Something that almost never happens in this forum

[Tim the plumber]

Originally Posted by Threegoofs View Post
Google it.

I'm not your scut puppy.

Originally Posted by Tim the plumber View Post
I have not followed what it is you are referring to but I see you have lost another argument.

The usual powerful intellect followed by solid conclusions from careful examination of information that is your specialty, I see.

I see my specialty as stating the bleeding obvious.

 

[Threegoofs]

I see my specialty as stating the bleeding obvious.

LOL. Just another thing you are wrong about.

Anytime you want to contribute to the discussion with something of substance, feel free to start chiming in. We've been waiting months.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Yes, CO2 changes since 1750 have had a significant effect on radiative forcing. That doesn't mean it is the primary variable driving climate.

Except....that it is.

How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming? | Union of Concerned Scientists

 

[Lord of Planar]

So exactly why do you think that the IPCC is wrong about the impacts of soot (black carbon)?

You went through all that work, and it didn't address the biggest thing.

When soot on arctic ice accelerates the melting, more exposed ocean means more solar absorption than less, leading to an increased net gain of heat in the earth energy budget.

When soot on glacier ice accelerates the melting, it accelerates the rise in sea level.

Radiative forcing in the atmosphere is also more than previously thought, but it is the melting of ice because it has a lower reemission of power than previously thought on ice. Rather than it acting as good as a blackbody source as previously though when on ice, it transfers much of the heat to the ice as it goes though a state change to liquid instead of reemitting as much back as IR.

These changes have nothing to do with radiative forcing from BC, but from what is absorbed.

 

[Lord of Planar]

He roots for this because China burns coal, and he thinks we can blame all of AGW on China.

Swear to God.

Once again, you torture the truth into a lie.

Please show me where I ever implied such a thing, past saying they are the biggest contributor to northern ice melt.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Except....that it is.

And the sun is the source energy for the greenhouse effect. You cannot simply stop at direct forcing changes, because it is the source energy for the greenhouse effect.

For every 0.1% the TSI changes, so does the greenhouse effect. Earlier, information from the TAR that claims a 324 W/m^2 greenhouse effect. The paper cited claims a 32 W/m^2 effect for CO2.

Now if the TSI increases by 0.1%, the so does the greenhouse effect by 0.324 W/m^2 So do the other factors in the energy balance, but just the direct and indirect into the greenhouse gas equals around 0.4 W/m^2 just for these two. It is my contention that this misplaced 0.324, along with increased latent heat and convection is added to the CO2 claims.

After-all, it just didn't vanish in thin air...

 

[Threegoofs]

You went through all that work, and it didn't address the biggest thing.

When soot on arctic ice accelerates the melting, more exposed ocean means more solar absorption than less, leading to an increased net gain of heat in the earth energy budget.

When soot on glacier ice accelerates the melting, it accelerates the rise in sea level.

Radiative forcing in the atmosphere is also more than previously thought, but it is the melting of ice because it has a lower reemission of power than previously thought on ice. Rather than it acting as good as a blackbody source as previously though when on ice, it transfers much of the heat to the ice as it goes though a state change to liquid instead of reemitting as much back as IR.

These changes have nothing to do with radiative forcing from BC, but from what is absorbed.

Used all those words, and didn't reference it.

Oh, right. It was your 'several years of engineering' experience that told you this. None of that fancy schmancy science stuff.

 

[Fletch]

Actually, that IS how it works. I dont try to explain the concept of molar weight to a three year old, I dont try to explain gravity to someone who speaks Swahili, and you obviously are totally so flummoxed by the concept of a revenue neutral carbon tax that you cant even read up on the basics of it, which I have outlined in this forum a couple times already.

I guess I can start you off. Let me google that for you

I didn't say I was "flummoxed by the concept" at all. I simply asked you to elaborate on your own position and you are obviously incapable of doing that. And to be honest, I really don't much care all that much at this point what your opinion is.
There are plenty of other people on this site who can engage in adult conversation. Apparently, you aren't one of them, so I will move on.

