A Single Challenge for the Denier Community

[Abraham3]

Give us your view of what has been happening to the Earth's climate for the last 150 years and your best forecast what will happen in the next, taking into account the lack of any significant change in the Top of Atmosphere radiative imbalance (~1.1 +0.4 W/m^2). That is, take into account that the rate at which the Earth is accumulating solar energy has not changed significantly since at least 1985.

A few handy references if you'd like to familiarize yourself with the issue. When researching this, keep in mind that "radiative forcing" is not the same thing as the "Top of Atmosphere (ToA) radiative imbalance":

An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 - Murphy - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/24731/2009/acpd-9-24731-2009-print.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

What matters is the radiative imbalance | Wotts Up With That Blog

And there are many more out there, including articles disagreeing with the IPCC observations and conclusions.

 

[Katzndogz]

The earth is subject to both cooling and warming. This occurs in roughly 40 to 60 year cycles. Sometimes it might be very warn as it was during the Medieval Warm Period. Or, very cold as it was in the Little Ice Age. In the 70s we were told that the earth would soon be uninhabitable because of the cold. There would be another ice age and all of humanity would be confined to a narrow band along the equator. Sane climatologists said no such thing would happen, the earth would warm for a period of 40-60 years. Oddly enough, after these scientists were pilloried as global cooling deniers, it started warming. Then it became global warming. Only this time, billions of dollars were given to scientists to promote global warming as a way to redistribute global wealth.

The next 150 years will see the same kind of warming and cooling as has been going on for millions of years past.

 

[PredFan]

Give us your view of what has been happening to the Earth's climate for the last 150 years and your best forecast what will happen in the next, taking into account the lack of any significant change in the Top of Atmosphere radiative imbalance (~1.1 +0.4 W/m^2). That is, take into account that the rate at which the Earth is accumulating solar energy has not changed significantly since at least 1985.

A few handy references if you'd like to familiarize yourself with the issue. When researching this, keep in mind that "radiative forcing" is not the same thing as the "Top of Atmosphere (ToA) radiative imbalance":

An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 - Murphy - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/24731/2009/acpd-9-24731-2009-print.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

What matters is the radiative imbalance | Wotts Up With That Blog

And there are many more out there, including articles disagreeing with the IPCC observations and conclusions.

150 years? That's cherry picking the data. 150 years is a laughably tiny portion of data and is far too small to make anything out of.

Typical AGW alarmist scam.

 

[Sunni Man]

The 'global warming/climate change' hoax is nothing but an attempt to foist the so called "Carbon Tax" on business and the gullible public.

In order to enrich the global elitists like Al Gore and his ilk. ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Give us your view of what has been happening to the Earth's climate for the last 150 years and your best forecast what will happen in the next, taking into account the lack of any significant change in the Top of Atmosphere radiative imbalance (~1.1 +0.4 W/m^2). That is, take into account that the rate at which the Earth is accumulating solar energy has not changed significantly since at least 1985.

A few handy references if you'd like to familiarize yourself with the issue. When researching this, keep in mind that "radiative forcing" is not the same thing as the "Top of Atmosphere (ToA) radiative imbalance":

An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 - Murphy - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/24731/2009/acpd-9-24731-2009-print.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

What matters is the radiative imbalance | Wotts Up With That Blog

And there are many more out there, including articles disagreeing with the IPCC observations and conclusions.

Can you explain this to me?

(~1.1 +0.4 W/m^2)

I'm unclear as to what it means

 

[CrusaderFrank]

^ Hello?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hello check

Is this thing on

 

[Kosh]

More proof that the liar has nothing but AGW propaganda and does not understand what it is that is posted.

 

[Abraham3]

Can you explain this to me?

(~1.1 +0.4 W/m^2)

I'm unclear as to what it means

It is a value for the NET amount of radiant energy entering the Earth's atmosphere: the difference between what comes in and what goes out. In an equilibrium state, it would be zero. If the nomenclature is confusing: the tilde means "approximately". I put that there - my source did not use it. The value is 1.1, plus or minus 0.4. The units are watts per square meter (or watts per meter squared) . So...

Approximately one point one (plus or minus 0.4) watts per square meter.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Can you explain this to me?

