What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

How is that Man Made Global Warming workin’ out for ya?

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,570
Points
2,050
It hit 93 here yesterday and will do the same again today. Neither point has any significance. The CO2 levels, sea levels and global temperatures continues to rise.

So what, it was 90 at my city, tomorrow it is forecasted top be around 67 tomorrow, after a big wind tonight bringing it in, now I know why CO2 is going to fail tomorrow it got blown away....

Aaaand CO2 is a negligible factor of the observed warming, that is something even warmist scientists agrees on, which you ignore over and over.

The world doing better than ever because it has warmed up since the ending of the LIA.

Show us a link supporting your claim that "warmist" scientists believe CO2 to be a negligible factor.

I have several times you asshole!

Heck your question exposes your lack of understanding what the AGW conjecture is about.

This was posted NINE years ago:

The Inconvenient Skeptic

The Science of why the Theory of Global Warming is Incorrect!

Selected Excerpt:

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot stop the Earth from losing more energy if it warms up.

======

This has been known for many years, but wamists/alarmists assholes ignore that inconvenient science.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,770
Reaction score
1,731
Points
290
Location
N/A
You bought that crock?
So I can't cook my macaroni and cheese because when I try to warm it on the stove, it will increase its IR radiation faster than I can add heat with the burner? If you think that's apples and oranges then I can't warm my macaroni and cheese under the heat lamps at the buffet for the same reason. If you can't see how that fails the sanity test then you're just not thinking.
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,770
Reaction score
1,731
Points
290
Location
N/A
Let me add a point here that your skeptical fellow missed. Adding CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere because it increases the number of steps that IR takes during the move to space and thus the energy content of the atmosphere, not because it reduces the rate at which its traveling. Imagine a conveyor belt that's carrying widgets across the shop floor. When we begin the belt is ten feet long and is holding ten widgets. They weigh ten pounds apiece so the belt is holding a hundred pounds of widgets. We remodel and we have to make the belt 20 feet long. Now its holding 20 widgets at 200 pounds. The belt is still moving widgets along at the same speed but now there are more of them on the belt and the belt and its frame and the floor must all deal with that added weight. Get it?
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,570
Points
2,050
You bought that crock?
So I can't cook my macaroni and cheese because when I try to warm it on the stove, it will increase its IR radiation faster than I can add heat with the burner? If you think that's apples and oranges then I can't warm my macaroni and cheese under the heat lamps at the buffet for the same reason. If you can't see how that fails the sanity test then you're just not thinking.

Translation: I have no understanding of the article, which is why I will not address it.

Thank you for destroying your credibility, what little there ever was since if it was really crock as you claim, then as the alleged engineer it should be easy for YOU to debunk it.

:auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg: :auiqs.jpg:
 

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,570
Points
2,050
Let me add a point here that your skeptical fellow missed. Adding CO2 increases the temperature of the atmosphere because it increases the number of steps that IR takes during the move to space and thus the energy content of the atmosphere, not because it reduces the rate at which its traveling. Imagine a conveyor belt that's carrying widgets across the shop floor. When we begin the belt is ten feet long and is holding ten widgets. They weigh ten pounds apiece so the belt is holding a hundred pounds of widgets. We remodel and we have to make the belt 20 feet long. Now its holding 20 widgets at 200 pounds. The belt is still moving widgets along at the same speed but now there are more of them on the belt and the belt and its frame and the floor must all deal with that added weight. Get it?

While you ignore that energy is leaving the planet at a far greater rate than CO2 is postulated to generate warm forcing, that is why you dumbfucks ignore the OLWR data all the time, it destroys your stupid AGW conjecture.

You can't even begin to understand this:


"A 0.5 °C temperature difference between these two years resulted in an additional 2.5 W/m2 increase in the measured amount of energy lost to space. That increase in energy loss is not theoretical, it is a measured difference. It is also what is predicted by the Stefan-Boltmann Law.

If the Earth were to warm by 1.1 °C, the amount of energy lost would be almost 4 W/m2 greater than what it lost in 1984. If the Earth were to warm by 3.0 °C which is what is predicted by a doubling of CO2, then the amount of energy lost would be > 10 W/m2 the energy loss that existed in 1984.

The science of this is very clear. The rate at which the Earth loses energy will increase at more than twice the rate that the theoretical CO2 forcing is capable of causing warming to take place."

You are truly that stupid!
 