 

[Threegoofs]

I didn't say I was "flummoxed by the concept" at all. I simply asked you to elaborate on your own position and you are obviously incapable of doing that. And to be honest, I really don't much care all that much at this point what your opinion is.
There are plenty of other people on this site who can engage in adult conversation. Apparently, you aren't one of them, so I will move on.

...and he leaves seemingly not ever looking into what a revenue neutral carbon tax is. Because its a tax. And taxes are eevil.

 

[Mithrae]

And the sun is the source energy for the greenhouse effect. You cannot simply stop at direct forcing changes, because it is the source energy for the greenhouse effect.

For every 0.1% the TSI changes, so does the greenhouse effect. Earlier, information from the TAR that claims a 324 W/m^2 greenhouse effect. The paper cited claims a 32 W/m^2 effect for CO2.

Now if the TSI increases by 0.1%, the so does the greenhouse effect by 0.324 W/m^2 So do the other factors in the energy balance, but just the direct and indirect into the greenhouse gas equals around 0.4 W/m^2 just for these two. It is my contention that this misplaced 0.324, along with increased latent heat and convection is added to the CO2 claims.

After-all, it just didn't vanish in thin air...

All true, except that the estimated TSI increase has been more like 0.033%. It's hard to see how solar changes, even including its addition to the greenhouse effect, can account for more than about 5% of the warming over the instrumental period. (Heck, even your private estimate only makes it responsible for <15%.)

You went through all that work, and it didn't address the biggest thing.

When soot on arctic ice accelerates the melting, more exposed ocean means more solar absorption than less, leading to an increased net gain of heat in the earth energy budget.

The difference in summer ice coverage between the lowest (2012) and highest (1980) years in the satellite record is some 4.13 million square kilometers - about 0.8% of the earth's surface area (510,072,000 km^2) - and in winter the difference is well under half of that.

Since the earth's average albedo is about 0.3, that's about 153.02 total 'reflectivity' (0.3 x 510 million sq km): And by comparison, an albedo change from 0.7 (sea ice) to 0.1 (open sea) over an annual average of 3 million square km would be a loss of about 1.8 'reflectivity' - or about 1.176% of total planetary albedo.

Using that fairly generous estimate and the same TAR figures, that should be equivalent to a change of about 1.26 W/m^2 (0.01176 x 107). But obviously not all ice loss is due to soot. The IPCC suggests that:

AR5 WG1 8.6.2.2

BC contributions to snow darkening reduces snow cover, however the magnitude of the effect is very uncertain (see Sections 7.5.2.3 and 8.3.4.4). A model study calculated BC-albedo reduction to cause about 20% Arctic snow/ice cover reduction and 20% of Arctic warming over the previous century (Koch et al., 2011). However, reductions in Arctic soot during the past two decades (e.g., Hegg et al., 2009) have likely reversed that trend (e.g., Koch et al., 2011; Skeie et al., 2011b; Lee et al., 2013).​

So including the estimated contribution to ice loss, the total effect of anthropogenic soot might be in the order of 0.7W/m^2 CO2-equivalent. (IPCC best estimate of direct BC forcing is 0.04, supposedly somehow equivalent to 2-4 times that value of CO2 forcing - ie, 0.12 mid-range estimate - plus its 20% contribution to my 1.26W/m^2 estimate of ice loss: I have doubled that figure to allow for uncertainty, and the fact that the ice data only goes back to 1979 (I'd also already used the absolute lowest and highest years in that period, rather than averages).)

Admittedly it's a very, very vague ballpark estimate, but 0.7W/m^2 is a significant contribution, for sure. Nevertheless, it's still only about one-fifth of the total observed warming, whereas the estimated contribution from CO2 alone is about 1.7W/m^2.



Edit: It must be said that I do usually learn a few things trying to track down the information and do the maths relevant to your pet theories, so as usual thanks for that

 

[Lord of Planar]

All true, except that the estimated TSI increase has been

<snip> message to long error...

If the data in the spreadsheet for past TSI levels is correct, then the 0.33% is too. How accurate do you think any study is on past number evaluations?

The difference in summer ice coverage between the lowest (2012) and highest (1980) years

<snip>

Yes, but all that melting is a huge intake of heat content, not to mention changing from 80%+ reflection of energy to 80+% absorption of energy in the areas of less ice extent.

