a Realistic Precis of the Skeptical View on Greenhouse Effect, Climate Sensitivity, etc

[IanC]

Feedback on Feedbacks

this article references many of the high profile skeptics and they all accept the greenhouse effect with H2O being the main constituent but with CO2 having a part.

the skeptical 'consensus', if you will, is that doubling CO2 will cause ~1.2C surface increase, that the immediate climate response is ~1.6C, and that feedbacks will not (cannot) lead to runaway warming.

The GHE is not an increase in heat, does not involve CO2 ‘creating’ heat, and does not violate COE. All wrong conceptualizations of AGW basics. Earth’s heat energy input is provided by solar ISR, at about a constant 240wm-2 (Monckton FoC #3 table 1, and Nick Stokes comments to Fubar). GHE is the result of certain gas molecules, most importantly water vapor and CO2, ‘absorbing’ and then ‘scattering’ by omnidirectional re-emission, OLR photons. That is, those atmospheric molecules hinder OLR radiative cooling from Earth’s surface to space. A surface warmed by ISR but not cooled by an equivalent amount of OLR will warm until the increase in resultant surface temperature produces enough additional OLR to restore the net balance. That is the simple essence of the GHE. The precise calculations involve the Stephan-Boltzman law, altitude lapse rates, and other complicated considerations—but those details are not material to this conceptual general post. The net rebalanced temperature equilibrium where net incoming again equals net outgoing radiation energy for a doubling of CO2 is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). More practically (concerning observational energy balance model (EBM) calculations of it), the ‘effective climate sensitivity’. (The difference between ‘equilibrium’ and ‘effective’ involves variations over very long time frames to minor stuff like vegetative albedo changes over many centuries. You want the highest ECS, go long like Hansen’s 1000 years paper. We neglect those additional quibbles in this post as a mere sideshow distraction.)

Tyndall first experimentally determined that H2O and CO2 gasses have this OLR retarding property in 1858-9, as reported then to the Royal Society. Lest anyone think this basic physics is wrong (aka Sky Dragons), experimentally deserts are relatively dry so relatively low water vapor. That is why they cool sharply on cloudless nights. Anyone can run this climate experiment for themselves in any desert to verify this for themselves. (But take along a real good sleeping bag water vapor substitute to remain comfortable.) Low atmospheric water vapor does not hinder OLR radiative night cooling from the ISR heated daytime surface. CO2 is the same, except since reasonably well-mixed deserts won’t show the same desert night cooling effect.

 

[cnm]

What a mishmash of assertions.

 

[IanC]

What a mishmash of assertions.

odd reply....

the article basically follows the case that the IPCC lays down, then points out the parts that skeptics agree with, and the parts they dont. with explanations for both.

this is not in the article but I will offer it up as food for thought. water acts as both a 'heater' and an 'air conditioner'. water vapor blocking IR is the heater. evaporation/convection/condensation/precipitation is the cooler. ever wonder why land can easily warm up to over 50C near the equator but sea water never gets above 32C? as ocean approaches 30C the evaporation quickly rises, convection carries the latent heat up and the clouds form an umbrella to cut off the source of energy input. thunderstorms are especially efficient at removing heat.

 

[Old Rocks]

1.6 for doubling, yet we have not doubled, and we are over halfway there. But we shall see who is correct in the near future.

 

[LaDexter]

Notice there is no answer to the question

WHY does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?


The vast majority of "skeptics" are frauds, pushing easily discredited BS like solar cycle. A "discredited faux skeptic" then "converts" to the FRAUD (which was paying him off all along), as if it is "evidence" that a bought and paid for flunkie science dude "now" supports the FRAUd.

 

[Ozone]

pfft... science was great when it was just science, but then y'all went and made it into a religion, and now there's a desperation to find out the best way to persecute the heretics, unbelievable. what if i told you that the climate doesn't exist, there's no such thing as climate, what would you say then? really, because the sheer panic, which is the whole thing about mass hysteria, that kind of climate, because the sky is falling, that's the greatness of science? so, no, there is no consensus of skeptics, there is but the skepticism itself, and without it there is no real science, is there?

 

[jc456]

What a mishmash of assertions.

odd reply....

the article basically follows the case that the IPCC lays down, then points out the parts that skeptics agree with, and the parts they dont. with explanations for both.

this is not in the article but I will offer it up as food for thought. water acts as both a 'heater' and an 'air conditioner'. water vapor blocking IR is the heater. evaporation/convection/condensation/precipitation is the cooler. ever wonder why land can easily warm up to over 50C near the equator but sea water never gets above 32C? as ocean approaches 30C the evaporation quickly rises, convection carries the latent heat up and the clouds form an umbrella to cut off the source of energy input. thunderstorms are especially efficient at removing heat.

