• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

AGW nonsense Vs common sense.

jmotivator said:
You can't deduce complex interactions with basic physics.
Click to expand...

But you can reject a complex interaction based on a lack of understanding basic physics.
 
MrT said:
But you can reject a complex interaction based on a lack of understanding basic physics.
Click to expand...

Nope, sorry, you can't reverse that and still have it make sense. Plus, nobody here is trying to reject AGW using basic physics, the skeptics argument is based on the complexity of the climate system, not the simplistic CO2 driven models of the true believers.
 
jmotivator said:
You can't deduce complex interactions with basic physics.
Click to expand...

No, but simple interactions you can. CO2 is transparent to visible light, where the Sun predominantly radiates, and is opaque in infrared, where the Earth radiates. It's a greenhouse gas. More CO2 makes the surface warmer. Simple physics, supported by clear data.
 
longview said:
The portion of the warming we know from basic physics (If you use the IPCC's numbers for CO2 direct response),
is 1.73*ln(400/280)=.617C.
Any attribute beyond that is not physics, but speculation based on a hypothesized amplified feedback.
Click to expand...

As the posted graph shows, feedback is measured, and found to be strongly positivie. It's not hypothetical at all.

Don't believe it? Then please explain why the slope of the graph is around +4, if there is no feedback. Because it's quite clear from the graphed data that climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 must be ln(2) times the slope, or .6915 × 3.8952 = 2.7° per CO2 doubling.
 
MrT said:
I am perfectly capable of forming my own opinion. I understand the basic physics in play and I understand and have analyzed the various arguments for and against this topic. With that said, I also fully recognize that I am not an expert in this complex field and I will thus be well served by actually listening to those who are experts in the field. And more specifically, I will choose to listen to the opinion of multiple experts, as opposed to just one or two.

Do you trust the medical advice of your doctor when it comes to treating cancer - particularly when that advice is supported by the overwhelming research into the field? Or do you just "form your own opinion?"
Click to expand...

If the physics is so basic why can you not deal with it? Or was the line "basic physics" just a put down to those who can actually understand it?

Given your ability with physics what would you expect the thermal expansion of the ocean to be from a 1 Zeta joul of energy going into the world's oceans over 1 year? Please feel free to make any reasonable assumptions and be very basic, high school style with the answer. I don't even need you to do the actual sum but simply illustrate that you are able to understand how to do it. This will tell if you actually know any physics or are without a clue as a lot of alarmists are.
 
Poor Debater said:
As the posted graph shows, feedback is measured, and found to be strongly positivie. It's not hypothetical at all.

Don't believe it? Then please explain why the slope of the graph is around +4, if there is no feedback. Because it's quite clear from the graphed data that climate sensitivity to doubled CO2 must be ln(2) times the slope, or .6915 × 3.8952 = 2.7° per CO2 doubling.
Click to expand...

We do not know all of the variables in our climate system.
Showing CO2 is the lone variable, is likely not reflective of reality.
We know that since 1880 the TSI has increases by .87 Wm-2.
 
Tim the plumber said:
If the physics is so basic why can you not deal with it? Or was the line "basic physics" just a put down to those who can actually understand it?

Given your ability with physics what would you expect the thermal expansion of the ocean to be from a 1 Zeta joul of energy going into the world's oceans over 1 year? Please feel free to make any reasonable assumptions and be very basic, high school style with the answer. I don't even need you to do the actual sum but simply illustrate that you are able to understand how to do it. This will tell if you actually know any physics or are without a clue as a lot of alarmists are.
Click to expand...

Yea...no thanks. I don't consider that type of question to fall under "basic physics." But if you would like to educate me on how much thermal expansion you should expect to see from 1 zettajoule's worth of energy over the course of one year, feel free. I am genuinely curious to hear from someone who can actually understand it.
 
Poor Debater said:
No, but simple interactions you can. CO2 is transparent to visible light, where the Sun predominantly radiates, and is opaque in infrared, where the Earth radiates. It's a greenhouse gas. More CO2 makes the surface warmer. Simple physics, supported by clear data.
Click to expand...

Again, no, you are assuming that simple lab data applies in a complex climatic system. It doesn't.

Let's say you have a 150 lb man with normal body temperature and a 150 lb corpse warmed to normal body temperature. You place the feet of both into ice baths. Which is colder after 10 minutes? Simple physics that deals with base heat transfers of materials would say they would have the same temperature because the heat transfer rate is the same. The problem is that the chemistry of the living human is far more complex than that of the corpse, and will be warmer than the corpse due to chemical processes in the living human not present in the corpse.