<snip>

would be a loss of about 1.8 'reflectivity' - or about 1.176% of total planetary albedo.

And just how much energy does that 1.176 change cause in forcing?

If we assume 70% (1 - 0.3) absorption of the suns average 324 W/m^2, then 226.8 W/m^2 is heating the earth system. If we reduce that to 68.824%, then we have 222.99 W/m^2, or an increase of 3.81 W/m^2.

Albedo changes make a huge change is energy entering the earth system. This is why clouds are more important than warmers and alarmists consider.

Ever notice how such inconvenient truths are denied a proper consideration, and often listed as "low level of understanding" rather than even attempting to understand?

AR5 WG1 8.6.2.2

BC contributions to snow darkening reduces snow cover, however the magnitude of the effect is very uncertain (see Sections 7.5.2.3 and 8.3.4.4). A model study calculated BC-albedo reduction to cause about 20% Arctic snow/ice cover reduction and 20% of Arctic warming over the previous century (Koch et al., 2011). However, reductions in Arctic soot during the past two decades (e.g., Hegg et al., 2009) have likely reversed that trend (e.g., Koch et al., 2011; Skeie et al., 2011b; Lee et al., 2013).​

LOL...

Studies indicated BC levels reducing then, but China has been increasing coal power usage even before then. As the polar cells and winds shift, the amount of BC laid down changes too. Long term averages is up.

So including the estimated contribution to ice loss, the total effect of anthropogenic soot might be in the order of 0.7W/m^2 CO2-equivalent.

<snip>

Yes, but also remember the soot just accumulates more and more on the ice as it sublimates. Even when covered over with new snow, he shortwave penetrates, reemitted as IR which then is effectively trapped as heat because IR only penetrates snow/ice/water a few microns. The soot doesn't disappear until the ice completely melts into the sea, then the process starts over.

Admittedly it's a very, very vague ballpark estimate, but 0.7W/m^2 is a significant contribution, for sure. Nevertheless, it's still only about one-fifth of the total observed warming, whereas the estimated contribution from CO2 alone is about 1.7W/m^2.

Rethink the albedo change I pointed out earlier.

Play with the numbers, but no matter what percentage you use, albedo changes make relatively huge changes in total heat entering the system.

Edit: It must be said that I do usually learn a few things trying to track down the information and do the maths relevant to your pet theories, so as usual thanks for that

You're welcome.

Now I ask you to consider the wide range of estimates out there, and that the average TSI changes among several studies are greater than this source.

The AR4 gave a range of 0.06 to 0.3 W/m^2 for the 1750 to 2005 timeframe. The SORCE link has this range changing only 0.0726 W/m^2 using the albedo of 30%. When you focus on an area in the IPCC material, look at the various studies in the mix. You will see that those in this profession, tend to use the studies, either low or high end of the many, that suits the AGW theory agenda.

I suggest that the true range of 1750 to 2005 is more like 0.2%. Applying the 0.2 / 0.0305 (2005 - 1750 levels), or multiplying by 6.56 gives us a 0.21% increase.

Now I used an 11 year average for these calculations instead of the 23 year:

0.5174% from 1712 to 2005, I include this one because of thermal inertia and equalization times.
0.2000% from 1750 to 2005
0.0078% from 1850 to 2011, funny how the alarmists like this range to deny the suns full impact...
0.3096% from 1900 to 1950
0.2139% from 1871 to 2002

 

[Mithrae]

And just how much energy does that 1.176 change cause in forcing?

If we assume 70% (1 - 0.3) absorption of the suns average 324 W/m^2, then 226.8 W/m^2 is heating the earth system. If we reduce that to 68.824%, then we have 222.99 W/m^2, or an increase of 3.81 W/m^2.

You're using the wrong figures, and doing the wrong calculations. Global average TOA insolation is 342W/m^2 on that TAR figure (324 is the GHG back radiation). The earth's total albedo reflects about 30% of that; on the TAR figure, 77W/m^2 from the atmosphere/clouds and 30W/m^2 from the surface - 107/342 is 31.3% albedo. The change in planetary albedo from ice loss is (by my very rough estimate) about 1.176% of that, not 1.176% of TOA insolation. 1.176% of 107W/m^2 is 1.26W/m^2.

