SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Why are you dodging so? Do you really not know what the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one entropy state to another?
how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we
- Thread starter IanC
- Start date
Why are you dodging so? Do you really not know what the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one entropy state to another?
- Banned
- #1,902
It answered the question do colder objects radiate energy to warmer objects but, not surprisingly, that went right over your head.
I have revised my assessment of the human race thanks to you. I now believe that no matter how it's explained, a certain portion of the human race are incapable of understanding AGW.
The only good news? That's not a problem in doing what has to be done.
- Banned
- #1,903
I don't know anyone with a Prius who doesn't get the EPA mileage. Based on that, what would be stupid and ignorant of me is to fall for your statement "we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated".
itfitzme
Silver Member
That's the whole point, that CO2 is the major factor in containing the radiative balance between incoming and outgoing heat. *Otherwise, we'd be living on a big snowball.
And while you are simply saying that you can make up any damn number you like, the IPCC says,
Which assigns a probability distribution to both individual and combined anthropogenic values.
Figure TS.5 - AR4 WGI Technical Summary
It specifically says, " (a) Global mean radiative forcings (RF) and their 90% confidence intervals in 2005 for various agents and mechanisms. "
Because, obviously, a) it is a big globe, b) they change with time as the amount of each component has changed over time, c) few things, in this world, are known with absolute precision, especially when they vary according to instantaneous quantity.
And while they do shorten it from "anthropegenic global mean radiative forcing" to simply "global mean radiative forcing", they explicitly state "The net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its range are also shown. Best estimates and uncertainty ranges can not be obtained by direct addition of individual terms due to the asymmetric uncertainty ranges for some factors;"
And, if we read the glossary of terms, referenced below, they define it as net ... retative to 1750, which makes hardly the absolute value that you would like to use. *There is nothing wrong with your approach, or the words you are using, it just isn't what the IPCC is using.
The difference is that where they, the IPCC, actually puts numbers to individual components, including a 90% confidence level, you simply hide behind vague generalities and completely misrepresent their models.
So, if you are so sure that it is all accounted for by solar variance, then put some numbers where your mouth is. *Come up with a function for temp vs time with a stable radiative forcing factor, one that accounts for the time varing components, that produces*
from
or whatever more recent data you can come up with.
No one doubts that the global mean temperature is primarily driven by solar irradiation. That is where the energy comes from. *It doesn't come from geothermal energy. This is obvious, and not the issue.
**The issue is that the Earth isn't a snowball in space because the atmosphere holds the heat in. *This is apparent for no other reason than the fact that an overcast night stays warmer than a clear and starry night. (clouds, another contribution not fully accounted for).*And, the temperature has risen more than just TSI can account for. *And that increase is due to increasing CO2, offset and added to by other lesser factors, all of which yields the unmistakable conclusion of AWG.
The question is one of accurately determining why the Earth has a reasonably stable temperature and accurately determining how it varies with solar output, CO2, volcanic eruptions, ozone, sulfates, and whatever other causal factors can be determined so we get a prediction as accurate and precise as
And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;
instead of some vauge statememts of;
" the 33% figure that I tossed for TSI influence on surface radiative forcing.. I don't have 66% to go.. I can pull the exact same horseship that your AGW heroes pull and claim that my 33% is AMPLIFIED by their projected Climate Sensitivity amplifications of 4 and 5"
Because you may be just pulling 4-5 out of your ass, but the IPCC has a specifically determined value of "TSI is estimated to be 0.3+/-0.2 Wm-2 for the period of 1750 to the present". Unsuprisingly, it has varied over the century, so their generalized summary value simply reports a range, a range that says nothing about, what exact value they use, at what particular time, in which of a dozen individual models, that combinen to produce an overall estmate of the future climate.
