Satellite data show Earth's glaciers in massive decline

So why didn't the temperature rise by 1.6269 C deg when CO2 rose from 280 ppm to 420 ppm?
Because you don't understand the difference between TCS and ECS. You took the ECS formula and tried to compare it to TCS results.

This is basic stuff, and you completely faceplant at it. You faceplant at all of the basics. Given how bad you are at this, you shouldn't be bothering the grownups. As it is, you're just a fine example of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome, a person who is too clueless to understand how clueless they are.

Proceed to rage now. After all, it's not like any denier has ever said "Thank you for pointing out my fundamental error. I apologize for insulting people because I was so stupid."
I would be amazed if the radiative forcing equation I used doesn't calculate the lowest possible estimate for radiative forcing of CO2. Radiative forcing is radiative forcing. There's not a time delayed response to a dynamic process of delaying / slowing heat transfer to outer space. Green house gas effects are immediate.

And given that I used the lowest possible estimate for radiative forcing of CO2 it is all the more remarkable that the temperature does not match the prediction. Enough so as to make one pause to consider the reasons why.
 
it's not like any denier has ever said "Thank you for pointing out my fundamental error. I apologize for insulting people because I was so stupid."
Indeed. They invariably lie about what you just said and double down on the same shameless nonsense. At least the tobacco industry lawyers were being well paid. Seems as though many of these denialists do this because their douchebaggery has unfortunately been encouraged by their peers and has too often gotten them promoted rather than censured by those at some distance and above.
An important consideration is that model performance can be evaluated only relative to past observations, taking into account natural internal variability. To have confidence in the future projections of such models, historical climate—and its variability and change—must be well simulated. The scope of model evaluation, in terms of the kind and quantity of observations available, the availability of better coordinated model experiments, and the expanded use of various performance metrics, has provided much more quantitative information about model performance. But this alone may not be sufficient. Whereas weather and seasonal climate predictions can be regularly verified, climate projections spanning a century or more cannot. This is particularly the case as anthropogenic forcing is driving the climate system toward conditions not previously observed in the instrumental record, and it will always be a limitation.
 
Until the industrial revolution, CO2 has never led temperature. CO2 has lagged temperature by 800 years. So throughout earth's history CO2 reinforced climate changes, CO2 did not drive climate changes.
Oh, you've been around that long? Far more likely, that sort of precision has never been possible until far more recently. Fahrenheit didn't even invent the first reliable thermometer until 1724. Does it really never occur to you shameless deniers that all the data you actually use is the exact same stuff real climate scientists have measured and used to achieve unparalleled consensus at direct odds with your amateurish arguments and interpretations? Of course not. You'd then be capable of experiencing shame.
Congratulations, you just invalidated the oxygen isotope curve (which is well established for the Cenozoic and widely accepted by everyone as a proxy for past earth temperatures and climates) which means you have invalidated 500 million years of data and have no basis for making any comparison of your perception that the planet is warming faster than it has ever warmed before (a statement which is wholly invalidated without discrediting the precision of the oxygen isotope data, I might add).

I think you need to face the fact that you are a cherry picker of data to confirm your bias. The baseline temperature for the pre-industrialization of the warmest interglacial temperature (which is the proper way to baseline the comparison, you cherry picker) is less than 1deg C than today.

So again... where is all of this missing heat?
Wow, just look at that crock of shit.
 
The April 2021 temperature anomaly (relative to the highest temperature pre-industrialization) is 0.74 deg C.

View attachment 490493
Pretty sure the Earth was even hotter billions of years ago when it was all like cooling lava and stuff. Why stop at only 1000 yrs ago, cherry picker? Hell, why not pick March 2021 since you clearly don't really give a shit?
 
I'm not familiar with any other equation than the one I posted.
Fine admission, but even that's not enough "so as to make one pause" and reconsider one jackass's clear limitations before heehawing tons more gibberish.
 
it's not like any denier has ever said "Thank you for pointing out my fundamental error. I apologize for insulting people because I was so stupid."
Indeed. They invariably lie about what you just said and double down on the same shameless nonsense. At least the tobacco industry lawyers were being well paid. Seems as though many of these denialists do this because their douchebaggery has unfortunately been encouraged by their peers and has too often gotten them promoted rather than censured by those at some distance and above.
An important consideration is that model performance can be evaluated only relative to past observations, taking into account natural internal variability. To have confidence in the future projections of such models, historical climate—and its variability and change—must be well simulated. The scope of model evaluation, in terms of the kind and quantity of observations available, the availability of better coordinated model experiments, and the expanded use of various performance metrics, has provided much more quantitative information about model performance. But this alone may not be sufficient. Whereas weather and seasonal climate predictions can be regularly verified, climate projections spanning a century or more cannot. This is particularly the case as anthropogenic forcing is driving the climate system toward conditions not previously observed in the instrumental record, and it will always be a limitation.

Useful amounts of cheap, reliable energy are just awful!!
Makes it difficult for you to sleep at night.
 
The April 2021 temperature anomaly (relative to the highest temperature pre-industrialization) is 0.74 deg C.

View attachment 490493
Pretty sure the Earth was even hotter billions of years ago when it was all like cooling lava and stuff. Why stop at only 1000 yrs ago, cherry picker? Hell, why not pick March 2021 since you clearly don't really give a shit?
Because you need the warmest reference point before the industrial revolution, dummy, to make a valid comparison, duh.
 