Ian in your linked article:

"Tyndall first experimentally determined that H2O and CO2 gasses have this OLR retarding property in 1858-9, as reported then to the Royal Society. Lest anyone think this basic physics is wrong (aka Sky Dragons), experimentally deserts are relatively dry so relatively low water vapor."

I ask you, did Tyndall record any temperatures during his testing?

One other question, why is it as the CO2 gas rises, the temperature cools?

 

[LaDexter]

so, no, there is no consensus of skeptics, there is but the skepticism itself, and without it there is no real science, is there?

Galileo had a "consensus" of 1, while the "consensus" at the time was wrong... not the first time, and certainly not the last.


Still, why can't our "US" media ask the question

WHY does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

Could it be that the answer to that question blows a "HMS Hood" sized hole in Algore's baloney??

 

[Old Rocks]

pfft... science was great when it was just science, but then y'all went and made it into a religion, and now there's a desperation to find out the best way to persecute the heretics, unbelievable. what if i told you that the climate doesn't exist, there's no such thing as climate, what would you say then? really, because the sheer panic, which is the whole thing about mass hysteria, that kind of climate, because the sky is falling, that's the greatness of science? so, no, there is no consensus of skeptics, there is but the skepticism itself, and without it there is no real science, is there?

Yappity yap. Now when you actually have something to say, why not check back with us.

Mass hysteria? No, that is the ground of your deniers. The scientists have thousands of articles in peer reviewed scientific journals presenting evidence for the present warming, and for the causes of that warming. All you people ever present is flap yap.

 

[IanC]

What a mishmash of assertions.

odd reply....

the article basically follows the case that the IPCC lays down, then points out the parts that skeptics agree with, and the parts they dont. with explanations for both.

this is not in the article but I will offer it up as food for thought. water acts as both a 'heater' and an 'air conditioner'. water vapor blocking IR is the heater. evaporation/convection/condensation/precipitation is the cooler. ever wonder why land can easily warm up to over 50C near the equator but sea water never gets above 32C? as ocean approaches 30C the evaporation quickly rises, convection carries the latent heat up and the clouds form an umbrella to cut off the source of energy input. thunderstorms are especially efficient at removing heat.

Ian in your linked article:

"Tyndall first experimentally determined that H2O and CO2 gasses have this OLR retarding property in 1858-9, as reported then to the Royal Society. Lest anyone think this basic physics is wrong (aka Sky Dragons), experimentally deserts are relatively dry so relatively low water vapor."

I ask you, did Tyndall record any temperatures during his testing?

One other question, why is it as the CO2 gas rises, the temperature cools?

I don't recall having read Tyndall's paper. Why don't you look it up?

Your second question makes no sense. Try again .

 

[IanC]

pfft... science was great when it was just science, but then y'all went and made it into a religion, and now there's a desperation to find out the best way to persecute the heretics, unbelievable. what if i told you that the climate doesn't exist, there's no such thing as climate, what would you say then? really, because the sheer panic, which is the whole thing about mass hysteria, that kind of climate, because the sky is falling, that's the greatness of science? so, no, there is no consensus of skeptics, there is but the skepticism itself, and without it there is no real science, is there?

Yappity yap. Now when you actually have something to say, why not check back with us.

Mass hysteria? No, that is the ground of your deniers. The scientists have thousands of articles in peer reviewed scientific journals presenting evidence for the present warming, and for the causes of that warming. All you people ever present is flap yap.

Hansen made a push for warming to be tied to rising levels of CO2 back in the 80's. By coincidence temperatures went up and it was all attributed to CO2 and natural causes were ignored. Climate models were tuned to give CO2 much more importance than it deserved and that relationship has continued to this day despite the last 15 years of evidence showing it was too high.

Climate models cannot explain the MWP, LIA, or even the warming period of 1920-1950. Obviously natural factors have a much greater impact than the models display.

 

[Old Rocks]

August Ties July as Hottest Month Ever on Record

In what has become a common refrain this year, last month ranked as the hottest August on record, according to NASA data released Monday. Not only that, but the month tied July as the hottest month the world has seen in the last 136 years.

August came in at 1.76˚F (0.98˚C) above the average from 1951-1980, 0.16C above August 2014, the previous record holder. The record keeps 2016 on track to be the hottest year in the books by a fair margin.

Looks to me as if you are ignoring that last three years.

 

[LaDexter]

temperatures went up

"temperatures" = surface of growing urban areas

In 1998, the "warmest year on record" blah blah... the satellites and balloons showed a cooler than normal atmosphere for the year, so was it really "warmest ever?" Get real...