"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the effect of human activities since 1750 has been a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m2"
and*
" The LLGHGs together contribute +2.63 ± 0.26 W m2, which is the dominant radiative forcing term and has the highest level of scientific understanding. *In contrast, the total direct aerosol, cloud albedo and surface albedo effects that contribute negative forcings are less well understood and have larger uncertainties."
And while they do say,*
"In the TAR, no estimate of the total combined RF from all anthropogenic forcing agents was given because: a) some of the forcing agents did not have central or best estimates; b) a degree of subjectivity was included in the error estimates; and c) uncertainties associated with the linear additivity assumption and efficacy had not been evaluated. Some of these limitations still apply. However, methods for objectively adding the RF of individual species have been developed (e.g., Schwartz and Andreae, 1996; Boucher and Haywood, 2001). In addition, as efficacies are now better understood and quantified (see Section 2.8.5), and as the linear additivity assumption has been more thoroughly tested (see Section 2.8.4), it becomes scientifically justifiable for RFs from different mechanisms to be combined, with certain exceptions as noted below. Adding together the anthropogenic RF values shown in panel (A) of Figure 2.20 and combining their individual uncertainties gives the probability density functions (PDFs) of RF that are shown in panel (B)."
Which yields,
and with some effort I may be able to find a qualified value of 4-5 with a pdf and confidence interval, it isn't the same as the 4-5, a number that you apparently pulled out of your ass, because unlike the IPCC, you do exactly what you claim everyone else does, make shit up. *You are the only one pulling shit out of your ass.
And on any given day, the IPCC's "less well understood and have larger uncertainties" is a hell of alot more accurate then your supposed "exact same horseship ".
And I'm not defending my "AGW heroes". *I couldn't give a crap about whomever they are. I'm simply telling you that you are clueless about how science works. *And, when you finally do the work, and get a clue, you will simply end up doing exactly the same thing as the IPCC because they are using the science that I am "defending".
What I am saying is that any value for total radiative forcing is a backward looking metric that changes constantly due to changes in the compsition of the atmosphere. The IPCC models do not use some overall, constant, number of 4-5. *And any value that might be used, as a first order approximation, to get a general idea idea of things, would be in the form of a pdf. *So you might consider studying the hundred pages, or so, of science behind this 4-5 number that someone else pulled out of their ass.
And while I am certainly ready to entertain the idea of an estimate of global mean radiative forcing pdf, I can find no reference, on the IPCC website, that suggests they use such an animal in their models.
Rather, I get the sense that, instead of reading what the IPCC actually publishes, you bought into some second hand bs that someone else claims the IPCC does, or simply misinterpreted what you read. Because there is simply no scientific case to be made for a single global mean radiative forcing value that can be used for every moment of time over a century of global climate. At best, a mean value for radiative forcing is a backward looking, instantaneous, and over simplified parameter that isn't used in the models.
So I will tell you before hand, that if you manage to find a published IPCC value for instantaneous global mean radiative forcing, unless you show the actual code for the models, my answer will be it isn't what they actually use in the models and they don't use a single overall value.
TS.2.5 Net Global Radiative Forcing, Global Warming Potentials and Patterns of Forcing - AR4 WGI Technical Summary
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.pdf
http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg1.pdf
- Banned
- #1,905
"To start with, rather than representing the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and has no day and night,receives precisely the same amount of sunlight on its entire surface 24 hours a day, and arbitrarily places the sun 4 times further away than it actually is."
No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.
"A more accurate model would represent the earth as a rotating sphere which experiences day and night, receives varying degrees of energy from the sun depending on where a given point is located at a given time longitudally as it relates to the sun, and its lattitude. A more accurate model would recognize the fact that the coolest part of any day is just after sunrise and then warms until a short period after mid day at which time a cooling process begins till night at which time no solar energy is received by the ground at all until sunrise again."
One problem is to understand the earths overall energy budget. Watts coming in and watts going out. It only requires a simple model and only predicts whether the earth needs to cool or warm overall to achieve energy balance. The only inputs required are solar shortwave energy in vs reflected long wave radiation out from the TOA. Such models conclude implicitly requiring warming to compensate for higher concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.