In the same way you can't take a simple measure of heat retention of CO2 from a lab and apply it directly to the complex atmosphere because the behavior of the various elements of the atmosphere and climate are more dynamic than the lab.

In fact, the whole underpinning of the CAGW scare mongering is that CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT behave like CO2 in the lab, and that the net forcing caused by CO2 is greater than what could be attributable just to the CO2 alone (doubling in the lab leads to 1.3C or there abouts, the IPCC claims the doubling would lead to between 2.0-4.0C).

Ironically, if CO2 behaved in the atmosphere the way it does in the lab then the projection of future warming would be closer to the skeptics prediction than to the doomsayers. Lord Monkton, for example, calculates that the doubling would be closer to 1.6C, still higher than lab, but low enough to not be catastrophic. Moreover, accepting the complexity of the Earth's environment the skeptic would argue that CO2 contributes X amount of temperature above the natural climate variability, so saying that CO2 will increase in the future, to a skeptic, is not a claim that it will be warmer in the future than it is today... only that it will be warmer in the future than it otherwise would have been in the future.

For this reason Skeptics see no reason for immediate and catastrophic action to the world economy because any CO2 warming in the future can not be considered bad or good. If the next LIA is 1.6C warmer than it should have been then that is a GOOD thing.
 
Last edited:
longview said:
We do not know all of the variables in our climate system.
Click to expand...

We've got the big ones nailed, and that's more than adequate for policy decisions.

longview said:
Showing CO2 is the lone variable, is likely not reflective of reality.
Click to expand...

So now you're complaining that I need more modeling for you to believe it? Riiiiight.

longview said:
We know that since 1880 the TSI has increases by .87 Wm-2.
Click to expand...

That's not even close to being true.

22661872525_83a29a600e_o.png


And don't forget that these data are TOA, not surface. To convert to climatologically significant forcing, you need to multiply by .7 (albedo) and then by .25 (sphericity).
 
Poor Debater said:
We've got the big ones nailed, and that's more than adequate for policy decisions.



So now you're complaining that I need more modeling for you to believe it? Riiiiight.



That's not even close to being true.


And don't forget that these data are TOA, not surface. To convert to climatologically significant forcing, you need to multiply by .7 (albedo) and then by .25 (sphericity).
Click to expand...
TSI 1880 1360.42 Wm-2
TSI 2013 1361.29 Wm-2
Delta .87 Wm-2.
LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance
 
MrT said:
Yea...no thanks. I don't consider that type of question to fall under "basic physics." But if you would like to educate me on how much thermal expansion you should expect to see from 1 zettajoule's worth of energy over the course of one year, feel free. I am genuinely curious to hear from someone who can actually understand it.
Click to expand...

OK;

1 Zeta Joule will give about 1/100th of a degree rise over 700m of water. SI units.

Using the number from;

http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/data1.html

And I will be assuming nice tropical water at 20c. Colder water is a lot less erm.. has a lower number, expands less with the same change in temperature.

0.207 x 10 ^ -3 per K That's the amount you multiply the length of the water column by per degree increasse.

K is Kelvin and a degree K is the same size as a degree c but zero K is -273 degree c, absolute zero.

700m x 0.207 x 10 ^ -3 x 1/100 = 1.5 mm

Or nothing at all. Depending if you think you can possibly measure the level of the sea to the mm.

I could not find the number for sea water, and expect that there will be no significant difference but then I don't actuall consider 150mm all that significant in terms of sea level.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Debater is correct in that it is actually 0.87 x 0.25 x 0.7.

Thing is, the oceans respond more than just the basis radiative calculations. the warmers refuse to acknowledge real science.
Click to expand...
I know, the TOA number looses a lot on the way down, Sandia labs has a good white paper on it.
http://www.sandia.gov/~jytsao/Solar FAQs.pdf
Hence,the time-and-space-averaged solar flux striking the outer atmosphere of the earth is
(1.37 kW/m2) / 4 = 342.5 W/m2. In addition, en route to the earth’s surface, about 30% of
this flux is scattered,and about 19% is absorbed, by the atmosphere and clouds
(Wallace 1977, pp. 320-321). Hence,the average flux striking the earth’s surface is
342.5 W/m2 · (1-0.49) = 174.7 W/m2.
Click to expand...
They are putting the number at about 12% reaches the surface, but changing the input
changes the amount to work with. CO2 in theory can only react with photos that are present.
 
longview said:
They are putting the number at about 12% reaches the surface, but changing the input
changes the amount to work with. CO2 in theory can only react with photos that are present.
Click to expand...
Yes.