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,770
Reaction score
1,731
Points
290
Location
N/A
Your author, John Kehr, has been posting comments at the Skeptical Science website. Among other things, that led to an article and discussion about whether or not it was possible to be both a climate skeptic and coherent. One of the more thoughtful comments was by a fellow called Ned and I think it has a great deal of application here. Have a read:


Ned at 22:28 PM on 6 October, 2010
I will admit first off that my impression of many "skeptics" is that they will happily seize on any argument that supports their belief, regardless of whether or not it logically contradicts something else they may have been saying earlier. That said, there's nothing inherent in climate skepticism that demands this kind of incoherence, and there are people out there who have what seem to me like coherent skeptic belief systems. Most of the people I have in mind are perfectly cognizant of the basic physics of AGW, they recognize that the observed increase in CO2 is anthropogenic, they will readily agree that the Earth is warming and that this is mostly due to radiative forcing from GHGs, but they think climate sensitivity is on the low end of the scale and/or that the mainstream view of the impacts is unduly pessimistic. These are very defensible views. I think we do everyone a disservice when we treat all climate-skepticism as if it were coextensive with the commentariat at WUWT. I do think it's not random chance that the skeptics who seem most consistent are also those whose skepticism is limited to the more readily supportable arguments. Belief in the more extreme skeptic claims (AGW violates the second law of thermodynamics, CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere, CO2 is coming from the oceans, it's all a big conspiracy) is probably a pretty good indicator of fuzzy thinking in general. That said, there are a few more points to make here. First, it's easy to get an exaggerated impression of how widespread incoherence is, when you have lots of individuals on the same "side" making lots of different claims and failing to explicitly dissociate themselves from each others' claims. This is something I harp on all the time ... but I'll make it again. If people on this site who hold more "sensible" climate-skeptic positions were actually willing to speak up and disagree when the more irrational claims are promoted, it would do a lot to promote trust, confidence, and friendly communication on this site. Unfortunately that virtually never happens. With almost no effort right now I could put up links to a dozen recent discussions on here where one or another skeptical commenter made breathtakingly wrong claims or howlingly fallacious lines of reasoning, and in each case it's the "regulars" on this site who show up to provide the answers or rebuttals, while the entire "skeptic" contingent basically sits on the sidelines. (Sorry if I sound a bit emotional about this, but for a year or so now I've been increasingly frustrated by what I perceive as a passive demonstration of near total irresponsibility on the part of my "skeptic" friends on this site). Getting back to the topic of this thread, another point is that it's easy to exaggerate the incoherence of one's opponents and to inadvertently minimize the incoherence of one's friends. I think there are no shortage of cases where people make incoherent arguments in support of mainstream climate science. (If people doubt this, I can go into detail in another comment). It's probably good to try to reduce incoherence and inconsistency in our own arguments, and it's occasionally valuable to point out when our rhetorical opponents are making inconsistent claims. But let's not fetishize consistency. In another thread, we've seen a "skeptic" criticizing Mann 2008 for showing greater century/milliennial-scale variability than Mann 1998. Is that inconsistency? Is it bad? Ultimately, we should only worry about being consistent in seeking to understand the truth and in using that understanding to inform our stewardship of this fine planet we've been lucky enough to inherit from those who went before us. OK, epic rant over. Sorry!
 
Last edited:

Sunsettommy

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
9,058
Reaction score
6,570
Points
2,050
Your author, John Kehr, has been posting comments at the Skeptical Science website. This led to an article and discussion about whether or not it was possible to be both a climate skeptic and coherent. One of the more thoughtful comments was by a fellow called Ned and I think it has a great deal of application here. Have a read:


Ned at 22:28 PM on 6 October, 2010
I will admit first off that my impression of many "skeptics" is that they will happily seize on any argument that supports their belief, regardless of whether or not it logically contradicts something else they may have been saying earlier. That said, there's nothing inherent in climate skepticism that demands this kind of incoherence, and there are people out there who have what seem to me like coherent skeptic belief systems. Most of the people I have in mind are perfectly cognizant of the basic physics of AGW, they recognize that the observed increase in CO2 is anthropogenic, they will readily agree that the Earth is warming and that this is mostly due to radiative forcing from GHGs, but they think climate sensitivity is on the low end of the scale and/or that the mainstream view of the impacts is unduly pessimistic. These are very defensible views. I think we do everyone a disservice when we treat all climate-skepticism as if it were coextensive with the commentariat at WUWT. I do think it's not random chance that the skeptics who seem most consistent are also those whose skepticism is limited to the more readily supportable arguments. Belief in the more extreme skeptic claims (AGW violates the second law of thermodynamics, CO2 doesn't warm the atmosphere, CO2 is coming from the oceans, it's all a big conspiracy) is probably a pretty good indicator of fuzzy thinking in general. That said, there are a few more points to make here. First, it's easy to get an exaggerated impression of how widespread incoherence is, when you have lots of individuals on the same "side" making lots of different claims and failing to explicitly dissociate themselves from each others' claims. This is something I harp on all the time ... but I'll make it again. If people on this site who hold more "sensible" climate-skeptic positions were actually willing to speak up and disagree when the more irrational claims are promoted, it would do a lot to promote trust, confidence, and friendly communication on this site. Unfortunately that virtually never happens. With almost no effort right now I could put up links to a dozen recent discussions on here where one or another skeptical commenter made breathtakingly wrong claims or howlingly fallacious lines of reasoning, and in each case it's the "regulars" on this site who show up to provide the answers or rebuttals, while the entire "skeptic" contingent basically sits on the sidelines. (Sorry if I sound a bit emotional about this, but for a year or so now I've been increasingly frustrated by what I perceive as a passive demonstration of near total irresponsibility on the part of my "skeptic" friends on this site). Getting back to the topic of this thread, another point is that it's easy to exaggerate the incoherence of one's opponents and to inadvertently minimize the incoherence of one's friends. I think there are no shortage of cases where people make incoherent arguments in support of mainstream climate science. (If people doubt this, I can go into detail in another comment). It's probably good to try to reduce incoherence and inconsistency in our own arguments, and it's occasionally valuable to point out when our rhetorical opponents are making inconsistent claims. But let's not fetishize consistency. In another thread, we've seen a "skeptic" criticizing Mann 2008 for showing greater century/milliennial-scale variability than Mann 1998. Is that inconsistency? Is it bad? Ultimately, we should only worry about being consistent in seeking to understand the truth and in using that understanding to inform our stewardship of this fine planet we've been lucky enough to inherit from those who went before us. OK, epic rant over. Sorry!

Pure OPINION, not a shred of demonstrated facts or evidence presented, a completely useless comment..... :laugh:

Where is YOUR counterpoint to Johns post? Post 145 must be too hard for you to handle.

I have NEVER met an alleged engineer who is so poor in critical thinking skills as YOU. I have worked with Engineers at work for 18 years, ALL of them are more rational and coherent than you.

I think you are lying because engineers right or wrong always make a better argument that you do.

:cuckoo:
 
Last edited:

Crick

Gold Member
Joined
May 10, 2014
Messages
15,770
Reaction score
1,731
Points
290
Location
N/A
Another comment on the work of Mr Kehr. Admirably, this came from Kehr's own website. This comment was discussing Kehr's attempt to calculate his own value for Climate Sensitivity. This is long, but it is well written and I strenuously encourage you to read this before continuing to publicly supporting Kehr's ideas. This is polite and clear and explains the facts and reasonings supporting all his criticisms in a very understandable manner. Glenn Tamblyn, the comment's author, like Kehr, is an engineer. He spent most of his career doing research in solar energy. I warn you, he is quite critical of Kehr because Kehr made a great many mistakes. Critiques of Kehr's work, like this one - typically less polite I'm afraid - are all over the net. I have been reading a great deal of Kehr's work so feel free to consider you owe it to us to read this one little thing in its entirety.


John

Where to start with this. Firstly I would like to point out generally that you are extrapolating values and formulae beyond their useful range and possibly getting some incorrect calculations. Finally your end calculations are based on a completely incorrect usage of what climate sensitivity means, at odds with your usage of it at the beginning of the post.

Firstly a small point. You use the oft cited log function for radiative forcing for CO2 and then attempt to apply this. The value you use may be approximately correct but it is important to understand that the log formula is not a theoretical derivation. It is obtained by using radiative transfer calculations to calculate the radiative forcing for a wide range of CO2 concentrations. Then the 5.35 log function is the best curve fit to the derived results. The key paper on this is Myhre et al 1998 which is cited in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). Using this curve fit may not be completely reliable right down to very low concentrations. I don’t know if the 32 W/M2 figure at SkS is from applying this formula or calculated using something like ModTran.

Next you are using the oft quoted figure of 30 DegC cooler without GH Effect. This is a number often cited. But wrt to our earlier conversation about the actual science verses reportage on the science, this is a figure cited FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. It is not exact. Not even remotely. Because it includes a major assumption! The calculation is

– Solar Flux = 1366 W/M^2, average over the solar cycle
– divided by 4 to convert from the Earths Cross Sectional area as presented to the Sun to the Earths surface area
– Multiply by 0.7 to deduct sunlight reflected off the Atmosphere, top of clouds and the Earths Surface – the Earths total Albedo

This gives 239 W/M^2

The Stefan-Boltzmann Eqn is then used to calculate the black-body temperature of something that needs to radiate 239 W/M^2 out to space to remain in thermal balance.

T = (239/(5.669 * 10^-8))^0.25 = 254.8 k = -18.3 DegC – 33 Deg cooler.