More complicated models add to that sure knowledge the dynamics. How energy in all of earths systems reacts and interacts in order to finally achieve the required energy balance. In short they are long term weather models.
Then there are the short term weather models for the military, government and professions like fire people. Finally the weather models that feed the 11 o'clock news.
In short, you have so much to learn if you want to. Or not, if you prefer that. It matters to nobody but yourself.
itfitzme
Silver Member
What are you talking about? I have had no discussion about thermodynamics laws. You obviously can no more separate one person from another than you can websites, models, or organizations.
Last edited:
itfitzme
Silver Member
He's an idiot. *He things the cartoon graphics, used to simplify it for his level of comprehension, is the model that the IPCC use.
I am also beginning to suspect that he is also another Slacksack sock. *SSaDhD=Flatulance*=SlackSack *And I'm beginning to suspect*Walleyed as a*Flatulance sock as well. *
IanC seems to be the only one that actually has original thought. Though I do feel a little bad about suggesting anyone might be as stupid as SlackSack, with his coal cycle theory of photosynthesis. Still, none of themnhave corrected him on it either.
Last edited:
- Banned
- #1,909
I think thay've been told that they are owed a very simple model that anyone can understand that takes into account all of the complexities and dynamics and concludes that nothing costing money has to be done.
They are entitled, don't you know.
itfitzme
Silver Member
Here is the issue;
This is solar irradiance against temperature anomoly
which is also included in
Which also contains;
And if you do the linear regression on solar irradiation, that huge divergence guarantees that the R^2 will be less than for CO2.*
Obviously, CO2 is the gas responsible for holding the *suns heat in. So a regression against CO2 yields a higher R^2 because it accounts for the majority suns heat. If there were no sun, CO2 would yield nothing. *If there were no CO2, the Earth would be substantially colder. *CO2 and the sun yields multiple times more temperature. The CO2 multiplies the suns influence. *
It would be nice if someone had Excel, with stat pack installed. Then we could do a proper regression analysis. I am not sure if Excel will do a multivariate analysis. That might require SSPS or some other stat package.
The Solar Cycle and Global Warming ? Starts With A Bang
This is solar irradiance against temperature anomoly
which is also included in
Which also contains;
And if you do the linear regression on solar irradiation, that huge divergence guarantees that the R^2 will be less than for CO2.*
Obviously, CO2 is the gas responsible for holding the *suns heat in. So a regression against CO2 yields a higher R^2 because it accounts for the majority suns heat. If there were no sun, CO2 would yield nothing. *If there were no CO2, the Earth would be substantially colder. *CO2 and the sun yields multiple times more temperature. The CO2 multiplies the suns influence. *
It would be nice if someone had Excel, with stat pack installed. Then we could do a proper regression analysis. I am not sure if Excel will do a multivariate analysis. That might require SSPS or some other stat package.
The Solar Cycle and Global Warming ? Starts With A Bang
itfitzme
Silver Member
Anyone that take the time to read The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources description of the history of climate modeling would know that the climate models are far more sophisticated than the simple cartoon graphic depicts. I am aware that those who have never graduated from college are clueless with regard to the length and complexity that even the simple senior year projects achieve. The professional climate models are far beyond my personal grasp, except that they are deeply complex, finite element analysis, multi-dimensional models that require a super computer to run. To call them 3-D, spherical models doesn't do them justice. And I can only gauge their likely complexity as on an exponential scale, at some factor of 10^(4+) better than anything I can even concieve of. We go from doing "mad minutes" in grammer school, to single page word problems in highschool geometry, single page essays in grammer school to ten page essays in highschool. I can only imagine the tome that a senior college lit major writes. And engineering homework problems were often ten pages of just calculations. Senior projects are a year long efforts. Grad school is worse. And that two year PhD thesis is just one two year project. The IPCC cycle is six years, 2013-2007. (five?) And that is four working groups, all feeding into the final product.