 

[IanC]

temperatures went up

"temperatures" = surface of growing urban areas

In 1998, the "warmest year on record" blah blah... the satellites and balloons showed a cooler than normal atmosphere for the year, so was it really "warmest ever?" Get real...

Hahahaha, do you really need to see the graph of satellite temps again? What a dolt!

 

[Brambo]

Feedback on Feedbacks

this article references many of the high profile skeptics and they all accept the greenhouse effect with H2O being the main constituent but with CO2 having a part.

the skeptical 'consensus', if you will, is that doubling CO2 will cause ~1.2C surface increase, that the immediate climate response is ~1.6C, and that feedbacks will not (cannot) lead to runaway warming.

The GHE is not an increase in heat, does not involve CO2 ‘creating’ heat, and does not violate COE. All wrong conceptualizations of AGW basics. Earth’s heat energy input is provided by solar ISR, at about a constant 240wm-2 (Monckton FoC #3 table 1, and Nick Stokes comments to Fubar). GHE is the result of certain gas molecules, most importantly water vapor and CO2, ‘absorbing’ and then ‘scattering’ by omnidirectional re-emission, OLR photons. That is, those atmospheric molecules hinder OLR radiative cooling from Earth’s surface to space. A surface warmed by ISR but not cooled by an equivalent amount of OLR will warm until the increase in resultant surface temperature produces enough additional OLR to restore the net balance. That is the simple essence of the GHE. The precise calculations involve the Stephan-Boltzman law, altitude lapse rates, and other complicated considerations—but those details are not material to this conceptual general post. The net rebalanced temperature equilibrium where net incoming again equals net outgoing radiation energy for a doubling of CO2 is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). More practically (concerning observational energy balance model (EBM) calculations of it), the ‘effective climate sensitivity’. (The difference between ‘equilibrium’ and ‘effective’ involves variations over very long time frames to minor stuff like vegetative albedo changes over many centuries. You want the highest ECS, go long like Hansen’s 1000 years paper. We neglect those additional quibbles in this post as a mere sideshow distraction.)

Tyndall first experimentally determined that H2O and CO2 gasses have this OLR retarding property in 1858-9, as reported then to the Royal Society. Lest anyone think this basic physics is wrong (aka Sky Dragons), experimentally deserts are relatively dry so relatively low water vapor. That is why they cool sharply on cloudless nights. Anyone can run this climate experiment for themselves in any desert to verify this for themselves. (But take along a real good sleeping bag water vapor substitute to remain comfortable.) Low atmospheric water vapor does not hinder OLR radiative night cooling from the ISR heated daytime surface. CO2 is the same, except since reasonably well-mixed deserts won’t show the same desert night cooling effect.

You're quoting Monckton? A guy who has been proven a fraud, and is not a scientist! LOL

 

[Brambo]

1.6 for doubling, yet we have not doubled, and we are over halfway there. But we shall see who is correct in the near future.

We are very close to +1C right now...a full doubling would push us to around...2C right where Arrhenius predicted.

 

[Brambo]

so, no, there is no consensus of skeptics, there is but the skepticism itself, and without it there is no real science, is there?

Galileo had a "consensus" of 1, while the "consensus" at the time was wrong... not the first time, and certainly not the last.


Still, why can't our "US" media ask the question

WHY does one Earth polar circle have 9 times the ice of the other?

Could it be that the answer to that question blows a "HMS Hood" sized hole in Algore's baloney??

No the answer does not blow a hole in anything.

CO2 is lowest in ppm over the Antarctic. The Antarctic is 9,000 feet higher in elevation than the Arctic. The Antarctic is surrounded by ocean, the Arctic is surrounded by land.

 

[SSDD]

Feedback on Feedbacks

this article references many of the high profile skeptics and they all accept the greenhouse effect with H2O being the main constituent but with CO2 having a part.

the skeptical 'consensus', if you will, is that doubling CO2 will cause ~1.2C surface increase, that the immediate climate response is ~1.6C, and that feedbacks will not (cannot) lead to runaway warming.

The GHE is not an increase in heat, does not involve CO2 ‘creating’ heat, and does not violate COE. All wrong conceptualizations of AGW basics. Earth’s heat energy input is provided by solar ISR, at about a constant 240wm-2 (Monckton FoC #3 table 1, and Nick Stokes comments to Fubar). GHE is the result of certain gas molecules, most importantly water vapor and CO2, ‘absorbing’ and then ‘scattering’ by omnidirectional re-emission, OLR photons. That is, those atmospheric molecules hinder OLR radiative cooling from Earth’s surface to space. A surface warmed by ISR but not cooled by an equivalent amount of OLR will warm until the increase in resultant surface temperature produces enough additional OLR to restore the net balance. That is the simple essence of the GHE. The precise calculations involve the Stephan-Boltzman law, altitude lapse rates, and other complicated considerations—but those details are not material to this conceptual general post. The net rebalanced temperature equilibrium where net incoming again equals net outgoing radiation energy for a doubling of CO2 is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). More practically (concerning observational energy balance model (EBM) calculations of it), the ‘effective climate sensitivity’. (The difference between ‘equilibrium’ and ‘effective’ involves variations over very long time frames to minor stuff like vegetative albedo changes over many centuries. You want the highest ECS, go long like Hansen’s 1000 years paper. We neglect those additional quibbles in this post as a mere sideshow distraction.)