(~1.1 +0.4 W/m^2)

I'm unclear as to what it means

It is a value for the NET amount of radiant energy entering the Earth's atmosphere: the difference between what comes in and what goes out. In an equilibrium state, it would be zero. If the nomenclature is confusing: the tilde means "approximately". I put that there - my source did not use it. The value is 1.1, plus or minus 0.4. The units are watts per square meter (or watts per meter squared) . So...

Approximately one point one (plus or minus 0.4) watts per square meter.

So, of the 1.1, there's a .4 variance?

 

[Abraham3]

Can you explain this to me?

(~1.1 +0.4 W/m^2)

I'm unclear as to what it means

It is a value for the NET amount of radiant energy entering the Earth's atmosphere: the difference between what comes in and what goes out. In an equilibrium state, it would be zero. If the nomenclature is confusing: the tilde means "approximately". I put that there - my source did not use it. The value is 1.1, plus or minus 0.4. The units are watts per square meter (or watts per meter squared) . So...

Approximately one point one (plus or minus 0.4) watts per square meter.

So, of the 1.1, there's a .4 variance?

Uncertainty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It is a value for the NET amount of radiant energy entering the Earth's atmosphere: the difference between what comes in and what goes out. In an equilibrium state, it would be zero. If the nomenclature is confusing: the tilde means "approximately". I put that there - my source did not use it. The value is 1.1, plus or minus 0.4. The units are watts per square meter (or watts per meter squared) . So...

Approximately one point one (plus or minus 0.4) watts per square meter.

So, of the 1.1, there's a .4 variance?

Uncertainty.

You have a 36% uncertainty with respect to the net amount of radiant energy in the system, but you're telling us you've eliminated all variables save for a .02% change in atmospheric CO2

You see now why I can't take your claims seriously?

 

[whitehall]

We didn't freaking cause climate change. America's decadence ain't your freaking enemy. Calling your opponents "deniers" is like the Spanish Inquisition calling unbelievers "heretics". It's a indication of the GW's basic insecurity. A freaking psychologist could do a book on the religion of global warming if the tweed jacket fools weren't all in the same silly club.

 

[Abraham3]

The earth is subject to both cooling and warming.

Not without cause.

This occurs in roughly 40 to 60 year cycles.

The Earth is subject to a number of different effects causing temperatures to vary. The lengths of the various cycles range from daily to tens of thousands of years. The radiative forcing of all those different effects varies relatively widely but none off the individual factors are large by absolute measure. The algebraic sum of all those various cycles is quite complex. To say that we are warmed and cooled in 40-60 year cycles is erroneously oversimplified.

Sometimes it might be very warn as it was during the Medieval Warm Period. Or, very cold as it was in the Little Ice Age. In the 70s we were told that the earth would soon be uninhabitable because of the cold.

Not by the majority of climate scientists.

There would be another ice age and all of humanity would be confined to a narrow band along the equator. Sane climatologists said no such thing would happen, the earth would warm for a period of 40-60 years.

Climatologists were more concerned about warming than cooling. I do not recall - and you have presented no evidence of - climatologists talking about 40-60 year cycles, then or now.

Oddly enough, after these scientists were pilloried as global cooling deniers, it started warming.

I lived through this. I recall NO ONE being pilloried as global cooling deniers.

Then it became global warming.

It had been global warming all along.

Only this time, billions of dollars were given to scientists to promote global warming as a way to redistribute global wealth.

What wealth has been redistributed? Identify for us a single research science whose results or conclusions resulted in the redistribution of wealth. And while you're at it. identify WHO was giving billions of dollars to scientists to redistribute wealth? The US Congress? These charges are simply nonsense

The next 150 years will see the same kind of warming and cooling as has been going on for millions of years past.[/QUOTE]

Over millions of years, this planet has gone through conditions that would send human civilization back to a handful of cave dwellers. You'd best hope the next 150 years is a good deal more constrained than that.

No one has yet to address any of the science this issue revolves around. No one has discussed the ToA radiative imbalance. No one has discussed the warming deep ocean. No one has discussed the disappearing snow and ice around the world, the Arctic included. No one has discussed the accelerating melts in Greenland and Antarctica or the early Springs and short Winters everywhere.