And frankly, even that is a very generous estimate, because we're not talking about the equator here. For simplicity's sake I simply compared the reflectivity change over the area of lost sea ice (-0.6 albedo from ice to open sea, over c.3 million km^2 annual average ice loss between early 1980s and 2010s) with total planetary reflectivity (0.3 albedo over c.510 million km^2): But that direct comparison of surface area doesn't allow for the fact that polar regions receive less sunlight per square kilometer than the rest of the globe.

Albedo changes make a huge change is energy entering the earth system. This is why clouds are more important than warmers and alarmists consider.

Ever notice how such inconvenient truths are denied a proper consideration, and often listed as "low level of understanding" rather than even attempting to understand?



LOL...

Studies indicated BC levels reducing then, but China has been increasing coal power usage even before then. As the polar cells and winds shift, the amount of BC laid down changes too. Long term averages is up.

Yes, you're very good at mocking and denying the results of the studies :roll: China is considerably further south than Europe or Canada or Russia; even marginally more than the US. If there's no evidence that Chinese soot is reaching Arctic ice, then that's the reality you'll have to come to terms with. As Threegoofs noted, there seems to be more than a little hint of ideological bias behind your views here.

You're welcome.

Now I ask you to consider the wide range of estimates out there, and that the average TSI changes among several studies are greater than this source.

The AR4 gave a range of 0.06 to 0.3 W/m^2 for the 1750 to 2005 timeframe.

Yes, with a best estimate of 0.12 for solar forcing; which would mean a 0.48W/m^2 change in total irradiance. The SAR and TAR best estimates were both 0.3 forcing, or 1.2W/m^2 TSI. The LISIRD data (23-yr mean) suggests a TSI increase of 0.7W/m^2 over that period, somewhere between the two but closer to AR4.

I don't know whether those IPCC figures incorporate albedo or not, and I can't fathom how our information could have changed enough that AR5 managed to get a figure of 0.05W/m^2. But it seems that the LISIRD data falls towards the higher end of modern estimates.

Now, maybe it's wrong: I don't know how confidently historical TSI can be reconstructed, though direct observations of sunspot numbers were recorded over the period and at a glance the correlation seems to be fairly robust. Assuming there are other proxy methods to cross-check against, the reconstructions may be very reliable indeed for all I know.

But since the best estimates seem to suggest that the solar contribution has been in the order of 5-10% of the warming in the past 100-150 years - even including the follow-on greenhouse warming - they would have to be very wrong indeed for solar changes to account for more than a fifth of it.

Those SAR and TAR estimates are the highest I've seen, and even the extreme upper end of their uncertainty range (0.5W/m^2 direct forcing) would mean about 0.9W/m^2 total forcing since 1750 (greenhouse forcing is slightly less than TOA insolation). That would mean less than that over the period of the instrumental record, which would therefore be less than 20% of the observed warming. (About 3.8W/m^2, 1894-2002 23-yr mean using GISS data and blackbody maths with 0.95 emissivity.)

It may not be impossible, but it is quite difficult and unreasonable to suppose that the extreme upper end of the highest (and older) estimates are still too low :lol: While their contributions aren't insignificant, neither sun nor soot seem able to reach even half of the 1.7W/m^2 impact estimated of CO2: And that, as I originally highlighted, is a meagre 0.5% increase of the total greenhouse effect - not much to show for the well-documented 42% increase in the second biggest (c.20% of the total effect) greenhouse gas.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Part 1;

Wow, I made several mistakes, didn't I...

You're using the wrong figures, and doing the wrong calculations. Global average TOA insolation is 342W/m^2 on that TAR figure (324 is the GHG back radiation). The earth's total albedo reflects about 30% of that; on the TAR figure, 77W/m^2 from the atmosphere/clouds and 30W/m^2 from the surface - 107/342 is 31.3% albedo. The change in planetary albedo from ice loss is (by my very rough estimate) about 1.176% of that, not 1.176% of TOA insolation. 1.176% of 107W/m^2 is 1.26W/m^2.

Yes, I was going by memory and my dyslexia didn't help any.