Do you see the assumption? It assumes that the Albedo of the Earth when it is 33 Deg cooler will have the EXACTLY THE SAME REFLECTIVITY as it does today.

If temperature conditions were 33 deg colder than present, how much greater will the ice cover be? If the last Glacial covered Canada, 1/2 the US, Europe & 1/2 of Russia, as well as extra sea ice, how much greater was the reflection of sunlight from the Earth then compared to now. And that was only about 8 Deg colder than now, not 33. What would ice cover be like in a world 33 Deg cooler?

1/3 of the world doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. So Albedo of the planets surface, discounting atmosphere and clouds would be of the order of 0.33 * 0.1 + 0.67 *.08 = 0.57, not 0.7, not counting atmosphere and clouds. So perhaps 0.5 net.

Plug that into the SB eqn and we get 53 DegC colder – -38DegC Average. At that temp, what would Ice cover be – 90%?. Plug that in and we get – 116 DegC, 131 Deg colder.

Conceptually this is an iterative process to get some final value but whatever the final value, a world without GH gases would actually be much colder than the illustrative -18 DegC.

So that part of your calculation is going to underestimate CS.

Next you are assuming that CS is a single fixed value over all climate conditions.

This isn’t valid.

CS is an attempt to estimate how the climate, in its CURRENT CONFIGURATION will respond to a radiative forcing pressure. This may not be the same for forcings in both directions. And it most certainly will not be the same over all climate conditions.

An ice free world will respond less to a heating pressure than a world at the bottom of a glacial. Similarly, a world with a bit of ice may respond more strongly to a cooling pressure compared to a world that is already at the bottom of a glacial. The sort of Snowball Earth that I illustrated would exist without any GH effect may only respond slightly to a warming pressure – if you have ice at -50, you still have ice at -40, so no albedo change. Only when warming has increased enough to trigger a decline of planetwide ice would CS start to climb as the climate now responds more strongly.

CS is not a single fixed value so attempting to perform the calculation you are doing, assuming a single fixed value for CS across all CO2 concentrations, is rather strange.

However, lets now take your argument at face value.

You say “So all other factors in the Earth’s climate account for 14% of the GHE and CO2 BY ITSELF accounts for the other 86%. This can also be compared to the number of CO2 doublings …. 8.6 doublings from 1 ppm gives 25.8 °C. So their model is coherent, but saying that CO2 causes 86% of the GHE is EXTREMELY INCORRECT.” (my emphasis)

Totally faulty reasoning or a statement of the principle that could easily be misleading John.

The correct statement would be more like “CO2 FORCING MULTIPLIED by the magnifying feedback effects of other NON-FORCING FACTORS in the environment accounts for the 86% and the other 14% is due to Non-CO2 FORCING MULTIPLIED by the magnifying feedback effects of other NON-FORCING FACTORS in the environment”

CO2 is 86% (your calc) of the Climate Forcing component of the GH Effect over its entire concentration range with non CO2 Forcings being 14%

86% of the Forcing, NOT 86% of the total GH Effect. 86% before applying CS.

And when you consider what that hypothetical Snowball Earth would be like, when it is that cold, Methane and Nitrous Oxide levels, both of which originate from plant biological factors, would be negligible and water vapour levels in such a climate would be low. In that situation CO2 is the only thing that can do the heavy lifting to produce that much warming. In our current climate however, Methane and Nitrous Oxide are significant components in any additional forcing. And water vapour is then an important multiplier. Its all about context.

So your repeated contention that high percentages of the GH Effect for CO2 from your calculation can’t be right fall into the fallacy of assuming that the same conditions apply all the way through the concentration and temperature range. Wrong. CO2 most certainly can be the major forcing factor over much of the temperature range up from Snowball Earth because there were few other factors that would have an impact. Only in the last stages of this temperature range do other factors come into play. Your assumption of one CS value over the entire range leads you into this fallacy.

Then you ‘work back’, adding together the forcing from CO2 & water Vapour to get a CS three times lower.

Totally wrong.

The feedback effects of Water Vapour are PART OF THE CS, as it is defined, not something being magnified by it. Although Water is a GH Gas, it is not considered a Forcing because it cannot accumulate and FORCE a change – if the article you read actually used the word ‘forcing’ that was an error of nomenclature. Its level in the atmosphere is determined by temperature. Something else has to force a temperature change that causes a change in water vapour levels that in turn causes more temp change.

So your first calculation here is not applicable.

Also a general note on how you are doing these calculations, simply dividing temp change by radiative forcing. Rather you should be looking at how a forcing alters the energy balance, doing the SB Eqn calc from both to get 2 temperatures and taking the difference. Essentially you are treating temperature as a linear change with forcing. OK as a approximate working figure over the smaller ranges we deal with today, but quite meaningless if you are projecting back through large ranges. SB is a 4th power equation and CS is not constant. So your calc’s are rather meaningless.

