGW paper?

 

[skookerasbil]

NO, as usual you spin the facts to fit your bias. Most people see "particulate pollution cancels out AGW", but since your objection is poltical backed up by pseudo-science, you see things through your own set of glasses that other, honest people, don't.

Still waiting for you, or any of your hand wringing buds to point out, and prove any error in my proof that CO2 is not driving the climate. Till you can come up with said proof, don't pretend that you are on the side of honesty. Warmists are no more than an inherently dishonest cult using fabricated pseudoscience in an effort to achieve a poliitcal agenda.

And my "bias" is towards hard, observed, repeatable evidence that provides an unequivocal link between the activities of man and the changing climate. To bad neither you, nor your dishonest quasi religious cult has any.

You've never provided any such proof. Made up science doesn't count. If you don't realize that CO2 can trap energy and send it back towards earth, thereby warming it to a temp higher than if there were no CO2, we don't really have anything to talk about.

s0n.........all the AGW science is made up stuff. Every other week there is a report about them fcukking with the data. Perhaps you missed it? Take a gandor through a few threads here..........its all there. Why do you think climate legislation has been in the crapper for the past 2 years? Well........I'll tell you why. Because what was a ship shot field goal in 2006 is now a 70 yarder. Thems the breaks s0n............sorry...........

 

[daveman]

If you don't realize that CO2 can trap energy and send it back towards earth, thereby warming it to a temp higher than if there were no CO2, we don't really have anything to talk about.

At any altitude above zero, there is more sky than Earth. So CO2 molecules radiate more energy to space than to the planet.

Unless you want to try to make the case that CO2 radiates only downward...?

 

[ScienceRocks]

If you don't realize that CO2 can trap energy and send it back towards earth, thereby warming it to a temp higher than if there were no CO2, we don't really have anything to talk about.

At any altitude above zero, there is more sky than Earth. So CO2 molecules radiate more energy to space than to the planet.

Unless you want to try to make the case that CO2 radiates only downward...?

Your right, but if it was Not for the co2 portion being the surplus of heat energy that gets sent back towards the surface wouldn't be adding towards what is already there. Like I say the 100 percent that gets to the surface is now 107...But only 93 gets back to space.

 

[wirebender]

You've never provided any such proof. Made up science doesn't count. If you don't realize that CO2 can trap energy and send it back towards earth, thereby warming it to a temp higher than if there were no CO2, we don't really have anything to talk about.

Sorry guy, but I did. To date, you have not been able to point out a single error on my part. Simply claiming that I made something up only makes you look stupid when you can't state specifically what error I made.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You've never provided any such proof. Made up science doesn't count. If you don't realize that CO2 can trap energy and send it back towards earth, thereby warming it to a temp higher than if there were no CO2, we don't really have anything to talk about.

Sorry guy, but I did. To date, you have not been able to point out a single error on my part. Simply claiming that I made something up only makes you look stupid when you can't state specifically what error I made.

Wirebender--may I ask for your degree's and if your a professor of the sciences. You appear to be quite knowledgeable.

 

[wirebender]

Your right, but if it was Not for the co2 the portions--- being the surplus of heat energy that gets sent back towards the surface wouldn't be adding towards what is already there. Like I say the 100 percent that gets to the surface is now 107...But only 93 gets back to space.

There is no downdwelling radiation from the atmosphere to the earth. The EM field generated by the earth is of a greater magnitude than that emitted by the atmosphere. The greater EM field determines the direction of propagation. Energy can't flow down to earth against the "current" of the greater EM field emitted by the earth.

If you believe it does, then show me the math. I have already done it once on this board and to date, no one has pointed out any error on my part or named any law of physics that I misused.

As to your claimr regarding "extra" energy, the surface of the earth receives roughly 168 watts per square meter of energy from the sun. According to the greenhouse hypothesis, the earth, is radiating more than twice that amount of energy as a result of 324 watts per square meter of backradiation. If the only energy source is providing 168 watts per square meter to the surface, some sort of magic must be happening in order to radiate more than twice that amount. If the surface were a perfect reflector (which it isn't) it could only radiate 168 watts per square meter as that is all that is coming in from the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE.

 

[wirebender]

Wirebender--may I ask for your degree's and if your a professor of the sciences. You appear to be quite knowledgeable.