I then turned around and was thinking in terms of the albedo in regards to changing cloud cover, drifting off from the ice.

And frankly, even that is a very generous estimate, because we're not talking about the equator here. For simplicity's sake I simply compared the reflectivity change over the area of lost sea ice (-0.6 albedo from ice to open sea, over c.3 million km^2 annual average ice loss between early 1980s and 2010s) with total planetary reflectivity (0.3 albedo over c.510 million km^2): But that direct comparison of surface area doesn't allow for the fact that polar regions receive less sunlight per square kilometer than the rest of the globe.

This albedo change will primarily affect the heat gained in the ocean. Also hard to estimate.

Yes, you're very good at mocking and denying the results of the studies :roll: China is considerably further south than Europe or Canada or Russia; even marginally more than the US. If there's no evidence that Chinese soot is reaching Arctic ice, then that's the reality you'll have to come to terms with. As Threegoofs noted, there seems to be more than a little hint of ideological bias behind your views here.

China is a huge country. Perhaps I should have specified the northern area.

Yes, with a best estimate of 0.12 for solar forcing; which would mean a 0.48W/m^2 change in total irradiance. The SAR and TAR best estimates were both 0.3 forcing, or 1.2W/m^2 TSI. The LISIRD data (23-yr mean) suggests a TSI increase of 0.7W/m^2 over that period, somewhere between the two but closer to AR4.

Well, actually a bit more because of albedo.

I don't know whether those IPCC figures incorporate albedo or not, and I can't fathom how our information could have changed enough that AR5 managed to get a figure of 0.05W/m^2. But it seems that the LISIRD data falls towards the higher end of modern estimates.

I have some ideas of what they did, but not with any certainty. I think since the AR4 assesses to 2005, and the AR5 assesses to 2011, that they took the annualized measurements for that year. Maybe an 11 year or other average. My excel I plugged those numbers into with the 11 year average gives from 1750 to 2005 a 0.0305% increase, but only a 0.0144% increase when taking it to 2011.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Part 2;

Now, maybe it's wrong: I don't know how confidently historical TSI can be reconstructed, though direct observations of sunspot numbers were recorded over the period and at a glance the correlation seems to be fairly robust. Assuming there are other proxy methods to cross-check against, the reconstructions may be very reliable indeed for all I know.

It cannot be reconstructed with sunspots. They don't always correlate. I haven't looked into it for a few years, but i believe the best proxy is Be10.

But since the best estimates seem to suggest that the solar contribution has been in the order of 5-10% of the warming in the past 100-150 years - even including the follow-on greenhouse warming - they would have to be very wrong indeed for solar changes to account for more than a fifth of it.

Well, even if the solar component is as small as they say, they do not account for its indirect forcing. Read the IPCC material and they specify "direct" forcing. Now to me, this is the IR component of the sun that the atmosphere and clouds absorb. Yes, I could be wrong, as this is an elusive area to find what they did. They are using downward IR when they speak of radiative forcing, so that is one reason I believe this. Evcen if they are including the changing absorption in the ocean, and land, they obviously are not including the increased IR that the ocean and land emit back up, to fuel the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect, by the numbers they use, are almost 2 times the solar component hitting the surface. So, if this increases by (arbitrarily) 0.1 W/m^2, then the greenhouse effect was increased by almost 0.2 W/m^2. Lets not forget the latent heat and sensible heat ether. It all increases by approximately the same percentage of the solar change.

Those SAR and TAR estimates are the highest I've seen, and even the extreme upper end of their uncertainty range (0.5W/m^2 direct forcing) would mean about 0.9W/m^2 total forcing since 1750 (greenhouse forcing is slightly less than TOA insolation). That would mean less than that over the period of the instrumental record, which would therefore be less than 20% of the observed warming. (About 3.8W/m^2, 1894-2002 23-yr mean using GISS data and blackbody maths with 0.95 emissivity.)

We should also not forget that, at least I firmly believe, that the majority increased water vapor is solar change feedback rather than CO2. Afterall, it penetrates the water deeper and warms more than just the surface. With the high emmisivity of water, and microns penetration of the IR from CO2, then the spectra from CO2 may as well be half reflecting off.

