• 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!

The Sun Is Going Dim

Yes, but you are looking for an increase in the difference..there could be a decrease and just so long as the difference remains positive warming is taking place.
There has been a slight increase in the imbalance since 2000,(More energy in than out)
just not nearly the amount the CO2 forcing should have produced.
 
You have no idea what you are talking about...The Sun's total radiance at all wavelengths as received on a square 1 meter by 1 meter is about 1366 watts at Earth's distance from the Sun. That is not the radiative forcing...To calculate the RF we divide the total by 4 (to account for Earth's curvature and spin) and multiply the result by .70 to account for the Earths albedo.

If during a solar minimum we figure the 1366 value drops to 1365..then the difference is the change in radiative forcing.

That you say this: "And taking into account the fact of not being perpendicular to the sun's rays 24 hours a day". You don't know what you are talking about. Get it now?

I do, you don't.
 
Originally Posted by Russell797 View Post
So, to date CO2 has increased by 45%. Globally averaged temp. has risen 1C and equilibrium has not been reached given an imbalance at the TOA of about 0.6W/m^2 ...The temperature must still rise further in order to reach equilibrium...Those are the observations considering all the data...

Your ability with numbers appears good...The logic you apply them to not so much.

Simple case in point. "from your number of 0.6 W/m2 at 45%". What is that supposed to mean? Why do you relate those two values? I never did.

Errr.....??????
 
That's not true at all. The net total flux in versus out is what matters.



There doesn't have to be a net flux increase. Just so long as there is a net positive imbalance, warming is taking place.

Oh god.

Net is in less out. Like net profit. All the plus less all the minus.
 
There has been a slight increase in the imbalance since 2000,(More energy in than out)
just not nearly the amount the CO2 forcing should have produced.

Do you think there is a linear relationship between net flux and CO2 in isolation?
 
Errr.....??????

The 0.6W/m^2 is the forcing...from all sources, the Sun, CO2, CH4, H2O, aerosols, ice loss etc...The 0.6W/m^2 imbalance indicates that warming is taking place, which we know is the case because we measure it directly at the surface. The system is out of equilibrium..

You people seem to think the imbalance should be growing toward 3.7W/m^2....That's not true...It could remain around 0.6W/m^2 the whole time. Why? Because the surface is warming..
 

Oh god.

Net is in less out. Like net profit. All the plus less all the minus.

Exactly...so what? There is more coming in than what is going out...What does that tell you is happening regarding the accumulation of energy at the near surface?
 
Exactly...so what? There is more coming in than what is going out...What does that tell you is happening regarding the accumulation of energy at the near surface?

That very very little change is happening.
 
Do you think there is a linear relationship between net flux and CO2 in isolation?
It is not linear, but a natural log, the 3.71 Wm-2 for 2XCO2 is for the 5.35 X ln(2).
So 5.35 X ln(405/370) is how much forcing the increase in CO2 between 370 ppm to 405 ppm should have caused. (.483 Wm-2).
The recorded amount depends on how you average it, but the 12 month average increased .0725 Wm-2,
while the largest average was the 5 year at .1705 Wm-2, but even if we take the highest number,
and push it back through the equation, .1705/ln(405/370)=1.886, so 1.886 X ln(2)=1.37 Wm-2 for 2XCO2.
Since we are fairly sure the forcing equation is not that far off, it means there are some fairly large
negative feedbacks which have not been accounted for.
The alternative to believing this, is that we have a very poor understand of CO2 forcing.
 
It is not linear, but a natural log, the 3.71 Wm-2 for 2XCO2 is for the 5.35 X ln(2).
So 5.35 X ln(405/370) is how much forcing the increase in CO2 between 370 ppm to 405 ppm should have caused. (.483 Wm-2).
The recorded amount depends on how you average it, but the 12 month average increased .0725 Wm-2,
while the largest average was the 5 year at .1705 Wm-2, but even if we take the highest number,
and push it back through the equation, .1705/ln(405/370)=1.886, so 1.886 X ln(2)=1.37 Wm-2 for 2XCO2.
Since we are fairly sure the forcing equation is not that far off, it means there are some fairly large
negative feedbacks which have not been accounted for.

The alternative to believing this, is that we have a very poor understand of CO2 forcing.

You have not accounted for the warming which has taken place, which due to all factors combined is about 1.0C to this point. That warming increases the output side of the radiation budget equation. What remains is the 0.6W/m^2 of positive imbalance.
 
You have not accounted for the warming which has taken place, which due to all factors combined is about 1.0C to this point. That warming increases the output side of the radiation budget equation. What remains is the 0.6W/m^2 of positive imbalance.
You keep bringing up the 0.6W/m^2 of positive imbalance, which is not measured but calculated.
We know earth is warmer than a gas less rock, but our knowledge about how the greenhouse gasses actually work
is less well defined. What we can measure, says the added CO2 is not changing the energy imbalance as much as predicted.
 
Back
Top Bottom