Is there anyone out there who can explain these sorts observations without AGW?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Give us your view of what has been happening to the Earth's climate for the last 150 years and your best forecast what will happen in the next, taking into account the lack of any significant change in the Top of Atmosphere radiative imbalance (~1.1 +0.4 W/m^2). That is, take into account that the rate at which the Earth is accumulating solar energy has not changed significantly since at least 1985.

A few handy references if you'd like to familiarize yourself with the issue. When researching this, keep in mind that "radiative forcing" is not the same thing as the "Top of Atmosphere (ToA) radiative imbalance":

An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 - Murphy - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/24731/2009/acpd-9-24731-2009-print.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

What matters is the radiative imbalance | Wotts Up With That Blog

And there are many more out there, including articles disagreeing with the IPCC observations and conclusions.

I have a better one, provide us with a repeatable experiment that shows that raising CO2 caused the increased heat. You know rather then ask us to disparage YOUR theory simply prove it to us, via the Scientific method.

 

[Abraham3]

Give us your view of what has been happening to the Earth's climate for the last 150 years and your best forecast what will happen in the next, taking into account the lack of any significant change in the Top of Atmosphere radiative imbalance (~1.1 +0.4 W/m^2). That is, take into account that the rate at which the Earth is accumulating solar energy has not changed significantly since at least 1985.

A few handy references if you'd like to familiarize yourself with the issue. When researching this, keep in mind that "radiative forcing" is not the same thing as the "Top of Atmosphere (ToA) radiative imbalance":

An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 - Murphy - 2009 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984?2012) - Wiley Online Library

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/24731/2009/acpd-9-24731-2009-print.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

What matters is the radiative imbalance | Wotts Up With That Blog

And there are many more out there, including articles disagreeing with the IPCC observations and conclusions.

I have a better one, provide us with a repeatable experiment that shows that raising CO2 caused the increased heat. You know rather then ask us to disparage YOUR theory simply prove it to us, via the Scientific method.

Then start your own thread.

For you to think no such experiment has been conducted or that no such experiment is possible - particularly considering the number of times this request of yours has already been answered - is beginning to make it look as if you just talk and never listen. There's a name for behavior like that. It begins with an S and ends with TUPID. Not the sort of behavior I'd expect from a gunny seargant.