It may not be impossible, but it is quite difficult and unreasonable to suppose that the extreme upper end of the highest (and older) estimates are still too low :lol: While their contributions aren't insignificant, neither sun nor soot seem able to reach even half of the 1.7W/m^2 impact estimated of CO2: And that, as I originally highlighted, is a meagre 0.5% increase of the total greenhouse effect - not much to show for the well-documented 42% increase in the second biggest (c.20% of the total effect) greenhouse gas.

Well, I go back to not seeing any recent studies stating it's that high, that have recalculated the effects in a well mixed atmosphere. Any study you find refers to previous works that use correlation of temperature and CO2, decades ago, before we realized the sun has changed as much as it has.

You saw that recent study that puts CO2 at approximately... I think it was 0.43 degrees of sensitivity, right?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Just to drag it back on topic;

Have I missed Blaxshep's explaination of the detail of his conversion?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Any study you find refers to previous works that use correlation of temperature and CO2, decades ago, before we realized the sun has changed as much as it has.

and....


Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

 

[blaxshep]

Just to drag it back on topic;

Have I missed Blaxshep's explaination of the detail of his conversion?

You probably did, my conversion was accomplished by an analysis of the Permian extinction event where volcanic activity liberated large quantities of CO2 that resulted in catastrophic climate change. Parallels were presented to me in the amount of CO2 being produced by the burning of fossil fuels in roughly equivalent amounts. The argument has already been presented that these are two entirely different circumstances none the less I find the parallels to be enough evidence that the theory of climate change is credible enough to merit its being taken seriously. There is of course the question of whether or not CO2 alone was the driving force of climate change during the Permian extinction but given results we would be negligent if we didn't at least accept the history.

I brief look at what I am referring to can be found here:
Great Dying 252 million years ago coincided with CO2 build-up | Earth | EarthSky

While it is hardly a smoking gun I find the parallels evidence enough to push me over the 50/50 division line if for no other reason than that reversal of this change may only be possible if action is taken sooner rather than later. I have accepted the evidence but not the solutions the alarmists present. A carbon tax will not solve the problem. it will in fact only compound global issues by factoring in economic upheaval and an even greater economic disparity designed to instill a global Nanny State.

 

[Mithrae]

Well, even if the solar component is as small as they say, they do not account for its indirect forcing.

Presumably because that would be considered a feedback, not forcing. The mere fact that it's not detailed in the chapters on forcing doesn't mean it's been overlooked. And more to the point, we have looked at it, and using the various reasonable estimates of TSI change it still doesn't bring solar influence up to one-fifth of observed warming even by the wildest stretch of the imagination.

You saw that recent study that puts CO2 at approximately... I think it was 0.43 degrees of sensitivity, right?

Oh yes... by an individual stepping outside his own field, in a pay-to-publish 'journal' started in 2013 from a residential street address :lamo

You hang your hopes on garbage like that, you deserve nothing but mockery. Of course, I had already posted some direct criticisms of my own before anyone (Verax, it might have been) pointed the above out:

From a quick glance over, three main concerns spring to mind:
A > The author appears to be mistakenly conflating equilibrium climate sensitivity with transient climate response
"For the actual assessment of one of the most fundamental quantities in climate sciences, the equilibrium climate sensitivity, representing the temperature increase at doubled CO2 concentration" (Cf. Figure 14)

B > The author's calculations of the effects of CO2 and CH4 are heavily influenced by the overlap in absorption bands with H2O, yet it's not clear that his two-layer (surface and atmosphere) model has correctly accounted for stratospheric CO2 and CH4 (where H2O is scarce)
"The power PE emitted by the surface, is absorbed over wider spectral regions by water vapour, CO2 and CH4 within the lower troposphere, and an additional fraction of 1.5 % by O3 in the stratosphere." (Cf. Figure 5 & Table 3)

C > He appears to have inexplicably decided that evaporation is a loss of heat (cooling/negative feedback) in both the surface and air sensitivities, and not considered precipitation as a gain in heat for either
"Similar to convection also evaporation of water and sublimation of ice contribute to cooling of the surface. Since an increasing Earth temperature further forces these processes, they also result in a negative feedback, which we call evaporation feedback." (Cf. Table 7)

D > Considering upwards convection as a negative feedback for both surface and air sensitivities, with no balance from downward convection, seems similarly dubious. (Table 7)


If C and D alone were removed, it would bring Dr. Harde's 'sensitivity' estimate up to something more like 1.36 degrees, and this should be compared to the IPCC's transient climate response (range 1-2.5 degrees) rather than equilibrium sensitivity.