Next you look at % contribution of CO2 to the GHE but don’t define whether this is % of the temperature change or % of the forcing. Since the SB eqn governs all of this that distinction is profoundly important.

Then simply dividing the temp change by the CO2 forcing divided by the % is quite meaningless.

Finally your use of the data from Kiehl, Trenberth 1997 is just plain bizarre. Your words “I get a total forcing from the surface to the atmosphere of 452 W/m2”

Wrong!! Wrong!! Wrong!!

You get a total RADIATION from the surface to the atmosphere of 452 W/m2. Forcing is a CHANGE in radiation, not the total magnitude. Remember that CS relates TEMPERATURE CHANGE to RADIATION CHANGE. So by your reasoning you are calculating the CS for a Radiation change from 0 W/M^2 to 452 W/M2. Since anything that is radiating nothing has to be at Absolute Zero, you are in effect calculating:

(273.15+15)/452 = 0.6375.

Even then you are not calculating a CS. Rather this is a strange convolution of the SB Eqn. Radiative Forcing applies to changes to the energy budget of the planet relative to its emissions to space, not relative to radiation from the surface.

And since estimates of CS come from studies of a wide range of phenomena – the impacts of volcanic eruptions, ice cores, paleoclimate data, sediment studies, isotope studies etc and these are giving values within the accepted range, arguments for values at the bottom of the range might have validity, but arguments that go way below the accepted range from real world studies based on faulty arguments don’t carry much weight.

Sorry John, but this really doesn’t cut it. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is honest endeavour – much of what appears in the denialosphere definitely isn’t honest – but if this was an undergraduate thermodynamics assignment, this would get an F
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
96,375
Reaction score
11,491
Points
2,030
Another comment on the work of Mr Kehr. Admirably, this came from Kehr's own website. This comment was discussing Kehr's attempt to calculate his own value for Climate Sensitivity. This is long, but it is well written and I strenuously encourage you to read this before continuing to publicly supporting Kehr's ideas. This is polite and clear and explains the facts and reasonings supporting all his criticisms in a very understandable manner. Glenn Tamblyn, the comment's author, like Kehr, is an engineer. He spent most of his career doing research in solar energy. I warn you, he is quite critical of Kehr because Kehr made a great many mistakes. Critiques of Kehr's work, like this one - typically less polite I'm afraid - are all over the net. I have been reading a great deal of Kehr's work so feel free to consider you owe it to us to read this one little thing in its entirety.


John

Where to start with this. Firstly I would like to point out generally that you are extrapolating values and formulae beyond their useful range and possibly getting some incorrect calculations. Finally your end calculations are based on a completely incorrect usage of what climate sensitivity means, at odds with your usage of it at the beginning of the post.

Firstly a small point. You use the oft cited log function for radiative forcing for CO2 and then attempt to apply this. The value you use may be approximately correct but it is important to understand that the log formula is not a theoretical derivation. It is obtained by using radiative transfer calculations to calculate the radiative forcing for a wide range of CO2 concentrations. Then the 5.35 log function is the best curve fit to the derived results. The key paper on this is Myhre et al 1998 which is cited in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). Using this curve fit may not be completely reliable right down to very low concentrations. I don’t know if the 32 W/M2 figure at SkS is from applying this formula or calculated using something like ModTran.

Next you are using the oft quoted figure of 30 DegC cooler without GH Effect. This is a number often cited. But wrt to our earlier conversation about the actual science verses reportage on the science, this is a figure cited FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY. It is not exact. Not even remotely. Because it includes a major assumption! The calculation is

– Solar Flux = 1366 W/M^2, average over the solar cycle
– divided by 4 to convert from the Earths Cross Sectional area as presented to the Sun to the Earths surface area
– Multiply by 0.7 to deduct sunlight reflected off the Atmosphere, top of clouds and the Earths Surface – the Earths total Albedo

This gives 239 W/M^2

The Stefan-Boltzmann Eqn is then used to calculate the black-body temperature of something that needs to radiate 239 W/M^2 out to space to remain in thermal balance.

T = (239/(5.669 * 10^-8))^0.25 = 254.8 k = -18.3 DegC – 33 Deg cooler.

Do you see the assumption? It assumes that the Albedo of the Earth when it is 33 Deg cooler will have the EXACTLY THE SAME REFLECTIVITY as it does today.