The first model to produce something even remotely close to a GCM was a cylinder. The next leap was a layered globe. They ran into issues, and rightfully so, where the elements converged at the poles. I can't begin to imagine what they have now.
It isn't the flat earth model any more. That is just a gross over simplification for us layman. It is the Dr. Suess version. The "See Spot run. Run Spot run" version." It't is like comparing The Cat In The Hat to the works of Shakespeare.
Sure they are. Here are a whole host of papers showing all the failings of the climate models and just how crappy they are. Enjoy the read. 1st off is Hansens testimony to The House of Commons...you know who he is right? Then there is a paper stating that the computer models are so poor that they are unable to be used for predictive purposes for agriculture but they hope that within 5 to 50! years they may be..
In other words, wherever you look within legitimate scientific circles and journals, the UNIVERSAL opinion is that global climate models are worse than useless.
"...The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate.
...The IPCC had prior estimates. The last report was that sea level this century would only go up a fraction of a metre. The new report is probably going to estimate more like a metre, but these are educated guesses."-James Hansen....
"Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies."
House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 60
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf
Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modelled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library
Flawed Global Warming Models Predict Heat That Hasn't Occurred - Investors.com
Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models Vs. Observations | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience
- Banned
- #1,913
When I read the legitimate of your references what I think that they imply is indisputable. Climate and weather models are useful today and will be continuously improved forever. Who would possibly think otherwise?
But doers are betting billions on them today.
And science deniers deny science regardless of where it is in terms of continuous improvement.
This really does boil down to just one thing. The continual string of better and better models have not changed their conclusion. Our climate, due to the waste that we dump into our atmosphere, will change as a result, and that will have significant and costly consequences to the civilization that we've built around a climate that is changing around us.
It would be better for mankind if that wasn't true.
That has no impact on the fact that it is true.
itfitzme
Silver Member
As usual, you are confused because you can't tell one model from another. *Apparently, to you, they are all "models". *Like you group people into categories and all people in a category are identical.
A key term is "regional temperature simulations", the word "regional" being particularly important. *I am not surprised that short term and regional models are still in their infancy.
The only model I am interested in is the final combined output of the global model. The issue has been that is has repeatedly under estimated the rise in temperature and sea level rise.
I have explained to you, in detail, that the word "model" is a general term that applies to everything which provides a description of how something will be, everything from Earnings=Revenues-costs to E=mc^2 to a roadmap to a weather prediction in your local area to the flight path of the Space Shuttle (now retired) to a general circulation model.
Your inability to distinguish specific models that attempt to predict local precipitation patterns for agriculture from the models used to predict AGW just demonstrates your continued ignorance and desperate attempt to prove something that simply isn't correct.
itfitzme
Silver Member
You need to work on your own homework. *What is photosynthesis? *What is soil carbon? *And why don't plants need coal, pencil lead and diamonds in the soil to grow?
Come back when you have finished those homework problems.
- Thread starter
- #1,918
I have explained this dozens of times, in a variety of ways, to you and your ilk. I cannot help but think that you are too dense to just pick it up easily and too obstinate to actually read for comprehension.
over and over and over again I have said that it is the sun that warms the surface, with atnospheric conditions adjusting the final equilibrium temperature. the net flow of energy and heat is always outwards towards space.
there are two types of backradiation. the first is temperature dependent blackbody radiation that would be present even without greenhouse gases. the second is GHG dependent by which certain wavelengths of surface IR radiation are stopped from exiting directly into outer space because they are absorbed and re-emitted in random directions, dispersing the energy into the atmosphere where it returns to the surface/finally escapes to space/or is added to the temperature of the atmosphere where it simply becomes part of the blackbody radiation. is that simple enough for you gslack? the atmosphere will always send backradiation to the surface because it is warm and gives off blackbody radiation. GHGs just add to that existing backradiation.