However if these concerns are valid, some of them (particularly C) are blindingly obvious errors and pretty much rule the fellow out as reliable in any sense of the word.

 

[Mithrae]

Well, I go back to not seeing any recent studies stating it's that high, that have recalculated the effects in a well mixed atmosphere. Any study you find refers to previous works that use correlation of temperature and CO2, decades ago, before we realized the sun has changed as much as it has.

Well I can't really speak for what you have seen, but I'm very dubious of that: Everything I've looked at on the subject has considered a well-mixed atmosphere and the overlap of absorption spectra with water vapour and clouds. Calculations of the total greenhouse effect depend on satellite-constrained assessments of top of atmosphere short- and long-wave fluxes (Kiehl and Trenberth 1997), and comparison of actual observations with a hypothetical blackbody earth with no greenhouse effect or atmospheric SW absorption (Schmidt et al 2010). Historical changes in insolation are irrelevant to that, since it's a calculation of the total greenhouse effect now, using observations from now - and these have been done, as you've alluded and as we can see, over a period of decades.

The AR5 calculation of CO2 forcing is referenced to Myhre et al 1998, which triangulates in on its well-mixed GHG forcing values by comparison of three modelling approaches. Compared to many others, their results are in fact somewhat conservative: 0.2-0.3W/m^2 less for total WMGHG forcing than Hansen et al 1997 and the previous IPCC assessment, and for CO2 specifically 15% lower than the previous IPCC value. More recently, using yet another approach, Schmidt et al 2010 reached values for CO2 forcing around 10% larger than that:

Additionally, we also note that our adjusted radiative forcing for a doubling of CO2 is 4.1 W/m2, roughly 10% larger than the canonical estimate of 3.7 ± 0.4 W/m2 [IPCC, 2001; Myhre et al., 1998]. This might then lead to an ∼10% overestimate of its role (i.e., a percent or two in Table 1).​

Whether the current IPCC/Myhre1998 value is correct, or the Schmidt2010/older IPCC values are closer to the mark ultimately doesn't make a huge amount of difference to our amateur discussions: Maybe the CO2 forcing to date has actually been 1.87W/m^2 instead of the IPCC's 1.7?

The facts still remain that
> You would find it difficult if not impossible to show that the full impacts of either sun or soot can reach even half of the best estimates for CO2 impact (or one-fifth of total warming), and

> Since CO2 is responsible for >15% of the total greenhouse effect, and has increased by 42%, a resulting ~1% increase in the greenhouse effect* is extremely plausible on the face of it; in fact we'd have a harder time explaining to newcomers why the effect is so small (less than one-sixth what we'd expect from linear calculations)

(* I said 0.5% earlier, but the greenhouse effect is only ~155W/m^2, not the full 324W/m^2 of back radiation from the atmosphere which I'd earlier hastily assumed.)

You're a smart guy, but it seems that pretty much all you're hedging your 'scepticism' with here is the possibility - an unsubstantiated hope - that the various estimates of changes in TSI (including your own) are wrong; not just by a little, but by three or four hundred percent!

Whatever faint reservations and hopes to the contrary you might have, surely the time has come to acknowledge that the general IPCC picture is, at the very least, the most reasonable view we've got here.

You could prove the title of the thread wrong :lol:

 

[Lord of Planar]

OK...

Did you trace those sensitivity studies the paper referred to, or not?

 

[Tim the plumber]

You probably did, my conversion was accomplished by an analysis of the Permian extinction event where volcanic activity liberated large quantities of CO2 that resulted in catastrophic climate change. Parallels were presented to me in the amount of CO2 being produced by the burning of fossil fuels in roughly equivalent amounts. The argument has already been presented that these are two entirely different circumstances none the less I find the parallels to be enough evidence that the theory of climate change is credible enough to merit its being taken seriously. There is of course the question of whether or not CO2 alone was the driving force of climate change during the Permian extinction but given results we would be negligent if we didn't at least accept the history.