If temperature conditions were 33 deg colder than present, how much greater will the ice cover be? If the last Glacial covered Canada, 1/2 the US, Europe & 1/2 of Russia, as well as extra sea ice, how much greater was the reflection of sunlight from the Earth then compared to now. And that was only about 8 Deg colder than now, not 33. What would ice cover be like in a world 33 Deg cooler?

1/3 of the world doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. So Albedo of the planets surface, discounting atmosphere and clouds would be of the order of 0.33 * 0.1 + 0.67 *.08 = 0.57, not 0.7, not counting atmosphere and clouds. So perhaps 0.5 net.

Plug that into the SB eqn and we get 53 DegC colder – -38DegC Average. At that temp, what would Ice cover be – 90%?. Plug that in and we get – 116 DegC, 131 Deg colder.

Conceptually this is an iterative process to get some final value but whatever the final value, a world without GH gases would actually be much colder than the illustrative -18 DegC.

So that part of your calculation is going to underestimate CS.

Next you are assuming that CS is a single fixed value over all climate conditions.

This isn’t valid.

CS is an attempt to estimate how the climate, in its CURRENT CONFIGURATION will respond to a radiative forcing pressure. This may not be the same for forcings in both directions. And it most certainly will not be the same over all climate conditions.

An ice free world will respond less to a heating pressure than a world at the bottom of a glacial. Similarly, a world with a bit of ice may respond more strongly to a cooling pressure compared to a world that is already at the bottom of a glacial. The sort of Snowball Earth that I illustrated would exist without any GH effect may only respond slightly to a warming pressure – if you have ice at -50, you still have ice at -40, so no albedo change. Only when warming has increased enough to trigger a decline of planetwide ice would CS start to climb as the climate now responds more strongly.

CS is not a single fixed value so attempting to perform the calculation you are doing, assuming a single fixed value for CS across all CO2 concentrations, is rather strange.

However, lets now take your argument at face value.

You say “So all other factors in the Earth’s climate account for 14% of the GHE and CO2 BY ITSELF accounts for the other 86%. This can also be compared to the number of CO2 doublings …. 8.6 doublings from 1 ppm gives 25.8 °C. So their model is coherent, but saying that CO2 causes 86% of the GHE is EXTREMELY INCORRECT.” (my emphasis)

Totally faulty reasoning or a statement of the principle that could easily be misleading John.

The correct statement would be more like “CO2 FORCING MULTIPLIED by the magnifying feedback effects of other NON-FORCING FACTORS in the environment accounts for the 86% and the other 14% is due to Non-CO2 FORCING MULTIPLIED by the magnifying feedback effects of other NON-FORCING FACTORS in the environment”

CO2 is 86% (your calc) of the Climate Forcing component of the GH Effect over its entire concentration range with non CO2 Forcings being 14%

86% of the Forcing, NOT 86% of the total GH Effect. 86% before applying CS.

And when you consider what that hypothetical Snowball Earth would be like, when it is that cold, Methane and Nitrous Oxide levels, both of which originate from plant biological factors, would be negligible and water vapour levels in such a climate would be low. In that situation CO2 is the only thing that can do the heavy lifting to produce that much warming. In our current climate however, Methane and Nitrous Oxide are significant components in any additional forcing. And water vapour is then an important multiplier. Its all about context.

So your repeated contention that high percentages of the GH Effect for CO2 from your calculation can’t be right fall into the fallacy of assuming that the same conditions apply all the way through the concentration and temperature range. Wrong. CO2 most certainly can be the major forcing factor over much of the temperature range up from Snowball Earth because there were few other factors that would have an impact. Only in the last stages of this temperature range do other factors come into play. Your assumption of one CS value over the entire range leads you into this fallacy.

Then you ‘work back’, adding together the forcing from CO2 & water Vapour to get a CS three times lower.

Totally wrong.

The feedback effects of Water Vapour are PART OF THE CS, as it is defined, not something being magnified by it. Although Water is a GH Gas, it is not considered a Forcing because it cannot accumulate and FORCE a change – if the article you read actually used the word ‘forcing’ that was an error of nomenclature. Its level in the atmosphere is determined by temperature. Something else has to force a temperature change that causes a change in water vapour levels that in turn causes more temp change.

So your first calculation here is not applicable.

Also a general note on how you are doing these calculations, simply dividing temp change by radiative forcing. Rather you should be looking at how a forcing alters the energy balance, doing the SB Eqn calc from both to get 2 temperatures and taking the difference. Essentially you are treating temperature as a linear change with forcing. OK as a approximate working figure over the smaller ranges we deal with today, but quite meaningless if you are projecting back through large ranges. SB is a 4th power equation and CS is not constant. So your calc’s are rather meaningless.

Next you look at % contribution of CO2 to the GHE but don’t define whether this is % of the temperature change or % of the forcing. Since the SB eqn governs all of this that distinction is profoundly important.