But the there are very important variables. First, the IR bands of the solar radiance hardly change a all. The blue to UV spectra change the most. The spectra that affect the ocean is more fully absorbed, and changes greater.

Then there is also the fact that forcing caused by greenhouse gasses and clouds increases and decreases with TSI, since they are a feedback to the earths heat initiated by solar radiation.
 
jmotivator said:
Again, no, you are assuming that simple lab data applies in a complex climatic system. It doesn't.
Click to expand...
No, you're assuming it doesn't, on the basis of zero evidence.

jmotivator said:
In the same way you can't take a simple measure of heat retention of CO2 from a lab and apply it directly to the complex atmosphere because the behavior of the various elements of the atmosphere and climate are more dynamic than the lab. In fact, the whole underpinning of the CAGW scare mongering is that CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT behave like CO2 in the lab, and that the net forcing caused by CO2 is greater than what could be attributable just to the CO2 alone (doubling in the lab leads to 1.3C or there abouts, the IPCC claims the doubling would lead to between 2.0-4.0C).
Click to expand...

Nope, you're confusing forcing with sensitivity. The forcing of CO2 is well known, and like all forcing it's measured in Watts per square meter, and can be determined from quantum mechanics or laboratory measurement. The sensitivity of the climate is how much temperature changes for a given amount of forcing regardless of the type of forcing. These days, sensitivity is conventionally measured in degrees C of change per 3.8 W/m² of forcing, because that's how much forcing a doubling of CO2 will cause. Sensitivity is a lot fuzzier and an ongoing area of research. But 1 W/m² of CO2 forcing will cause just as much warming as 1 W/m² of solar forcing, or any other kind of forcing, regardless of what sensitivity turns out to be.

Because forcing is easy to determine, we know that humans are responsible for essentially all the global warming since the mid 20th century. (Actually more than 100%, since solar forcing has been declining since then and would have cooled the planet in the absence of human activity). And CO2 is by far the largest source of manmade forcing.

Sensitivity cannot be measured in the lab, and the 1.3°C figure you cite is derived from theory (i.e., from models). However, sensitivity can be measured in the real world, and the graph I posted is one way to do that: to find sensitivity to doubled CO2 from the graph, take the slope of the regression line and multiply by ln(2): 3.8954 × .69315 = 2.7°C per doubling.

jmotivator said:
Ironically, if CO2 behaved in the atmosphere the way it does in the lab
Click to expand...
It does!

jmotivator said:
then the projection of future warming would be closer to the skeptics prediction than to the doomsayers. Lord Monkton, for example, calculates that the doubling would be closer to 1.6C, still higher than lab, but low enough to not be catastrophic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't often stoop to ad-hom arguments, but I'll make an exception in this case. Lord Monckton is a buffon and a charlatan who thinks he's cured AIDS. He's frequently been caught red-handed citing sources that don't actually say what he claims they say, and when confronted on such dishonest tactics, he threatens to sue for libel. So far, scads of threats and zero lawsuits. The man is flat-out dishonest.

If you want to have credibility with me, you need to cite peer-reviewed science.

jmotivator said:
Moreover, accepting the complexity of the Earth's environment the skeptic would argue that CO2 contributes X amount of temperature above the natural climate variability, so saying that CO2 will increase in the future, to a skeptic, is not a claim that it will be warmer in the future than it is today... only that it will be warmer in the future than it otherwise would have been in the future.
Click to expand...

That would only be true if natural variability accounted for substantially more climate change than CO2 does. But the data shows that we passed that point decades ago. In fact, if you look at the posted graph, it's quite clear that after accounting for CO2, the remaining natural annual variability is about ±0.2°C, while we're currently about 1°C above pre-industrial temps.

jmotivator said:
For this reason Skeptics see no reason for immediate and catastrophic action to the world economy because any CO2 warming in the future can not be considered bad or good. If the next LIA is 1.6C warmer than it should have been then that is a GOOD thing.
Click to expand...

And what makes you think that global warming is going to magically stop at 1.6°C?
 