Does it matter? I graduated from the University of FLorida with a BS in 1979 and received my MS in 1981 from the same school. Which disipline doesn't really matter but I will say that I went heavy on the biology and chemistry. I certainly am not a professor and in fact, don't even work in the field in which I got my degree. I worked for a while for Dow Pharmaceuticals and hated every minute of it.

I will say that I had a hell of a lot more math and chemistry than any climate science program requires today.

 

[IanC]

wirebender's physics profs would be dismayed by his distorted memory of their classes

 

[wirebender]

wirebender's physics profs would be dismayed by his distorted memory of their classes

The wait continues for you to point out any error on my part in either calculations or misapplied laws of physics. Simply claiming that I am wrong when you can't point to where I am wrong doesn't stand you in good stead. You are quick to claim that I don't know what I am talking about but very slow to point out any error on my part and sadly, it seems that you just run away when you are proven wrong. For example:

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Clip: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation."


I noted that you never answered when I provided you with information that showed that contrary to your claims, CO2 does not emit at the same wavelength that it absorbs. As I recall, you suggested that I was dense when in fact, I was correct.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Hansen was born in Denison, Iowa. He was trained in physics and astronomy in the space science program of James Van Allen at the University of Iowa. He obtained a B.A. in Physics and Mathematics with highest distinction in 1963, an M.S. in Astronomy in 1965 and a Ph.D. in Physics, in 1967, all three degrees from the University of Iowa. He participated in the NASA graduate traineeship from 1962 to 1966 and, at the same time, between 1965 and 1966, he was a visiting student at the Institute of Astrophysics at the University of Kyoto and in the Department of Astronomy at the University of Tokyo. Hansen then began work at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in 1967.[2]


Wirebender seriously James Hansen has a PHD in Physics. That takes a shit load of math. The Astronomy ms alone is something to be respected. Believe me you don't fight your way through Physics without understanding it inside and fucking out by that level. You don't even get out of 200 level physics without working your ass off.

James Hansen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course I'm not saying that your not making a good case, but Hansen should know his shit.

 

[wirebender]

Wirebender seriously James Hansen has a PHD in Physics. That takes a shit load of math. The Astronomy ms alone is something to be respected. Believe me you don't fight your way through Physics without understanding it inside and fucking out by that level. You don't even get out of 200 level physics without working your ass off.

The only explanation then for his position is that the man is a deliberate fraud. He, like the high priests of old has taken what he knows and corrupted it in an effort to gain control over those who don't know enough to recognize that he is a fraud. It has happened through the ages. If you don't sacrifice, the floods won't come and you will starve. If you don't sacrifice, the sun won't continue to shine and you will die. If you don't sacrifice, the climate will kill you.

The old priests knew the signs that the floods were coming or not and tailored their demands from both the populace and the elites accordingly. They knew the cycles of eclipses etc and built whole religions and threatened the common man and rulers alike with catastrophe if adequate sacrifices were not made. hansen, man, et. al. know that we have been and continue to come out of an ice age for a very long time. The earth has been in a general warming trend for 14K years now. It is a pretty sure bet that to one degree or another, the same general trend will continue till long after they are dead. All they needed to do was pick a god or devil to threaten the masses with.

It would be better if he were an undereducated bumpkin who genuinely didn't grasp the basic science well enough to understand that his claims violated several laws of physics.

Of course I'm not saying that your not making a good case, but Hansen should know his shit.

Hansen is a zealot who believes that the ends justify the means, whatever those means might be.

Maybe you should send hansen an email asking how a surface that is nothing like a perfect reflector that receives 168 watts per square meter from its ONLY energy source manages to radiate more than twice that amount of energy. Ask him to explain it within the law of conservation of energy. Ask him why he doesn't just apply that bit of magic to a perpetual motion machine and end the worlds energy problems forever.

 

[skookerasbil]

shit wire..........if Americans got to see you on the boob for 10 minutes, the word green would be dropped from the English language!!!


( of course, the mental cases are beyond......ummm.........help)

 

[konradv]

Alternatives to Traditional Transportation Fuels 1994 - Volume 2, Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Clip: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind. Methane molecules, for example, cannot absorb radiation emitted by other methane molecules. This constraint limits how often GHG molecules can absorb emitted infrared radiation."QUOTE]

That, while interesting, isn't on point. The concern is with the emitted radiation going towards earth, thereby warming it. The fact that some may encounter another CO2 and not be re-absorbed is irrelevant to the AGW thesis.