^ "Annex II Glossary". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
^ Jump up to: a b A concise description of the greenhouse effect is given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, "What is the Greenhouse Effect?" FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science, IIPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Chapter 1, page 115: "To balance the absorbed incoming [solar] energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space. Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."
Stephen H. Schneider, in Geosphere-biosphere Interactions and Climate, Lennart O. Bengtsson and Claus U. Hammer, eds., Cambridge University Press, 2001, ISBN 0-521-78238-4, pp. 90-91.
E. Claussen, V. A. Cochran, and D. P. Davis, Climate Change: Science, Strategies, & Solutions, University of Michigan, 2001. p. 373.
A. Allaby and M. Allaby, A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, Oxford University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-19-280079-5, p. 244.
^ Jump up to: a b Wood, R.W. (1909). "Note on the Theory of the Greenhouse". Philosophical Magazine 17: 319–320. "When exposed to sunlight the temperature rose gradually to 65 °C., the enclosure covered with the salt plate keeping a little ahead of the other because it transmitted the longer waves from the Sun, which were stopped by the glass. In order to eliminate this action the sunlight was first passed through a glass plate." "it is clear that the rock-salt plate is capable of transmitting practically all of it, while the glass plate stops it entirely. This shows us that the loss of temperature of the ground by radiation is very small in comparison to the loss by convection, in other words that we gain very little from the circumstance that the radiation is trapped."
^ Jump up to: a b Schroeder, Daniel V. (2000). An introduction to thermal physics. San Francisco, California: Addison-Wesley. pp. 305–7. ISBN 0-321-27779-1. "... this mechanism is called the greenhouse effect, even though most greenhouses depend primarily on a different mechanism (namely, limiting convective cooling)."
Jump up ^ "NASA Earth Fact Sheet". Nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
Jump up ^ "Introduction to Atmospheric Chemistry, by Daniel J. Jacob, Princeton University Press, 1999. Chapter 7, "The Greenhouse Effect"". Acmg.seas.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
Jump up ^ "Solar Radiation and the Earth's Energy Balance". Eesc.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
^ Jump up to: a b Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report. Chapter 1: Historical overview of climate change science page 97
Jump up ^ The elusive "absolute surface air temperature," see GISS discussion
Jump up ^ Vaclav Smil (2003). The Earth's Biosphere: Evolution, Dynamics, and Change. MIT Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-262-69298-4.
Jump up ^ IPCC AR4 WG1 (2007), Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K.B.; Tignor, M.; and Miller, H.L., ed., Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88009-1 (pb: 978-0-521-70596-7)
Jump up ^ Isaac M. Held and Brian J. Soden (Nov 2000). "Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming". Annual Review of Energy and the Environment (Annual Reviews) 25: 441–475. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.25.1.441.
Jump up ^ John Tyndall, Heat considered as a Mode of Motion (500 pages; year 1863, 1873).
Jump up ^ Bell, Alexander Graham, Dictionary of Canadian Biography Online, 1921–1930 (Volume XV), University of Toronto and Université Laval, 2000. Retrieved March 1, 2013.
Jump up ^ Grosvenor, Edwin S. and Morgan Wesson. Alexander Graham Bell: The Life and Times of the Man Who Invented the Telephone. New York: Harry N. Abrahms, Inc., 1997, p. 274, ISBN 0-8109-4005-1.
Jump up ^ Grosvenor and Wesson, 1997, p. 269.
Jump up ^ "The HITRAN Database". Atomic and Molecular Physics Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Retrieved August 8, 2012. "HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere."
Jump up ^ "Hitran on the Web Information System". Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CFA), Cambridge, MA, USA; V.E. Zuev Insitute of Atmosperic Optics (IAO), Tomsk, Russia. Retrieved August 11, 2012.
^ Jump up to: a b c Mitchell, John F. B. (1989). "THE "GREENHOUSE" EFFECT AND CLIMATE CHANGE". Reviews of Geophysics (American Geophysical Union) 27 (1): 115–139. Bibcode:1989RvGeo..27..115M. doi:10.1029/RG027i001p00115. Retrieved 2008-03-23.
Jump up ^ "Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SOURCE)". NASA.Gov. Retrieved 15 October 2010.
Jump up ^ "Water vapour: feedback or forcing?". RealClimate. 6 April 2005. Retrieved 2006-05-01.
^ Jump up to: a b Kiehl, J. T.; Kevin E. Trenberth (February 1997). "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" (PDF). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 78 (2): 197&#8211;208. Bibcode:1997BAMS...78..197K. doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1997)078<0197:EAGMEB>2.0.CO;2. ISSN 1520-0477. Archived from the original on 2006-03-30. Retrieved 2006-05-01.
Jump up ^ "Enhanced greenhouse effect &#8212; Glossary". Nova. Australian Academy of Scihuman impact on the environment. 2006.
Jump up ^ "Enhanced Greenhouse Effect". Ace.mmu.ac.uk. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
Jump up ^ IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers (p. 5)
Jump up ^ IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis" Chapter 7
Jump up ^ "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide &#8211; Mauna Loa". NOAA.
Jump up ^ Climate Milestone: Earth's CO2 Level Nears 400 ppm
Jump up ^ Hansen J. (February 2005). "A slippery slope: How much global warming constitutes "dangerous anthropogenic interference"?". Climatic Change 68 (333): 269&#8211;279. doi:10.1007/s10584-005-4135-0.
Jump up ^ "Deep ice tells long climate story". BBC News. 2006-09-04. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
Jump up ^ Hileman B (2005-11-28). "Ice Core Record Extended". Chemical & Engineering News 83 (48): 7.
Jump up ^ Bowen, Mark; Thin Ice: Unlocking the Secrets of Climate in the World's Highest Mountains; Owl Books, 2005.
Jump up ^ Temperature change and carbon dioxide change, U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Jump up ^ Brian Shmaefsky (2004). Favorite demonstrations for college science: an NSTA Press journals collection. NSTA Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-87355-242-4.
Jump up ^ Oort, Abraham H.; Peixoto, José Pinto (1992). Physics of climate. New York: American Institute of Physics. ISBN 0-88318-711-6. "...the name water vapor-greenhouse effect is actually a misnomer since heating in the usual greenhouse is due to the reduction of convection"
Jump up ^ McKay, C.; Pollack, J.; Courtin, R. (1991). "The greenhouse and antigreenhouse effects on Titan". Science 253 (5024): 1118&#8211;1121. doi:10.1126/science.11538492. PMID 11538492. edit
Jump up ^ "Titan: Greenhouse and Anti-greenhouse :: Astrobiology Magazine - earth science - evolution distribution Origin of life universe - life beyond :: Astrobiology is study of earth". Astrobio.net. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
Jump up ^ "Pluto Colder Than Expected". SPACE.com. 2006-01-03. Retrieved 2010-10-15.
Jump up ^ Kasting, James F. (1991). "Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus.". Planetary Sciences: American and Soviet Research/Proceedings from the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Workshop on Planetary Sciences. Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems (CETS). pp. 234&#8211;245. Retrieved 2009.
Jump up ^ Rasool, I.; De Bergh, C.; De Bergh, C. (Jun 1970). "The Runaway Greenhouse and the Accumulation of CO2 in the Venus Atmosphere". Nature 226 (5250): 1037&#8211;1039. Bibcode:1970Natur.226.1037R. doi:10.1038/2261037a0. ISSN 0028-0836. PMID 16057644. Retrieved 02/25/2009.