I brief look at what I am referring to can be found here:
Great Dying 252 million years ago coincided with CO2 build-up | Earth | EarthSky

While it is hardly a smoking gun I find the parallels evidence enough to push me over the 50/50 division line if for no other reason than that reversal of this change may only be possible if action is taken sooner rather than later. I have accepted the evidence but not the solutions the alarmists present. A carbon tax will not solve the problem. it will in fact only compound global issues by factoring in economic upheaval and an even greater economic disparity designed to instill a global Nanny State.

The group also analyzed carbon-isotope data from rocks in southern China and found that within the same period, the oceans and atmosphere experienced a large influx of carbon dioxide. Dan Rothman, who calculated the average rate at which carbon dioxide entered the oceans and atmosphere at the time, finding it to be somewhat less than today’s influx due to fossil fuel emissions, said the total amount of CO2 pumped into Earth’s atmosphere over this time period was so immense that it’s not immediately clear where it all came from. He said:

It’s just not easy to imagine. Even if you put all the world’s known coal deposits on top of a volcano, you still wouldn’t come close. So something unusual was going on.

Congratulations. You have managed to present something which has indeed got me thinking that it might all be decently solid stuff that we should be worried about.

I have to say that it's still something that seems to have taken 10,000 years and needed more carbon than all the coal deposits in the earth. So whilst it's the best argument from the alarmist side I don't see why we need to panic for a few decades. That we should do lots of research to find alternatives to fossil fuel is even more of a no brainer but we should not need to react until we have developed some sort of answer.

You also have to consider that whatever it was that released all that carbon released lots of other crap including heat energy it's self. But yes it does cause concern.

 

[longview]

I have to say that it's still something that seems to have taken 10,000 years and needed more carbon than all the coal deposits in the earth. So whilst it's the best argument from the alarmist side I don't see why we need to panic for a few decades. That we should do lots of research to find alternatives to fossil fuel is even more of a no brainer but we should not need to react until we have developed some sort of answer.

Good Morning Tim,
While I also do not think we need to be in a panic about the carbon emissions,
I do think we need to be researching what will replace Fossil fuels,
as they get more difficult and expensive to extract.
Ground transport has real alternatives already, but farming, air, and marine transport will likely
require some form of portable high density energy storage for a long time.
I favor man made hydrocarbon fuels as a first logical step, but we need to keep researching
the alternatives.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Good Morning Tim,
While I also do not think we need to be in a panic about the carbon emissions,
I do think we need to be researching what will replace Fossil fuels,
as they get more difficult and expensive to extract.
Ground transport has real alternatives already, but farming, air, and marine transport will likely
require some form of portable high density energy storage for a long time.
I favor man made hydrocarbon fuels as a first logical step, but we need to keep researching
the alternatives.

Absolutely, if the green lobby was saying that they wanted more research into such things, having a billion pound prize for a solar panel which produced electric cheaper than coal, so that in 50 years we were sorted then I would be all for it. But they just want to use it all to bring about a revolution and get the power for them selves.

 

[Mithrae]

But they just want to use it all to bring about a revolution and get the power for them selves.

Whilst, at the same time, doing it all to transfer money to poor countries.

And also, intending to slash global population and force everyone (or just poor countries) back to the stone ages.

Plus it's all about money for big business and funding for those evil scientists.

It's amazing how many contradictory motivations you guys manage to pick up when you let your telepathic powers run free. I don't think I've seen the reptilian alien overlords angle yet, but it can only be a matter of time :lamo

 

[Misterveritis]

Foolishly buying assumptions.

Glad to hear it. Not many people are willing to admit they were wrong, most won't even question themselves, so kudos to you!I wouldn't get my hopes up of changing any minds here though f I were you. The climate change deniers go far beyond simple denial here.

He did not admit he was wrong before. He admitted that he bought the assumptions of someone who sells assumptions. He was right before. He is wrong to doubt himself.It just might be the sun.