Tyndall first experimentally determined that H2O and CO2 gasses have this OLR retarding property in 1858-9, as reported then to the Royal Society. Lest anyone think this basic physics is wrong (aka Sky Dragons), experimentally deserts are relatively dry so relatively low water vapor. That is why they cool sharply on cloudless nights. Anyone can run this climate experiment for themselves in any desert to verify this for themselves. (But take along a real good sleeping bag water vapor substitute to remain comfortable.) Low atmospheric water vapor does not hinder OLR radiative night cooling from the ISR heated daytime surface. CO2 is the same, except since reasonably well-mixed deserts won’t show the same desert night cooling effect.

How can anyone call that a "realistic precise" of the skeptical view when it doesn't contain the first mention of the fudge factors required to make the calculated temperature match the actual temperature?

 

[IanC]

Feedback on Feedbacks

this article references many of the high profile skeptics and they all accept the greenhouse effect with H2O being the main constituent but with CO2 having a part.

the skeptical 'consensus', if you will, is that doubling CO2 will cause ~1.2C surface increase, that the immediate climate response is ~1.6C, and that feedbacks will not (cannot) lead to runaway warming.

The GHE is not an increase in heat, does not involve CO2 ‘creating’ heat, and does not violate COE. All wrong conceptualizations of AGW basics. Earth’s heat energy input is provided by solar ISR, at about a constant 240wm-2 (Monckton FoC #3 table 1, and Nick Stokes comments to Fubar). GHE is the result of certain gas molecules, most importantly water vapor and CO2, ‘absorbing’ and then ‘scattering’ by omnidirectional re-emission, OLR photons. That is, those atmospheric molecules hinder OLR radiative cooling from Earth’s surface to space. A surface warmed by ISR but not cooled by an equivalent amount of OLR will warm until the increase in resultant surface temperature produces enough additional OLR to restore the net balance. That is the simple essence of the GHE. The precise calculations involve the Stephan-Boltzman law, altitude lapse rates, and other complicated considerations—but those details are not material to this conceptual general post. The net rebalanced temperature equilibrium where net incoming again equals net outgoing radiation energy for a doubling of CO2 is called the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). More practically (concerning observational energy balance model (EBM) calculations of it), the ‘effective climate sensitivity’. (The difference between ‘equilibrium’ and ‘effective’ involves variations over very long time frames to minor stuff like vegetative albedo changes over many centuries. You want the highest ECS, go long like Hansen’s 1000 years paper. We neglect those additional quibbles in this post as a mere sideshow distraction.)

Tyndall first experimentally determined that H2O and CO2 gasses have this OLR retarding property in 1858-9, as reported then to the Royal Society. Lest anyone think this basic physics is wrong (aka Sky Dragons), experimentally deserts are relatively dry so relatively low water vapor. That is why they cool sharply on cloudless nights. Anyone can run this climate experiment for themselves in any desert to verify this for themselves. (But take along a real good sleeping bag water vapor substitute to remain comfortable.) Low atmospheric water vapor does not hinder OLR radiative night cooling from the ISR heated daytime surface. CO2 is the same, except since reasonably well-mixed deserts won’t show the same desert night cooling effect.

How can anyone call that a "realistic precise" of the skeptical view when it doesn't contain the first mention of the fudge factors required to make the calculated temperature match the actual temperature?

You can rant and rave and call everything bullshit if you want. No one is going to listen to you. You will make zero difference.

Real skeptics are using the available data to show the errors, discrepancies and exaggerations in mainstream science. They ARE making a difference.

 

[SSDD]

I asked a question...how can you call it a realistic precis of the skeptical viewpoint when fudge factors which are such an internal part of the greenhouse hypothesis are not even mentioned....that may be a realistic precis of the viewpoint of those who believe in the magic but just don't believe it is as strong as the general warmer congregation believe...but it is not the skeptical viewpoint...perhaps you of little faith want to pretend that you are skeptics...but you aren't...if you were, you would be more interested in the fudge factors...and the flawed equations used to inject energy into the system and all the other bullshit that is pretending to be settled science within the climate community.