the surface gives off blackbody radiation according to its temperature. if there was no atmosphere it would simply exit into space, relative to (Tsur^4 - Tspa^4), where Tsur is surface temp and Tspa is space temp. if there is an atmosphere in place then the surface would give off radiation relative to (Tsur^4 - Tatm^4). because Tatm >> Tspa the power dissapated is much less. that difference is taken up into the heat sinks of the surface and atmosphere until the energy flowing out again matches the solar input but the surface is now at a higher equilibrium temperature.
planck curves somewhat representative of surface and atmosphere temperatures. the surface is emitting more radiation and at a slightly higher energy wavelengths. when it absorbs the radiation from the lower curve, the area between the two curves is the energy available to go through the atmosphere and exit into space. it is a visual explanation of the second law of thermodynamics, it shows why heat always goes from warm to cool. there is more radiation from the warmer body to the cooler body.
is this a complete or even a good model? not really, especially if the atmosphere was only N2 and O2. the surface radiation would mostly escape, but a significant amount of heat would still be passed to the atmosphere by conduction, which would be spread by convection. it is only when GHGs are added that surface radiation starts being dispersed and substantially removed from radiation loss. water is the main GHG but it also adds a new method of transporting latent heat above the near surface bottleneck by increasing convection as heat pipes (humid air is ligher and therefore rises, until it is cool enough for the water to change phase releasing heat which can now escape). CO2 takes another bite out of the planck curve, dissapating 15 micron IR and returning some to the surface.
it does not matter that the surface and especially the atmosphere are not true blackbodies. we are concerned only with disturbances to the equilibrium, the equilibrium that has already been in place using heat sinks, convection, conduction, latent heat, and radiation.
with no atmosphere heat transport and energy loss is 100% radiation driven. as you add an atmosphere conduction and convection become increasingly important in heat transport. when you add GHGs the ratios between conduction, convection, latent heat, and radiation change again. the radiation blocked by doubling CO2 does not necessarily all go into raising the surface equilibrium temperature, it is likely that much of it is just diverted into other transport mechanisms to get it high enough to escape. Trenberth's cartoon already shows that the minority of low altitude energy escapes as radiation, especially if you take out the 10micron atmospheric window. only 26W/m2 pinball through the lower atmosphere now, closing it down even further is not making a huge change.
just to be specific about gslack's statement that I am backpedalling on back radiation....all the radiation from the atmosphere directed at, and reaching, the surface is absorbed and used to offset the outward radiation from the surface, a la planck curves. because the net radiation is almost always towards the atmosphere, the movement of heat is away from the surface. the surface temperature may rise incrementally with addition of GHGs but that is only because the solar input is not being fully balanced by surface output reaching outer space. like I have said dozens of times but gslack never seems to be able to comprehend the idea of equilibriums being being based not only on inputs but outputs as well. that is why he and SSDD and others have so much trouble understanding why solar input is only 160W but surface output via heat sink is 400W (surface output not top of the atmosphere output, which is in balance with solar input).
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Damned right. Those scientists with their trillions of dollars in ill gotten gains are bribing the government to pass laws while the execs at Mobile-Exxon can barely afford one meal a day. Yessirree, Walleyes, you have it down pat.
SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,968
- 280
Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. All models represent the earth as a flat disk.
I am surprised that you are unaware of the earth portrayed in climate models. Even the crop of crazies that we had here before you and your sock showed up were aware that the models didn't represent the earth as a rotating sphere and that they arbitrarily put the sun 4x further away than it actually is.
Do a bit of research into what is actually meant by P/4
Similar threads
- Poll
New Topics
-
-
-
End Game...the only way to stop them (IRAN) is to create innocent victims....- Started by justoffal
- Replies: 6
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
BREAKING: Trump Says The Iran War “Very Much Complete” - Press Conference Tonight- Latest: Fort Fun Indiana
-
-