Until the industrial revolution, CO2 has never led temperature. CO2 has lagged temperature by 800 years. So throughout earth's history CO2 reinforced climate changes, CO2 did not drive climate changes.
Oh, you've been around that long? Far more likely, that sort of precision has never been possible until far more recently. Fahrenheit didn't even invent the first reliable thermometer until 1724. Does it really never occur to you shameless deniers that all the data you actually use is the exact same stuff real climate scientists have measured and used to achieve unparalleled consensus at direct odds with your amateurish arguments and interpretations? Of course not. You'd then be capable of experiencing shame.
Congratulations, you just invalidated the oxygen isotope curve (which is well established for the Cenozoic and widely accepted by everyone as a proxy for past earth temperatures and climates) which means you have invalidated 500 million years of data and have no basis for making any comparison of your perception that the planet is warming faster than it has ever warmed before (a statement which is wholly invalidated without discrediting the precision of the oxygen isotope data, I might add).

I think you need to face the fact that you are a cherry picker of data to confirm your bias. The baseline temperature for the pre-industrialization of the warmest interglacial temperature (which is the proper way to baseline the comparison, you cherry picker) is less than 1deg C than today.

So again... where is all of this missing heat?
Wow, just look at that crock of shit.
Where is all the missing heat? It's only a matter of time before you argue you knew all along that AGW was a hoax.

Time is on my side.
 
I'm not familiar with any other equation than the one I posted.
And how is that relevant to the fact that you misapplied the equation, revealing how you're ignorant of the basics?

If that is the wrong radiative forcing relationship, then can you show me the equation I should have used, dear.

ECS vs TCS. Look it up, understand it, and then come back and ask the grownups if you can talk.

The IPCC literature assessment estimates that TCR likely lies between 1 °C (1.8 °F) and 2.5 °C (4.5 °F).

So still missing heat. Oh dear!!

Do show us the math for that. That should be hilarious.

I would be amazed if the radiative forcing equation I used doesn't calculate the lowest possible estimate for radiative forcing of CO2. Radiative forcing is radiative forcing.

But radiative forcing is _not_ temperature., so why are you pretending it is?

If it's a radiative forcing equation, the result will be in units of radiative forcing, watts/m^2. If the results are in degrees, it's not a radiative forcing equation. The results of that equation are in degrees, so it's not a radiative forcing equation.

There's not a time delayed response to a dynamic process of delaying / slowing heat transfer to outer space. Green house gas effects are immediate.

No. There are these things on earth called "oceans" that take a long time to change temperature. Hence the main reason for the difference between TCS and ECS, and why your "missing heat" argument here faceplants.
 
I'm not familiar with any other equation than the one I posted.
And how is that relevant to the fact that you misapplied the equation, revealing how you're ignorant of the basics?

If that is the wrong radiative forcing relationship, then can you show me the equation I should have used, dear.

ECS vs TCS. Look it up, understand it, and then come back and ask the grownups if you can talk.

The IPCC literature assessment estimates that TCR likely lies between 1 °C (1.8 °F) and 2.5 °C (4.5 °F).

So still missing heat. Oh dear!!

Do show us the math for that. That should be hilarious.

I would be amazed if the radiative forcing equation I used doesn't calculate the lowest possible estimate for radiative forcing of CO2. Radiative forcing is radiative forcing.

But radiative forcing is _not_ temperature., so why are you pretending it is?

If it's a radiative forcing equation, the result will be in units of radiative forcing, watts/m^2. If the results on in degrees, it's not a radiative forcing equation.

There's not a time delayed response to a dynamic process of delaying / slowing heat transfer to outer space. Green house gas effects are immediate.

No. There are these things on earth called "oceans" that take a long time to change temperature. Hence the main reason for the difference between TCS and ECS, and why your "missing heat" argument here faceplants.
I didn't misapply the equation, dummy. Radiative forcing is converted to an associated temperature. How else do you think they determine the greenhouse TEMPERATURE effect of greenhouse gases?
 
mamooth

See?

1621182945053.png


dRF=5.35ln(420/280) = 2.1692 W/m^2

2.169238328 W/m^2 x 0.75 C deg / W/m^2 = 1.6269 C deg
 
You would think that people who believe the science is settled on global warming would have at least a basic understanding of the fundamental equation used to calculate the temperature effect from greenhouse gases.
 
1621182945053.png


dRF=5.35ln(420/280) = 2.1692 W/m^2

2.169238328 W/m^2 x 0.75 C deg / W/m^2 = 1.6269 C deg
So like I said, your results are a temperature, meaning it's not a radiative forcing equation. You added the climate sensitivity parameter to the radiative forcing equation, which made it no longer a radiative forcing equation.

However, the climate sensitivity parameter is meant to apply to ECS results. We'd get pretty close to equilibrium in another 50 years, if CO2 was held constant, but we're not close now. That parameter isn't meant to apply to temperatures now, which are governed by TCS.

So there's no missing heat. You tried comparing apples to oranges.
 
1621182945053.png


dRF=5.35ln(420/280) = 2.1692 W/m^2

2.169238328 W/m^2 x 0.75 C deg / W/m^2 = 1.6269 C deg
So like I said, your results are a temperature, meaning it's not a radiative forcing equation. You added the climate sensitivity parameter to the radiative forcing equation, which made it no longer a radiative forcing equation.

However, the climate sensitivity parameter is meant to apply to ECS results. We'd get pretty close to equilibrium in another 50 years, if CO2 was held constant, but we're not close now. That parameter isn't meant to apply to temperatures now, which are governed by TCS.

So there's no missing heat. You tried comparing apples to oranges.
Congratulations. You have just invalidated the basis for the temperature effect of greenhouses gases by shitting all of the fundamental equation for calculating the TEMPERATURE effect.

The equation I posted yields the immediate effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, dummy.

So it is the lowest prediction of temperature possible and the most conservative estimate I could make in showing that actual temperatures have fallen short of the minimum temperature predicted due to an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from 280 ppm to 420 ppm.

The actual gain was less than half of the predicted MINIMUM temperature.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top