Poor Debater said:
No, you're assuming it doesn't, on the basis of zero evidence.
Click to expand...

THe failure of the models derived from the primacy of CO2 in Earth climate is all the evidence I need as a skeptic. The CAGW people are the ones that need to prove something.

Nope, you're confusing forcing with sensitivity. The forcing of CO2 is well known, and like all forcing it's measured in Watts per square meter, and can be determined from quantum mechanics or laboratory measurement. The sensitivity of the climate is how much temperature changes for a given amount of forcing regardless of the type of forcing. These days, sensitivity is conventionally measured in degrees C of change per 3.8 W/m² of forcing, because that's how much forcing a doubling of CO2 will cause. Sensitivity is a lot fuzzier and an ongoing area of research. But 1 W/m² of CO2 forcing will cause just as much warming as 1 W/m² of solar forcing, or any other kind of forcing, regardless of what sensitivity turns out to be.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I used "net forcing" rather than sensitivity. But sensitivity if the derived fudge factor used in models that applies greater effective green house effect to CO2 that is observable in the lab. It is indeed "a lot fuzzier" than forcing, but unfortunately it is the entire foundation of CAGW.

The fact that from model to model the "sensitivity" is different tells you all you need to know.

Because forcing is easy to determine, we know that humans are responsible for essentially all the global warming since the mid 20th century. (Actually more than 100%, since solar forcing has been declining since then and would have cooled the planet in the absence of human activity). And CO2 is by far the largest source of manmade forcing.
Click to expand...

No, you have now posited the idea that climate is driven by only TWO factors (the sun and CO2). Even the simplest of CO2 models doesn't make that argument. The idea that everything not attributable to solar variation is therefor CO2 is just plain ignorant.

Sensitivity cannot be measured in the lab, and the 1.3°C figure you cite is derived from theory (i.e., from models). However, sensitivity can be measured in the real world, and the graph I posted is one way to do that: to find sensitivity to doubled CO2 from the graph, take the slope of the regression line and multiply by ln(2): 3.8954 × .69315 = 2.7°C per doubling.
Click to expand...

Again, since sensitivity can not be measured "in the lab" and is not an agreed on value it is not very valuable to science or policy making.


It does!
Click to expand...

Not according to CAGW theory. That is what "sensitivity" is supposed to represent.


Yeah, I don't often stoop to ad-hom arguments, but I'll make an exception in this case...
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know that you were taking a break to assert a logical fallacy. I almost read it! *shew*


If you want to have credibility with me, you need to cite peer-reviewed science.
Click to expand...

Sure.

That would only be true if natural variability accounted for substantially more climate change than CO2 does. But the data shows that we passed that point decades ago. In fact, if you look at the posted graph, it's quite clear that after accounting for CO2, the remaining natural annual variability is about ±0.2°C, while we're currently about 1°C above pre-industrial temps.
Click to expand...

But the LIA ended a just before the industrial revolution, so is your argument that we should still be in the grips of the LIA? If so then HOORAY for AGW!

And what makes you think that global warming is going to magically stop at 1.6°C?
Click to expand...

I'm not actually making an argument for either direction in climate in the future. I can say that based on the characteristics of CO2 as a GHG it will have an increasing weaker impact on climate regardless of what we do. CO2 GHG response is logarithmic and if the first double results in 1.6°C then we will need to ad 400% the amount of CO2 that we have added since the beginning of the Industrial revolution to achieve the the next 1.6°C.
 
jmotivator said:
THe failure of the models derived from the primacy of CO2 in Earth climate is all the evidence I need as a skeptic. The CAGW people are the ones that need to prove something.
Click to expand...

You've been misinformed. Climate models have been remarkably accurate. See my post #16 on this thread.

jmotivator said:
Sorry, I used "net forcing" rather than sensitivity. But sensitivity if the derived fudge factor used in models that applies greater effective green house effect to CO2 that is observable in the lab.
Click to expand...

You've been misinformed again. In modern climate models, sensitivity is an output from the model, not an input. No fudge factors. Further, many climate models these days are open source, so you don't have to take my word for it.

jmotivator said:
It is indeed "a lot fuzzier" than forcing, but unfortunately it is the entire foundation of CAGW.
Click to expand...