Then simply dividing the temp change by the CO2 forcing divided by the % is quite meaningless.

Finally your use of the data from Kiehl, Trenberth 1997 is just plain bizarre. Your words “I get a total forcing from the surface to the atmosphere of 452 W/m2”

Wrong!! Wrong!! Wrong!!

You get a total RADIATION from the surface to the atmosphere of 452 W/m2. Forcing is a CHANGE in radiation, not the total magnitude. Remember that CS relates TEMPERATURE CHANGE to RADIATION CHANGE. So by your reasoning you are calculating the CS for a Radiation change from 0 W/M^2 to 452 W/M2. Since anything that is radiating nothing has to be at Absolute Zero, you are in effect calculating:

(273.15+15)/452 = 0.6375.

Even then you are not calculating a CS. Rather this is a strange convolution of the SB Eqn. Radiative Forcing applies to changes to the energy budget of the planet relative to its emissions to space, not relative to radiation from the surface.

And since estimates of CS come from studies of a wide range of phenomena – the impacts of volcanic eruptions, ice cores, paleoclimate data, sediment studies, isotope studies etc and these are giving values within the accepted range, arguments for values at the bottom of the range might have validity, but arguments that go way below the accepted range from real world studies based on faulty arguments don’t carry much weight.

Sorry John, but this really doesn’t cut it. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is honest endeavour – much of what appears in the denialosphere definitely isn’t honest – but if this was an undergraduate thermodynamics assignment, this would get an F
Today's weather map:

1618924304467.png


Where's that 93 today? Either CO2 is useful or it isn't. can't pick and choose a day. The CO2 doesn't change day to day, then how is it the temperatures do so dramatically? That's just the US. Wonder what the other side of the globe looks like in Russia.

oh and this is consistent with the last four years, and as far back as the early 1900. Dude, nothing is different. I don't need you to provide me mathematical equations of nonsense CO2 when the real evidence is the climate itself. too funny.
 

jc456

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
96,375
Reaction score
11,491
Points
2,030

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
321
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
RE: Post # 148 - unless USMB is not concerned about copyright infringements, quoting an article, in part or whole, usually requires permission of the owner/author and/or citing the source, i.e. an URL or website or publication.

It is also basic courtesy to cite the source for verification and/or further examination by the readers.
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
321
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
Post from another thread of related topic;
...
CO2 is one part of 2,500* in ratio of the dry atmospheric composition. The other 2,499 being the nitrogen, oxygen, argon, etc. ACC/AGW says that if the "1" of CO2 gains a couple degrees of temperature increase, that level of increase is passed on to the other 2,499 parts of the atmosphere (and than transfers to the dry land surface and the oceans). This is reams of pseudoscience beyond what we find in fantasy and science fiction novels.

* Those 2,500 parts of dry atmosphere(not counting the 10%+ factor of water vapor in addition) work out to 1,950 parts of nitrogen, 525 parts of oxygen, 24 parts of argon and other "gases" and ONE part of CO2 (carbon dioxide).

The at home experiment to replicate the phony science of ACC/AGW;
Take an empty 2 liter plastic soda bottle and fill it with 2 liters (2,000 milliliters) of distilled water that is at 70 degrees F. Now add to this 1/8 teaspoon of water at 75 degrees F. (the 1/8 teaspoon represents the CO2 portion of 1/2500 or 0.8ml).

According to the hypothesis of ACC/AGW that 1/8 teaspoon at 75 degrees F. is supposed to increase the other 2,000ml at 70 degrees F. by 1-2 more degrees F. bringing the full contents up to about 71-72 degrees F.

Get back to me if you can make this "experiment" work that way and can indisputably document such results.

Science is based upon replication of results that validate the hypothesis.
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
321
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
God are you stupid.

View attachment 482001
And if you go on a scale of millions of years instead of just recent 140 years, one notices the temperatures have been higher and so have the CO2 levels, yet there is no linkage of the CO2 level driving the temperatures.
Just one of many that could be shown;



iu


ALSO;



iu



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320123470/figure/fig4/AS:544116959789056@1506739000327/Temperature-T-and-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-CO2-concentration-proxies-during-the.png




iu


https://rockyhigh66.org/stuff/tempco2570mlefttoright.png
 

Stryder50

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2021
Messages
419
Reaction score
321
Points
158
Location
Lynden, WA, USA
Also from a post on another, related thread; but useful for context here for the objective readers;
...............
Ever since the Earth became a planet, it has undergone "climate change" as it's hydrosphere and resulting biospheres have developed.

In earliest stages there was next to no oxygen(O2) in the atmosphere and hence little prospect of fauna/animal lifeforms. It took nearly two+ billion years of gradual conversion of a nitrogen and carbon dioxide rich atmosphere to produce enough oxygen to foster animal/fauna life-forms and start the symbiosis of flora~fauna we've come to know about 4+ billion years later.

This planet's "climate" is an average of about a dozen various climatic zones/regions in a constant state of flux~change. Earth's climate is not like the thermostat in your home which can be set to an ideal temperature and left there. The climate of this planet is always in a state of change and during the past half million years or so has spent about 80+% of the time in ice ages/glaciations; either going into or out of when not settled and bottomed out in such COLD. Those warm periods have been brief in comparrision and we should accept and enjoy what we have now rather than tinker and "geo-engineer" towards pushing into the next ice age of COLD!

EXCERTS:
...
Earth's atmosphere has changed much since its formation as primarily a hydrogen atmosphere, and has changed dramatically on several occasions—for example, the Great Oxidation Event 2.4 billion years ago, greatly increased oxygen in the atmosphere from practically no oxygen to levels closer to present day. ...
...
Earliest atmosphere

The first atmosphere consisted of gases in the solar nebula, primarily hydrogen. There were probably simple hydrides such as those now found in the gas giants (Jupiter and Saturn), notably water vapor, methane and ammonia.[41]

Second atmosphere

Outgassing from volcanism, supplemented by gases produced during the late heavy bombardment of Earth by huge asteroids, produced the next atmosphere, consisting largely of nitrogen plus carbon dioxide and inert gases.[41] A major part of carbon-dioxide emissions dissolved in water and reacted with metals such as calcium and magnesium during weathering of crustal rocks to form carbonates that were deposited as sediments. Water-related sediments have been found that date from as early as 3.8 billion years ago.[42]

About 3.4 billion years ago, nitrogen formed the major part of the then stable "second atmosphere". The influence of life has to be taken into account rather soon in the history of the atmosphere because hints of early life-forms appear as early as 3.5 billion years ago.[43] How Earth at that time maintained a climate warm enough for liquid water and life, if the early Sun put out 30% lower solar radiance than today, is a puzzle known as the "faint young Sun paradox".

The geological record however shows a continuous relatively warm surface during the complete early temperature record of Earth – with the exception of one cold glacial phase about 2.4 billion years ago. In the late Archean Eon an oxygen-containing atmosphere began to develop, apparently produced by photosynthesizing cyanobacteria (see Great Oxygenation Event), which have been found as stromatolite fossils from 2.7 billion years ago. The early basic carbon isotopy (isotope ratio proportions) strongly suggests conditions similar to the current, and that the fundamental features of the carbon cycle became established as early as 4 billion years ago.

Ancient sediments in the Gabon dating from between about 2.15 and 2.08 billion years ago provide a record of Earth's dynamic oxygenation evolution. These fluctuations in oxygenation were likely driven by the Lomagundi carbon isotope excursion.[44]

Third atmosphere



Oxygen content of the atmosphere over the last billion years[45][46]

The constant re-arrangement of continents by plate tectonics influences the long-term evolution of the atmosphere by transferring carbon dioxide to and from large continental carbonate stores. Free oxygen did not exist in the atmosphere until about 2.4 billion years ago during the Great Oxygenation Event and its appearance is indicated by the end of the banded iron formations.

Before this time, any oxygen produced by photosynthesis was consumed by the oxidation of reduced materials, notably iron. Molecules of free oxygen did not start to accumulate in the atmosphere until the rate of production of oxygen began to exceed the availability of reducing materials that removed oxygen. This point signifies a shift from a reducing atmosphere to an oxidizing atmosphere. O2 showed major variations until reaching a steady state of more than 15% by the end of the Precambrian.[47] The following time span from 541 million years ago to the present day is the Phanerozoic Eon, during the earliest period of which, the Cambrian, oxygen-requiring metazoan life forms began to appear.

The amount of oxygen in the atmosphere has fluctuated over the last 600 million years, reaching a peak of about 30% around 280 million years ago, significantly higher than today's 21%. Two main processes govern changes in the atmosphere: Plants using carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and releasing oxygen, and then plants using some oxygen at night by the process of photorespiration with the remainder of the oxygen being used to breakdown adjacent organic material. Breakdown of pyrite and volcanic eruptions release sulfur into the atmosphere, which oxidizes and hence reduces the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. However, volcanic eruptions also release carbon dioxide, which plants can convert to oxygen. The exact cause of the variation of the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is not known. Periods with much oxygen in the atmosphere are associated with the rapid development of animals. Today's atmosphere contains 21% oxygen, which is great enough for this rapid development of animals.[48]
...



en.wikipedia.org


Atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia


en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$20.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top