Or do you think all these people are just making this stuff up?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet no repeatable experiment that shows that the man made CO2 is causing the rise in temperature. Just think if you could actually link to such an experiment and show it was repeated you would win the argument.

 

[Kosh]

The earth is subject to both cooling and warming.

Not without cause.

This occurs in roughly 40 to 60 year cycles.

The Earth is subject to a number of different effects causing temperatures to vary. The lengths of the various cycles range from daily to tens of thousands of years. The radiative forcing of all those different effects varies relatively widely but none off the individual factors are large by absolute measure. The algebraic sum of all those various cycles is quite complex. To say that we are warmed and cooled in 40-60 year cycles is erroneously oversimplified.



Not by the majority of climate scientists.



Climatologists were more concerned about warming than cooling. I do not recall - and you have presented no evidence of - climatologists talking about 40-60 year cycles, then or now.



I lived through this. I recall NO ONE being pilloried as global cooling deniers.

Then it became global warming.

It had been global warming all along.

Only this time, billions of dollars were given to scientists to promote global warming as a way to redistribute global wealth.

What wealth has been redistributed? Identify for us a single research science whose results or conclusions resulted in the redistribution of wealth. And while you're at it. identify WHO was giving billions of dollars to scientists to redistribute wealth? The US Congress? These charges are simply nonsense

The next 150 years will see the same kind of warming and cooling as has been going on for millions of years past.

Over millions of years, this planet has gone through conditions that would send human civilization back to a handful of cave dwellers. You'd best hope the next 150 years is a good deal more constrained than that.

No one has yet to address any of the science this issue revolves around. No one has discussed the ToA radiative imbalance. No one has discussed the warming deep ocean. No one has discussed the disappearing snow and ice around the world, the Arctic included. No one has discussed the accelerating melts in Greenland and Antarctica or the early Springs and short Winters everywhere.

Is there anyone out there who can explain these sorts observations without AGW?[/QUOTE]

And the AGW cultists continue to push the church propaganda even though it has been shown to be bunk time and time again.

 

[Abraham3]

And yet no repeatable experiment that shows that the man made CO2 is causing the rise in temperature. Just think if you could actually link to such an experiment and show it was repeated you would win the argument.

Since you do not seem to be reading the answers I have provided you, there is no point in making further response to you. Have a good day, gunny.

 

[Abraham3]

And the AGW cultists continue to push the church propaganda even though it has been shown to be bunk time and time again.

Think how much better you'd feel if you could actually lay your hands on hard evidence backing up your claims. I can and it feels great.