But fortunately it can be measured empirically, and those measurements fall right in line with the IPCC's likely range. Further, you have not shown in any way that those measurements are wrong.

jmotivator said:
The fact that from model to model the "sensitivity" is different tells you all you need to know.
Click to expand...
And the fact that those models that replicate current climate best have the highest sensitivity should tell you that what we need to know is potentially catastrophic.

jmotivator said:
No, you have now posited the idea that climate is driven by only TWO factors (the sun and CO2). Even the simplest of CO2 models doesn't make that argument. The idea that everything not attributable to solar variation is therefor CO2 is just plain ignorant.
Click to expand...
So when I said CO2 is "by far the largest", how did that come to be translated as "the one and only" in your mind?

jmotivator said:
Again, since sensitivity can not be measured "in the lab" and is not an agreed on value it is not very valuable to science or policy making.
Click to expand...
Because it can be measured empirically. And has been. As the graph shows, and as you have not refuted.

jmotivator said:
Not according to CAGW theory. That is what "sensitivity" is supposed to represent.
Click to expand...

Having claimed that you didn't really confuse forcing with sensitivity, you now proceed to once again confuse forcing with sensitivity. Nice. Please cite one paper, by anyone, which states that CO2 should behave differently in the atmosphere than in laboratory measurements.

jmotivator said:
Sure.
Click to expand...

This is your idea of peer-review? Scientific Online is a pay-to-publish paper mill. They'll put up anything anyone pays them to. Seems likely to me that Herr Harde failed peer-review, so he paid to have it published anyway.

jmotivator said:
But the LIA ended a just before the industrial revolution, so is your argument that we should still be in the grips of the LIA? If so then HOORAY for AGW!
Click to expand...

So now you agree that your prior point about GW not being less than natural variation was, in fact, wrong? Looks like we're making progress, an inch at a time.

jmotivator said:
I'm not actually making an argument for either direction in climate in the future. I can say that based on the characteristics of CO2 as a GHG it will have an increasing weaker impact on climate regardless of what we do. CO2 GHG response is logarithmic and if the first double results in 1.6°C then we will need to ad 400% the amount of CO2 that we have added since the beginning of the Industrial revolution to achieve the the next 1.6°C.
Click to expand...

Which is why the graph I posted used ln(CO2) on the horizontal axis. You remember -- the graph that shows empirical sensitivity at 2.7°C? The graph you haven't refuted?
 
Poor Debater said:
Actually, climate models have a 30+ year record of being right. Here's what Exxon's climate model was predicting in 1982:

21043550483_4ff38c9f02_o.jpg


And here's what actually happened:

21664515715_30b2ac46b4_o.jpg


Bullseye.
Click to expand...

"Bullseye"? You are being lied to. The global temperature anomaly has been about 0.5C since 1960, the graph that you have presented stretched that 0.5 to 1.0 in order to get the line to run up the middle of the projection.

At least try to check the work of the data you present, this took me all of 10 seconds to debunk.


The total change in TSI (that's Total Solar Irradiance) between the Maunder Minimum and the Grand Maximum of 1958 was 1.26 W/m² after smoothing; but that's a TOA (Top Of Atmosphere) number, which is a climatological 0.22 W/m² of climate forcing. The change in CO2 forcing between 1750 and today is 1.9 W/m², more than eight times greater.
Click to expand...

Except that nobody is arguing that the solar radiation is all that is involved in solar variance as a driver of climate. It is no secret that solar variance and global climate are highly correlated throughout history, those who accept this aren't trying to argue the sience is settled like the CAGW side is. They simply accept that thereis a correlation and have set out to find out why solar variance appears to have a greater effect on climate than the base forcing would suggest. You know, real science.
 
jmotivator said:
"Bullseye"? You are being lied to. The global temperature anomaly has been about 0.5C since 1960, the graph that you have presented stretched that 0.5 to 1.0 in order to get the line to run up the middle of the projection.

At least try to check the work of the data you present, this took me all of 10 seconds to debunk.




Except that nobody is arguing that the solar radiation is all that is involved in solar variance as a driver of climate. It is no secret that solar variance and global climate are highly correlated throughout history, those who accept this aren't trying to argue the sience is settled like the CAGW side is. They simply accept that thereis a correlation and have set out to find out why solar variance appears to have a greater effect on climate than the base forcing would suggest. You know, real science.
Click to expand...

What I always find is that when you employees want something the graph they show is remarkably like the one above.
 
jmotivator said:
"Bullseye"? You are being lied to. The global temperature anomaly has been about 0.5C since 1960, the graph that you have presented stretched that 0.5 to 1.0 in order to get the line to run up the middle of the projection.

At least try to check the work of the data you present, this took me all of 10 seconds to debunk.




Except that nobody is arguing that the solar radiation is all that is involved in solar variance as a driver of climate. It is no secret that solar variance and global climate are highly correlated throughout history, those who accept this aren't trying to argue the sience is settled like the CAGW side is. They simply accept that thereis a correlation and have set out to find out why solar variance appears to have a greater effect on climate than the base forcing would suggest. You know, real science.
Click to expand...

We have all been well briefed or negligent of the suspected effects of industrial and agricultural gases on the climate for as long as I can remember. The early predictions were very basic and without much credibility. They were informed guesses and the results were often way off mark, which reduced the little credibility the demands were based on. The measures taken in many countries fed the suspicion that they had government income more in mind than any reduction of the output of climate gases, shunning the economic instruments that would have really reduce it and done so efficiently.

It was also clear that an immediate switch to alternative energy production would have been crazy expensive for people living today. This is still the case and it has not been communicated to the public, what the price will be.

So don't expect the road ahead to be easy, even though the cost of alternatives has come down. Deception is not a smart way to go, when the vested interests against you are as they are here against the climate gang.
 
Poor Debater said:
Nope, you're confusing forcing with sensitivity. The forcing of CO2 is well known, and like all forcing it's measured in Watts per square meter, and can be determined from quantum mechanics or laboratory measurement. The sensitivity of the climate is how much temperature changes for a given amount of forcing regardless of the type of forcing. These days, sensitivity is conventionally measured in degrees C of change per 3.8 W/m² of forcing, because that's how much forcing a doubling of CO2 will cause. Sensitivity is a lot fuzzier and an ongoing area of research. But 1 W/m² of CO2 forcing will cause just as much warming as 1 W/m² of solar forcing, or any other kind of forcing, regardless of what sensitivity turns out to be.
Click to expand...

Nope. Sorry.

The forcing is the amount of energy change due to CO2 or whatever. OK so far.

The temperature change is sort of directly related to that. The idea that the oceans are absorbing more energy now thanthey did 15 years ago despite no change in temeprature is silly.

The sensitivity of x temperature change due to a doubling of CO2 should be the same as the sensitivity of x watts per square meter due to a doubling of CO2.
 
jmotivator said:
"Bullseye"? You are being lied to. The global temperature anomaly has been about 0.5C since 1960, the graph that you have presented stretched that 0.5 to 1.0 in order to get the line to run up the middle of the projection.
Click to expand...

NASA GISS temperature 1960: -0.03°
NASA GISS temperature 2014: +.74°
Change since 1960: +.77°

So yeah, it's still a bullseye.
At least try to check the data you present, this took me all of 10 seconds to debunk.

jmotivator said:
Except that nobody is arguing that the solar radiation is all that is involved in solar variance as a driver of climate. It is no secret that solar variance and global climate are highly correlated throughout history, those who accept this aren't trying to argue the sience is settled like the CAGW side is. They simply accept that thereis a correlation and have set out to find out why solar variance appears to have a greater effect on climate than the base forcing would suggest. You know, real science.
Click to expand...


If you accept that solar forcing is a small fraction of the change in all forcing since 1900, then you have already accepted that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change since then. So we're done here.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Nope. Sorry.

The forcing is the amount of energy change due to CO2 or whatever. OK so far.

The temperature change is sort of directly related to that. The idea that the oceans are absorbing more energy now thanthey did 15 years ago despite no change in temeprature is silly.
Click to expand...

Once again, the data shows that you're wrong.

heat_content2000m.png


Tim the plumber said:
The sensitivity of x temperature change due to a doubling of CO2 should be the same as the sensitivity of x watts per square meter due to a doubling of CO2.
Click to expand...

This doesn't even make sense. Forcing is x W/m², sensitivity is a temperature change.
 
Poor Debater said:
You've been misinformed. Climate models have been remarkably accurate. See my post #16 on this thread.
Click to expand...

No, they haven't. You have been bamboozeled by an unscientific curve fitting lie. See my previous response.

You've been misinformed again. In modern climate models, sensitivity is an output from the model, not an input. No fudge factors. Further, many climate models these days are open source, so you don't have to take my word for it.
Click to expand...

I didn't argue that. The sensitivity used in model projections is derived from form fitting the model to historical data. It is entirely a fudge factor.

But fortunately it can be measured empirically, and those measurements fall right in line with the IPCC's likely range. Further, you have not shown in any way that those measurements are wrong.
Click to expand...

No, by your own argument it can not be measure empirically. Empirically measured but "a lot more fuzzy"? Try to stick to a point for more than a post. You seem to be form fitting your arguments as much as your sources form fit their graphs! :lamo

And the fact that those models that replicate current climate best have the highest sensitivity should tell you that what we need to know is potentially catastrophic.
Click to expand...


The highest sensitivity models project warming occurring over the last 18 years when no statistically significant warming has been measured.

Also, are you sure you know what you are reading in your linked paper? I see no endorsement of high sensitivity or catastrophic claims in that paper. The paper does detail the limitations of the linear climate models that the AGW crowd has been preaching from for decades, though.


So when I said CO2 is "by far the largest", how did that come to be translated as "the one and only" in your mind?
Click to expand...

That is a strange statement when my statement was that you argued that climate is driven by two factors...

Because it can be measured empirically. And has been. As the graph shows, and as you have not refuted.
Click to expand...

No, it can't. Your own citation above says that it can't! A direct quote from YOUR article:

"Climate sensitivity is not a quantity that can be measured" :lamo

Having claimed that you didn't really confuse forcing with sensitivity, you now proceed to once again confuse forcing with sensitivity. Nice. Please cite one paper, by anyone, which states that CO2 should behave differently in the atmosphere than in laboratory measurements.
Click to expand...

Again, the sensitivity is not measure empirically.

The only good thing to come out of this post is you are at least as willing to lie to yourself as you are willing to lie to the rest of us.

That is what sensitivity is. Increasing CO2 to the atmosphere warms the atmosphere more than would be expected by lab results.


This is your idea of peer-review? Scientific Online is a pay-to-publish paper mill. They'll put up anything anyone pays them to. Seems likely to me that Herr Harde failed peer-review, so he paid to have it published anyway.
Click to expand...

You are so amazingly dishonest. You accuse Scientific Online of being pay-to-publish, and then link to a list of pay-to-publish sites THE DOESN'T LIST Scientific Online.

You liar.

So now you agree that your prior point about GW not being less than natural variation was, in fact, wrong? Looks like we're making progress, an inch at a time.
Click to expand...

No, I am saying that IF CAGW were true and all the warming of the last 150 years is due to AGW then we should be congratulating ourselves for the warmer climate today versus the LIA.

Which is why the graph I posted used ln(CO2) on the horizontal axis. You remember -- the graph that shows empirical sensitivity at 2.7°C? The graph you haven't refuted?
Click to expand...

Again, sensitivity isn't measured empirically. It's somewhat comforting to know that you are at least as willing to lie to yourself as you are willing to lie to the rest of us. :roll:
 
Poor Debater said:
NASA GISS temperature 1960: -0.03°
NASA GISS temperature 2014: +.74°
Change since 1960: +.77°

So yeah, it's still a bullseye.
At least try to check the data you present, this took me all of 10 seconds to debunk.
Click to expand...

The graph fit you presented clearly starts in 1962 with the anomaly shown a 0.3K see below:

5JJiKl.jpg


So eyeballing (since that is all you did) shows the anomaly at 1962 as 0.6K, and at 2015 (?) it is 1.4K for a total difference of 0.8K

GISS Temperature 1962: 0.3K

GISS Temperature in 2014 is 0.74K

So the change since 1962 according to GISS is 0.71K

So the trend depicted in your graph is 13% more than the trend shown GISS, and off on the low and high end by a whopping 90%! So they stretched the trend and moved the graph up to accomplish your "bullseye". :roll:

So no, your "Bullseye" is a dishonest manipulation of the data to show a closer fit than actually exists between the crude hand drawn graph and the observational data. What started as a questionable comparison of different media types has ended as evidence of some AGW sight simply lying to you.


If you accept that solar forcing is a small fraction of the change in all forcing since 1900, then you have already accepted that CO2 is the primary driver of climate change since then. So we're done here.
Click to expand...

No, because I know that there is far more to climate than CO2 and Solar so what may be taken away from the Solar column doesn't automatically get applied to the CO2 column (hence my characterization of your argument as being a binary system with only CO2 and Solar: Your arguments make that assumption)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom