• 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 Scary Graph (Keeling Curve)

Um! Did you read your own cited paper?
It paints a less than scary picture, related to the saturation of CO2
Figure 5 (a) with the following CO2 levels.
Blue line 0 CO2
Green line 1.5 ppmv
Black line 389 ppmv
Purple line 778 ppmv
Red Line 12448 ppmv
View attachment 67234735
It looks like about 20% of the forcing was in the first 1.5 ppm (Green Line),
with the balance between there and the 389 ppm (Black Line)
The doubling between 389 ppm and 778 ppm, (Purple Line) looks like there is minimal additional forcing,
and even the impossible 12,448 ppm (Red Line) only shows a little additional forcing.

Umm, yes, I did, including the conclusion:

"We conclude that as the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere continues to rise there will be no saturation in its absorption of radiation and thus there can be no complacency with regards to its potential to further warm the climate."

I think the authors of the paper are likely better able than you to determine what sort of a picture it paints!
 
Umm, yes, I did, including the conclusion:

"We conclude that as the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere continues to rise there will be no saturation in its absorption of radiation and thus there can be no complacency with regards to its potential to further warm the climate."

I think the authors of the paper are likely better able than you to determine what sort of a picture it paints!
There is a reason why it is on a doubling curve, and yet adding infinitely more CO2 will continue to cause more forcing,
but the affect of each unit is more than the unit that came before it.
Their curve verifies this to a great extent,
There are 9 doubling s between their green line and their black line, and almost no detectable change
between the black and purple line.
I suspect the reason they used the highly exaggerated 12448 ppmv (Red Line) for the high point,
is that lesser amounts did not show enough change to be noteworthy.
 
There is a reason why it is on a doubling curve, and yet adding infinitely more CO2 will continue to cause more forcing,
but the affect of each unit is more than the unit that came before it.
Their curve verifies this to a great extent,
There are 9 doubling s between their green line and their black line, and almost no detectable change
between the black and purple line.
I suspect the reason they used the highly exaggerated 12448 ppmv (Red Line) for the high point,
is that lesser amounts did not show enough change to be noteworthy.

Another conspiracy theory? This must be the Scary Paper :roll: Or, if you had actually bothered to read it rather than just glancing at the pretty graphs before airing your 'suspicion,' you would see that they pretty clearly explained why; "Here we show in detail how, although the very centre of the 15μm band does become saturated, greenhouse trap-ping by CO2 at other wavelengths is far from saturation and that, as its concentration exceeds approximately 800ppmv, its effect actually increases at a rate faster than logarithmic." This is particularly evident around the 9, 10-11 and 13-14μm regions: On a logarithmic scale the 32x concentrations should have only four times the effect of the 2x concentrations, yet according to this study it's clearly much more than that in those bands (Figure 5b).

Very interesting indeed. And if nothing else, complexities of the issue such as these serve as a pretty clear warning against the arrogant slander of forum warriors who think they know better than the world's scientists :lol: It's not all that difficult to gain enough amateurish knowledge to understand why the scientists are probably right, but folk imagining that googling a few talking points from fringe websites and blogs is enough to prove the scientists wrong are - quite obviously - showing nothing but their own ignorance.
 
Another conspiracy theory? This must be the Scary Paper :roll: Or, if you had actually bothered to read it rather than just glancing at the pretty graphs before airing your 'suspicion,' you would see that they pretty clearly explained why; "Here we show in detail how, although the very centre of the 15μm band does become saturated, greenhouse trap-ping by CO2 at other wavelengths is far from saturation and that, as its concentration exceeds approximately 800ppmv, its effect actually increases at a rate faster than logarithmic." This is particularly evident around the 9, 10-11 and 13-14μm regions: On a logarithmic scale the 32x concentrations should have only four times the effect of the 2x concentrations, yet according to this study it's clearly much more than that in those bands (Figure 5b).

Very interesting indeed. And if nothing else, complexities of the issue such as these serve as a pretty clear warning against the arrogant slander of forum warriors who think they know better than the world's scientists :lol: It's not all that difficult to gain enough amateurish knowledge to understand why the scientists are probably right, but folk imagining that googling a few talking points from fringe websites and blogs is enough to prove the scientists wrong are - quite obviously - showing nothing but their own ignorance.

I wrote something incorrect in post #127,
I wrote, "the affect of each unit is more than the unit that came before it."
It should be the affect of each unit is LESS than the unit that came before it.
As to the study, 32 X is actually irrelevant, because Humans likely cannot raise CO2 levels to 12,448 ppm.
Remember, it has taken completely unrestricted burning of every hydrocarbon energy source we could find,
150 years to increase the CO2 level by 130 ppm.
I frankly think the next 150 ppm to the first doubling will be difficult, much less another 560 ppm for a second doubling.
With that frame of reference, ask yourself why the study did not input the likely results of Human activity?
 
I wrote something incorrect in post #127,
I wrote, "the affect of each unit is more than the unit that came before it."
It should be the affect of each unit is LESS than the unit that came before it.
As to the study, 32 X is actually irrelevant,

For your ideological purposes, yes. For the sake of scientific understanding, evidently not. I didn't even notice your verbal blunder to be honest. Perhaps you likewise failed to notice the point that "as its concentration exceeds approximately 800ppmv, its effect actually increases at a rate faster than logarithmic." Did you miss that? Or did you not understand it?

Or do you just not find it interesting because it doesn't have any political ramifications?

I certainly found it interesting, and I'm gonna hazard a guess that scientists would likely find it even more worthwhile. But somehow you are trying to project your political biases onto the papers' authors, trying to imply that their interest in concentrations above 800ppm is some kind of nefarious plot to somehow deceive the possibly tens of readers of the journal who lack passing familiarity with the issue :roll:
 
For your ideological purposes, yes. For the sake of scientific understanding, evidently not. I didn't even notice your verbal blunder to be honest. Perhaps you likewise failed to notice the point that "as its concentration exceeds approximately 800ppmv, its effect actually increases at a rate faster than logarithmic." Did you miss that? Or did you not understand it?

Or do you just not find it interesting because it doesn't have any political ramifications?

I certainly found it interesting, and I'm gonna hazard a guess that scientists would likely find it even more worthwhile. But somehow you are trying to project your political biases onto the papers' authors, trying to imply that their interest in concentrations above 800ppm is some kind of nefarious plot to somehow deceive the possibly tens of readers of the journal who lack passing familiarity with the issue :roll:

Do you think it is in any way plausable to get levels of CO2 at more than 800ppm by any time this century or indeed next?
 
For your ideological purposes, yes. For the sake of scientific understanding, evidently not. I didn't even notice your verbal blunder to be honest. Perhaps you likewise failed to notice the point that "as its concentration exceeds approximately 800ppmv, its effect actually increases at a rate faster than logarithmic." Did you miss that? Or did you not understand it?

Or do you just not find it interesting because it doesn't have any political ramifications?

I certainly found it interesting, and I'm gonna hazard a guess that scientists would likely find it even more worthwhile. But somehow you are trying to project your political biases onto the papers' authors, trying to imply that their interest in concentrations above 800ppm is some kind of nefarious plot to somehow deceive the possibly tens of readers of the journal who lack passing familiarity with the issue :roll:

I saw they mentioned that in the introduction, but the Summary also said a similar thing.
Calculations at very high spectral resolution, and using state-of-the-art data for
gaseous absorption properties, indicate that as the atmospheric CO2 concentration rises
from zero the total (instantaneous) RF at first grows very sharply but the rate of increase
moderates such that for concentrations between about 30 and 800ppmv RF increases in proportion to log(mixing ratio).
So what this says is that for CO2 levels we are likely to see (less than 800 ppm) RF will follow the log curve.

Science does not have a political bias, I am looking (skeptically) at what I consider to be the extraordinary
claims of catastrophic AGW. I find very little scientific support for high level of ECS (Say roughly from 3 to 4.5 C)
The observed warming also has some issues with the diurnal asymmetry, the 15 um band is present all the time,
therefore the RF should be occurring all the time, yet most of the warming has been in the evenings and cooler months.
When looking at actual top of atmosphere measurements, it should almost be the opposite of that,
https://earthzine.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/6.1.jpg
As the the difference in energy is greater in the summer months.
It is very likely that we do not understand all of the variables interacting in the atmosphere.
 
Another conspiracy theory? This must be the Scary Paper :roll: Or, if you had actually bothered to read it rather than just glancing at the pretty graphs before airing your 'suspicion,' you would see that they pretty clearly explained why; "Here we show in detail how, although the very centre of the 15μm band does become saturated, greenhouse trap-ping by CO2 at other wavelengths is far from saturation and that, as its concentration exceeds approximately 800ppmv, its effect actually increases at a rate faster than logarithmic." This is particularly evident around the 9, 10-11 and 13-14μm regions: On a logarithmic scale the 32x concentrations should have only four times the effect of the 2x concentrations, yet according to this study it's clearly much more than that in those bands (Figure 5b).

Very interesting indeed. And if nothing else, complexities of the issue such as these serve as a pretty clear warning against the arrogant slander of forum warriors who think they know better than the world's scientists :lol: It's not all that difficult to gain enough amateurish knowledge to understand why the scientists are probably right, but folk imagining that googling a few talking points from fringe websites and blogs is enough to prove the scientists wrong are - quite obviously - showing nothing but their own ignorance.

One perspective is to consider that the CO2 closes the "atmospheric window" in order to hold more heat in the earth system. It would take five doublings... maybe... There is another 22 W/m^2 to completely close it. If we assume the window completely closed because of CO2, which would take between 5 and 11 doublings. The output of the earth is reduced from 239 to 217 if this happened instantaneously, and is 90.8% of what equalization demands. The surface totals would have to increase from 396 W/m^2 to around 436 W/m^2 for equalization. This won't be the perfect value, but as long as we don't extend too far, it is nearly proportional. Assuming the 3.71 value is at the TOS, it takes 11 doublings, because the atmospheric window change would only be 2.03 W/m^2 to equalize to the 3.71 at the TOS to equalization. (436/396)^0.25 x 288 = 295, or a 7 degree increase at the surface if we completely close the atmospheric window, and all other variables stay constant.

Please explain how this would be the wrong view.

10712_2011_9150_Fig1_HTML.gif


https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2634.1
 
The observed warming also has some issues with the diurnal asymmetry, the 15 um band is present all the time,
therefore the RF should be occurring all the time, yet most of the warming has been in the evenings and cooler months.

You are 'mistaken,' yet again. In ten year average anomalies of Northern Hemisphere summers (JJA), between 1988-97 and 2008-2017 there was 0.5 degrees' warming while in winter (DJF) there was only 0.43 degrees. For the Southern Hemisphere summers (DJF) between 1988-97 and 2008-2017 there was 0.28 degrees' warming while in winter (JJA) there was only 0.15 degrees.

For the Northern Hemisphere summers (JJA), between 1978-87 and 2008-2017 there was 0.73 degrees' warming while in winter (DJF) there was only 0.65 degrees. For the Southern Hemisphere summers (DJF) between 1978-87 and 2008-2017 there was 0.35 degrees' warming while in winter (JJA) there was 0.37 degrees - in that case, at last, "most" of the warming (51%) in those seasons occurred in winter.

Globally between 1978-87 and 2008-2017, the warmer six months (NH April-September and SH October-March) averaged 0.58 degrees' warming while the cooler six months (NH October-March and SH April-September) averaged only 0.55 degrees' warming.


If we go back even further (for example comparing 1968-77 to 1998-2007) we could say that 54% of the warming was in the cooler months... and I'm sure saying that "most" of the warming was in cooler months is an ambiguity which is not at all intended to convey the impression of a substantial disparity and little summer warming :shock: Your claim is obviously false for the period of greatest/anthropogenic warming in recent decades, and rather misleading even for the earlier period.

The same goes for time-of-day temperatures: Maximum temperatures have been increasing just as fast as minimum temperatures since 1990 or so (eg. Lewis and Carolly 2013 Figure 4d) - as I have shown you numerous times in the past - so the claim that "most" warming is in the evenings is misleading at best, and brazenly false for the recent decades of greatest/anthropogenic warming. I wonder how many times you're allowed to keep proffering such misleading claims before you lose the benefit of the doubt, and it should be described as deceptive propaganda rather than an innocent mistake?

Yes, if Tmin increases more than Tmax, the Diurnal Temperature Range decreases. . . .

- "Both maximum and minimum temperature increases from 1979-2004 whereas the DTR is basically trendless" (Vose et al 2005),
- "Rohde et al. (2012) and Wild et al. (2007) note an apparent reversal since the mid-1980s; with DTR subsequently increasing" (IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch. 2) and
- "there has been some degree of temporal variation in the rate of change of the DTR, with some evidence of a slowing or even reversal of the negative trend in recent decades" (Davy et al 2016, which you originally cited and which cites the earlier two)
 
Last edited:
One perspective is to consider that the CO2 closes the "atmospheric window" in order to hold more heat in the earth system. It would take five doublings... maybe... There is another 22 W/m^2 to completely close it. If we assume the window completely closed because of CO2, which would take between 5 and 11 doublings. The output of the earth is reduced from 239 to 217 if this happened instantaneously, and is 90.8% of what equalization demands. The surface totals would have to increase from 396 W/m^2 to around 436 W/m^2 for equalization. This won't be the perfect value, but as long as we don't extend too far, it is nearly proportional. Assuming the 3.71 value is at the TOS, it takes 11 doublings, because the atmospheric window change would only be 2.03 W/m^2 to equalize to the 3.71 at the TOS to equalization.

I'm pretty sure that 3.7 is the immediate forcing value for CO2 doubling, which following your reasoning (which I find no obvious fault in) would mean a ~6.23W/m^2w increase in surface radiation, or about +1.13K temperature before feedbacks. That's consistent with the figures I've seen elsewhere, certainly moreso than 0.67K from a mere 3.71W/m^2 increase in surface radiation would be.

(436/396)^0.25 x 288 = 295, or a 7 degree increase at the surface if we completely close the atmospheric window, and all other variables stay constant.

They wouldn't all stay constant of course - there'd be feedback effects accentuating or attenuating that - but yes, that seems a reasonable conclusion for the initial effect of +22W/m^2 radiative forcing (which would occur in the hypothetical scenario of ~10,000ppmv of CO2 according to the paper cited earlier - Figure 6b - or around five doublings).


All of which goes to further demonstrate the slanderous and deceptive nature of the OP and Mr. Wonderful's posts implying that CO2 is irrelevant, regardless of how reluctant you may be to directly critique his nonsense.
 
One perspective is to consider that the CO2 closes the "atmospheric window" in order to hold more heat in the earth system. It would take five doublings... maybe... There is another 22 W/m^2 to completely close it. If we assume the window completely closed because of CO2, which would take between 5 and 11 doublings. The output of the earth is reduced from 239 to 217 if this happened instantaneously, and is 90.8% of what equalization demands. The surface totals would have to increase from 396 W/m^2 to around 436 W/m^2 for equalization. This won't be the perfect value, but as long as we don't extend too far, it is nearly proportional. Assuming the 3.71 value is at the TOS, it takes 11 doublings, because the atmospheric window change would only be 2.03 W/m^2 to equalize to the 3.71 at the TOS to equalization.

I'm pretty sure that 3.7 is the immediate forcing value for CO2 doubling, which following your reasoning (which I find no obvious fault in) would mean a ~6.23W/m^2w increase in surface radiation, or about +1.13K temperature before feedbacks. That's consistent with the figures I've seen elsewhere, certainly moreso than 0.67K from a mere 3.71W/m^2 increase in surface radiation would be.

(436/396)^0.25 x 288 = 295, or a 7 degree increase at the surface if we completely close the atmospheric window, and all other variables stay constant.

They wouldn't all stay constant of course - there'd be feedback effects accentuating or attenuating that - but yes, that seems a reasonable conclusion for the initial effect of +22W/m^2 radiative forcing (which would occur in the hypothetical scenario of ~10,000ppmv of CO2 according to the paper cited earlier - Figure 6b - or around five doublings).


All of which goes to further demonstrate the slanderous and deceptive nature of the OP and Mr. Wonderful's posts implying that CO2 is irrelevant, regardless of how reluctant you may be to directly critique his nonsense.
 
You are 'mistaken,' yet again. In ten year average anomalies of Northern Hemisphere summers (JJA), between 1988-97 and 2008-2017 there was 0.5 degrees' warming while in winter (DJF) there was only 0.43 degrees. For the Southern Hemisphere summers (DJF) between 1988-97 and 2008-2017 there was 0.28 degrees' warming while in winter (JJA) there was only 0.15 degrees.

For the Northern Hemisphere summers (JJA), between 1978-87 and 2008-2017 there was 0.73 degrees' warming while in winter (DJF) there was only 0.65 degrees. For the Southern Hemisphere summers (DJF) between 1978-87 and 2008-2017 there was 0.35 degrees' warming while in winter (JJA) there was 0.37 degrees - in that case, at last, "most" of the warming (51%) in those seasons occurred in winter.

Globally between 1978-87 and 2008-2017, the warmer six months (NH April-September and SH October-March) averaged 0.58 degrees' warming while the cooler six months (NH October-March and SH April-September) averaged only 0.55 degrees' warming.


If we go back even further (for example comparing 1968-77 to 1998-2007) we could say that 54% of the warming was in the cooler months... and I'm sure saying that "most" of the warming was in cooler months is an ambiguity which is not at all intended to convey the impression of a substantial disparity and little summer warming :shock: Your claim is obviously false for the period of greatest/anthropogenic warming in recent decades, and rather misleading even for the earlier period.

The same goes for time-of-day temperatures: Maximum temperatures have been increasing just as fast as minimum temperatures since 1990 or so (eg. Lewis and Carolly 2013 Figure 4d) - as I have shown you numerous times in the past - so the claim that "most" warming is in the evenings is misleading at best, and brazenly false for the recent decades of greatest/anthropogenic warming. I wonder how many times you're allowed to keep proffering such misleading claims before you lose the benefit of the doubt, and it should be described as deceptive propaganda rather than an innocent mistake?

You were wrong then and you are wrong now!,
DTR may be leveling out, but at a much higher delta between T-Min and T-Max.
If the last 50 years had much higher T-Min growth, a slower T-Min growth does not erase the fact that T-Min
accounts for the majority of the observed T-Mean.
While Lewis and Carolly 2013 is mostly about the differences in diurnal temperature range between the models and the observations,
it does contain some useful information, Fig 5 for example, I have highlighted with big red arrows the T-Max and T-Min trends for the period.
Lewis Carolly_Fig5.jpg
The first sentence of the Lewis and Carolly conclusion goes on to say,
6. Conclusions
The observed global decrease in diurnal temperature
range over the period of 1951–2005 resulting from the
relatively larger increase in minimum temperatures than
maximum temperatures
is not captured in historical
experiments of CMIP5 participating models.
What time period during the diurnal cycle do you think T-Min occurs, daytime, or evening?
 
I'm pretty sure that 3.7 is the immediate forcing value for CO2 doubling, which following your reasoning (which I find no obvious fault in) would mean a ~6.23W/m^2w increase in surface radiation, or about +1.13K temperature before feedbacks. That's consistent with the figures I've seen elsewhere, certainly moreso than 0.67K from a mere 3.71W/m^2 increase in surface radiation would be.



They wouldn't all stay constant of course - there'd be feedback effects accentuating or attenuating that - but yes, that seems a reasonable conclusion for the initial effect of +22W/m^2 radiative forcing (which would occur in the hypothetical scenario of ~10,000ppmv of CO2 according to the paper cited earlier - Figure 6b - or around five doublings).


All of which goes to further demonstrate the slanderous and deceptive nature of the OP and Mr. Wonderful's posts implying that CO2 is irrelevant, regardless of how reluctant you may be to directly critique his nonsense.

The +1.13K temperature before feedbacks for a doubling of CO2, is why CO2 is if not irrelevant, of little or no concern.
First off, we may never actually double the CO2 level, I think oil will price itself out of the market long before then.
Secondly, when you add up all of the primary contributors to the observed warming, CO2, CH4, TSI, and aerosol reduction,
the amount of un accounted for warming (from which the feedbacks must come) for a 70 year time frame is between zero and .1 C.
This means that while the feedbacks exists, they are both amplifiers and attenuators, but have a net near zero.
So IF we were to actually double the CO2 level, the likely climate response would be less than 1.5 C spread over more than a century.
We also know from observations that most of that warming would be in the T-Min temperatures.
 
You were wrong then and you are wrong now!,

No, you were wildly incorrect back then, for example in your claims that:
The ratio of nighttime vs daytime warming is still about 3:1.

I would describe that as laughably wrong, except that the information is obscure enough that there's others around here who probably lapped it up as gospel truth - not really a laughing matter.

So now - after my patient efforts trying to correct your falsehoods in numerous threads - your errors are much less egregious: For example you've posted an image from the study I linked showing that for the period 1950-2005 the ratio of night to day warming was around 1.3 to 1.

So if you were speaking in 2005, when 57% of the mean warming in earlier decades had come from Tmin increases and the trend turnaround was not yet definite, saying that "most" of the warming was in the evenings would only be mildly misleading in its ambiguous implication of a large disparity and little daytime warming.

But you're not speaking in 2005, you're speaking in 2018 after two or three decades of Tmax increasing as fast if not faster than Tmin. For the warming which has been most recent, most rapid and almost entirely anthropogenic, your claim was clearly false.

For the warming which has been most recent, most rapid and most strongly anthropogenic, "most" of the warming has been in the warmer months and quite possibly "most" of it in daytime temperatures - almost precisely the opposite of what you declared.

The +1.13K temperature before feedbacks for a doubling of CO2, is why CO2 is if not irrelevant, of little or no concern.
First off, we may never actually double the CO2 level, I think oil will price itself out of the market long before then.
Secondly, when you add up all of the primary contributors to the observed warming, CO2, CH4, TSI, and aerosol reduction,
the amount of un accounted for warming (from which the feedbacks must come) for a 70 year time frame is between zero and .1 C.

A bold claim without any evidence or reasoning to back it up.

I suspect that this is yet another area of carefully-selective blindness on your part: Your adamant refusal to grasp the concept of thermal inertia, which again I've spent innumerable posts trying to explain to you. The radiative forcing of CO2 increases (~1.8W/m^2 at the time of IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch8 Figure 8.15) will have a surface warming effect of ~0.5-0.6 degrees Celsius, but due to the tremendous heat sink effect from the oceans primarily, only a portion of that is currently manifest in measured temperatures.

If anthropogenic forcing factors remained balanced to the time at which CO2 levels are doubled, a relatively straightforward estimate accounting for thermal inertia using timeframes with around zero or negative net solar and volcanic forcing (1960-2015) would imply more than 2.8 degrees of committed warming. A more likely scenario is that our aerosol emissions will decline more rapidly than our GHG emissions (as they've already done in Europe and NA for example) and dissipate from the atmosphere much faster, implying an even higher warming commitment by the time that CO2 concentrations double.

At the current (accelerating) trajectories, CO2 concentrations would be at 560-610ppm within fifty years, and your speculation that those trajectories will make a sudden u-turn without any active effort to curb emissions is dubious, at best.
 
Last edited:
No, you were wildly incorrect back then, for example in your claims that:


I would describe that as laughably wrong, except that the information is obscure enough that there's others around here who probably lapped it up as gospel truth - not really a laughing matter.

So now - after my patient efforts trying to correct your falsehoods in numerous threads - your errors are much less egregious: For example you've posted an image from the study I linked showing that for the period 1950-2005 the ratio of night to day warming was around 1.3 to 1.

So if you were speaking in 2005, when 57% of the mean warming in earlier decades had come from Tmin increases and the trend turnaround was not yet definite, saying that "most" of the warming was in the evenings would only be mildly misleading in its ambiguous implication of a large disparity and little daytime warming.

But you're not speaking in 2005, you're speaking in 2018 after two or three decades of Tmax increasing as fast if not faster than Tmin. For the warming which has been most recent, most rapid and almost entirely anthropogenic, your claim was clearly false.

For the warming which has been most recent, most rapid and most strongly anthropogenic, "most" of the warming has been in the warmer months and quite possibly "most" of it in daytime temperatures - almost precisely the opposite of what you declared.



A bold claim without any evidence or reasoning to back it up.

I suspect that this is yet another area of carefully-selective blindness on your part: Your adamant refusal to grasp the concept of thermal inertia, which again I've spent innumerable posts trying to explain to you. The radiative forcing of CO2 increases (~1.8W/m^2 at the time of IPCC AR5 WG1 Ch8 Figure 8.15) will have a surface warming effect of ~0.5-0.6 degrees Celsius, but due to the tremendous heat sink effect from the oceans primarily, only a portion of that is currently manifest in measured temperatures.

If anthropogenic forcing factors remained balanced to the time at which CO2 levels are doubled, a relatively straightforward estimate accounting for thermal inertia using timeframes with around zero or negative net solar and volcanic forcing (1960-2015) would imply more than 2.8 degrees of committed warming. A more likely scenario is that our aerosol emissions will decline more rapidly than our GHG emissions (as they've already done in Europe and NA for example) and dissipate from the atmosphere much faster, implying an even higher warming commitment by the time that CO2 concentrations double.

At the current (accelerating) trajectories, CO2 concentrations would be at 560-610ppm within fifty years, and your speculation that those trajectories will make a sudden u-turn without any active effort to curb emissions is dubious, at best.

Karl et al. (1993) DTR Tmax Tmin
−0.14 0.07 0.21
This is cited in https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.4688 Table 1.
Sure looks like 3:1 to me, I think .07X3 still equals .21.

As to the attribution of forcing
Ch4 level 1940 1.089 ppm 2017 1.815 ppm
CO2 level 1940 311.3 ppm 2017 406.53 ppm
TSI 1940 1360.87 TSI 2017 1361.01
Temp 1940 -.102 temp 2017 .5684

delta temp 1940 - 2017 .5684 +.102= .6704

CO2 forcing since 1940 5.35 X ln(406.53/311.3)=1.4278 X .3= .428C
CH4 forcing since 1940 .510 X ln(1.815/1.089)=..260 X .3= .078C
iwarming from TSI increase 1361.01-1360.87=.14 X .3= .042c
.428 +.078 + .042 = .548 C

.6704 -.548 = .1224
So at a crude level there is only .1224 of warming since 1940, which could possibly be feedbacks,
it could also be something else!
 
The +1.13K temperature before feedbacks for a doubling of CO2, is why CO2 is if not irrelevant, of little or no concern.
First off, we may never actually double the CO2 level, I think oil will price itself out of the market long before then.

The thing with CO2 accumulation, it isn't linear. If the ocean/atmosphere wants an equilibrium of 280 ppm, then at 400 ppm, we have a particular velocity of CO2 sinking. If we double that difference, to 520 ppm, then the velocity of sinking is doubled as well. It doesn't simply take twice the emissions that we had to get to 400 ppm, it will be somewhere around four times the emissions.
 
The thing with CO2 accumulation, it isn't linear. If the ocean/atmosphere wants an equilibrium of 280 ppm, then at 400 ppm, we have a particular velocity of CO2 sinking. If we double that difference, to 520 ppm, then the velocity of sinking is doubled as well. It doesn't simply take twice the emissions that we had to get to 400 ppm, it will be somewhere around four times the emissions.

The equilibrium balance would be a ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to ocean, not a fixed ppm in the atmosphere, so the percentage of absorption would remain fairly similar over time... except that ratio will decline as the oceans warm, suggesting that even the percentage of absorption will likely decrease over time. If it took Ngt of CO2 to increase atmospheric concentrations by 120ppm, as the ocean (and particularly the surface layer) warms it will take likely take less than Ngt for the next 120ppm.



@Longview... thankyou for confirming my suspicions. Disappointing, but not entirely surprising.
 
The equilibrium balance would be a ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to ocean, not a fixed ppm in the atmosphere, so the percentage of absorption would remain fairly similar over time... except that ratio will decline as the oceans warm, suggesting that even the percentage of absorption will likely decrease over time. If it took Ngt of CO2 to increase atmospheric concentrations by 120ppm, as the ocean (and particularly the surface layer) warms it will take likely take less than Ngt for the next 120ppm.



@Longview... thankyou for confirming my suspicions. Disappointing, but not entirely surprising.

But you are still wrong about the T-Min and T-Max, while the ratio has not been as high as earlier decades,
The total of the observed warming is still vastly made up of increases in T-Min temperatures.
Lewis and Carolly 2013 said they had 5 decades of T-Max trend at .17 per decade, and T-Min at .24 per decade,
which I question because of the total number.
5 X .17=.85 and 5 X .24=1.2, so over that period (to 2013) there is quite a bit more T-Min.
As to Lewis and Carolly 2013 numbers, that is sketchy, because there has not been 1.025 of warming over the five decades ending in 2013.

As to isolating out the component contributors, feel free to point out any errors I have made.
 
But you are still wrong about the T-Min and T-Max, while the ratio has not been as high as earlier decades,
The total of the observed warming is still vastly made up of increases in T-Min temperatures.

0.24:0.18 is equivalent to 57:43. But sure, you keep trying to tell everyone that 57% - as of the five and a half decades preceding 2005 - is "vastly" made up of it :roll: It's not quite as bad as your earlier claim that the ratio is "still" 3:1, admittedly, but you're employing brazenly misleading language which reeks more of deception than mere ignorance.

And again, for the warming which has been most recent, most rapid and most strongly anthropogenic, "most" of the warming has been in the warmer months and quite possibly "most" of it in daytime temperatures - almost precisely the opposite of what you originally declared.

As to Lewis and Carolly 2013 numbers, that is sketchy, because there has not been 1.025 of warming over the five decades ending in 2013.

They cited their data source as CRUTEM4 - that's land temperatures, genius :roll: I would guess because consistent twice-a-day measurements of sea surface temperatures from passing ships would have been much less reliable (if not nonexistent) until the deployment of the Argo buoy network.

As to isolating out the component contributors, feel free to point out any errors I have made.

Where to begin?
- You failed to account for thermal inertia (as I'd guessed you wouldn't)
- You failed to account for anthropogenic aerosols (even though you said you would)
- Your single-year values for temperature increase are laughably arbitrary
- Hell, your calculation of solar contribution assumes a flat earth, for crying out loud!

But sure, you've gone and proved the world's scientists wrong there - there'll be a Noble Prize for you soon, no doubt about it :lol:
 
The equilibrium balance would be a ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to ocean, not a fixed ppm in the atmosphere, so the percentage of absorption would remain fairly similar over time... except that ratio will decline as the oceans warm, suggesting that even the percentage of absorption will likely decrease over time. If it took Ngt of CO2 to increase atmospheric concentrations by 120ppm, as the ocean (and particularly the surface layer) warms it will take likely take less than Ngt for the next 120ppm.
Yes, the balance for equalization, as a percentage stays the same with all other variables equal. I was speaking of how rapidly (velocity) the ocean sinks the CO2. Not the equilibrium point. The farther away from balance the system is, the faster the velocity of absorption. The historical CO2 over the last several thousand years has been something like 260 to 280 ppm as that equalization point, or around 2% of the total atmospheric and ocean. The ocean holds about 98% of the ocean/atmosphere content.

We have added enough CO2 that now we have about 120 ppm more in the atmosphere. If we add had doubled over the same time the CO2 we put in the air, we would not be at an added 240 ppm. The sinking would have been more rapid due to a larger imbalance of the desired percentages. We would probably have about another 180 ppm, not 240 ppm. If we emitted 10 times as much CO2 over the years, the velocity of absorption would be far greater, and we would probably be around 520 ppm.

It is not a linear function! It would be a very long time to double the CO2 content, without exceptionally greater CO2 output.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the balance for equalization, as a percentage stays the same with all other variables equal. I was speaking of how rapidly (velocity) the ocean sinks the CO2. Not the equilibrium point. The farther away from balance the system is, the faster the velocity of absorption. The historical CO2 over the last several thousand years has been something like 260 to 280 ppm as that equalization point, or around 2% of the total atmospheric and ocean. The ocean holds about 98% of the ocean/atmosphere content.

We have added enough CO2 that now we have about 120 ppm more in the atmosphere. If we add had doubled over the same time the CO2 we put in the air, we would not be at an added 240 ppm. The sinking would have been more rapid due to a larger imbalance of the desired percentages. We would probably have about another 180 ppm, not 240 ppm. If we emitted 10 times as much CO2 over the years, the velocity of absorption would be far greater, and we would probably be around 520 ppm.

It is not a linear function! It would be a very long time to double the CO2 content, without exceptionally greater CO2 output.

Well in fairness I'm no more of an expert on this than you are, but I'm pretty sure the rate of oceanic absorption is limited by the concentrations in the surface layer and the rate of overturning: Higher atmospheric concentrations won't make CO2 any more soluble in the surface layer, and won't make the rate of overturning any faster, so odds are the greater imbalance would have little if any effect on the rate of absorption. In fact I'm sure I've read that global warming is likely to slow down oceanic circulation, and as I've already noted warmer oceans will reduce solubility too. A few degrees' temperature swing has historically been enough to correlate with changes of more than 100ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere; so while we're obviously at no risk of oceanic outgassing while we continue to burn fossil fuels, a decline in the rate of absorption (or at least the percentage) is a very real probability.


Edit:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/?src=share

The warmer the surface water becomes, the harder it is for winds to mix the surface layers with the deeper layers. The ocean settles into layers, or stratifies. Without an infusion of fresh carbonate-rich water from below, the surface water saturates with carbon dioxide. The stagnant water also supports fewer phytoplankton, and carbon dioxide uptake from photosynthesis slows. In short, stratification cuts down the amount of carbon the ocean can take up. . . .


“When we started in the 70s and 80s, we had this concept: we’ll measure [carbon dioxide concentrations in the ocean] 10 years later, and we’ll just see the anthropogenic input,” says Feely. “We had very simplistic ideas that the anthropogenic changes would be the only changes we would see,” he adds a little ruefully.

Feely and his colleagues saw changes, but they weren’t at all the changes they expected. Carbon concentrations in the ocean did rise as atmospheric carbon dioxide skyrocketed, but in 2006, Feely and several colleagues announced that the equatorial Pacific seemed to be venting more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere between 1997 and 2004 than it had in previous years. And in 2007, Ute Schuster and Andrew Watson, oceanographers from the University of East Anglia, reported that amount of carbon that the North Atlantic Ocean soaked up decreased by a factor of two between 1994 and 2005. The ocean, or parts of it, seemed to be taking up less, not more, carbon.​
 
Last edited:
Well in fairness I'm no more of an expert on this than you are, but I'm pretty sure the rate of oceanic absorption is limited by the concentrations in the surface layer and the rate of overturning: Higher atmospheric concentrations won't make CO2 any more soluble in the surface layer, and won't make the rate of overturning any faster, so odds are the greater imbalance would have little if any effect on the rate of absorption. In fact I'm sure I've read that global warming is likely to slow down oceanic circulation, and as I've already noted warmer oceans will reduce solubility too. A few degrees' temperature swing has historically been enough to correlate with changes of more than 100ppm CO2 concentration in the atmosphere; so while we're obviously at no risk of oceanic outgassing while we continue to burn fossil fuels, a decline in the rate of absorption (or at least the percentage) is a very real probability.
Since the ocean is always overturning, and around a 1200 year process, the absorption is slow. Still, the greater the imbalance, the greater the absorption rate.

Edit:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/?src=share

The warmer the surface water becomes, the harder it is for winds to mix the surface layers with the deeper layers. The ocean settles into layers, or stratifies. Without an infusion of fresh carbonate-rich water from below, the surface water saturates with carbon dioxide. The stagnant water also supports fewer phytoplankton, and carbon dioxide uptake from photosynthesis slows. In short, stratification cuts down the amount of carbon the ocean can take up. . . .


“When we started in the 70s and 80s, we had this concept: we’ll measure [carbon dioxide concentrations in the ocean] 10 years later, and we’ll just see the anthropogenic input,” says Feely. “We had very simplistic ideas that the anthropogenic changes would be the only changes we would see,” he adds a little ruefully.

Feely and his colleagues saw changes, but they weren’t at all the changes they expected. Carbon concentrations in the ocean did rise as atmospheric carbon dioxide skyrocketed, but in 2006, Feely and several colleagues announced that the equatorial Pacific seemed to be venting more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere between 1997 and 2004 than it had in previous years. And in 2007, Ute Schuster and Andrew Watson, oceanographers from the University of East Anglia, reported that amount of carbon that the North Atlantic Ocean soaked up decreased by a factor of two between 1994 and 2005. The ocean, or parts of it, seemed to be taking up less, not more, carbon.​
It is completely expected for the ocean to vent more in the equatorial regions, and it absorbs more in the polar regions. It is the global balance that matters, not a cherry picked region.
 
0.24:0.18 is equivalent to 57:43. But sure, you keep trying to tell everyone that 57% - as of the five and a half decades preceding 2005 - is "vastly" made up of it :roll: It's not quite as bad as your earlier claim that the ratio is "still" 3:1, admittedly, but you're employing brazenly misleading language which reeks more of deception than mere ignorance.

And again, for the warming which has been most recent, most rapid and most strongly anthropogenic, "most" of the warming has been in the warmer months and quite possibly "most" of it in daytime temperatures - almost precisely the opposite of what you originally declared.



They cited their data source as CRUTEM4 - that's land temperatures, genius :roll: I would guess because consistent twice-a-day measurements of sea surface temperatures from passing ships would have been much less reliable (if not nonexistent) until the deployment of the Argo buoy network.



Where to begin?
- You failed to account for thermal inertia (as I'd guessed you wouldn't)
- You failed to account for anthropogenic aerosols (even though you said you would)
- Your single-year values for temperature increase are laughably arbitrary
- Hell, your calculation of solar contribution assumes a flat earth, for crying out loud!

But sure, you've gone and proved the world's scientists wrong there - there'll be a Noble Prize for you soon, no doubt about it :lol:

All of the numbers for earlier T-Max and T-Min are in existing Peer reviewed literature.
Land only vs global, I guess it's whatever works to keep winning grants!

Feel free to tell us your own calculations for the forcing from added CO2, CH4, and the increase in TSI since 1940.
As to thermal inertia there was .2 C of warming that occurred before 1940, the sky amplifier would have to amplify that .2 C.
The contribution to warming from the reduction in anthropogenic aerosols, would come out of the already small unknown column.
Actually my 1940 and 2017 temperatures were GISS global decade averages, averaging the decade before the date.
If you have issues with the changes in TSI, perhaps you should take it up with the University of Colorado.
 
Since the ocean is always overturning, and around a 1200 year process, the absorption is slow. Still, the greater the imbalance, the greater the absorption rate.


It is completely expected for the ocean to vent more in the equatorial regions, and it absorbs more in the polar regions. It is the global balance that matters, not a cherry picked region.

Sure, NASA is just cherry-picking the data 'cause it's simply not possible that your speculation is incorrect :lol:

Personally I'm not content with blind speculation, so I grabbed the annual carbon emissions data and the CO2 concentrations data for comparison. Seems that one gigaton of carbon emissions increases atmospheric CO2 concentrations by around 0.00025ppm on average. That value does decline slightly over time, but I question whether it's statistically significant: On an eleven year average the R[SUP]2[/SUP] value for PPM per GtC vs. increasing concentrations is only 0.271. That increases to 0.745 on a twenty-three year average, which still isn't great.

However if the trend from that twenty-three year average were significant, the upshot would be that it will take around 59 more years to double the pre-industrial level of CO2 based on the current emissions trajectory (rather than the 50 years we might estimate from only the current trajectory of concentration increases).
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...DX-DfET4TF7d-DmIiJk-V3NwY/edit#gid=1718575208

That's not quite as comforting as your claim that "it will be somewhere around four times the emissions."



Edit: By the way, could you explain to Longview why using raw TSI to calculate climate forcing is one of the laughably erroneous mistakes he's been making? Perhaps if it comes from you... he obviously never listens to anything I say :( In fact if memory serves you were the one who first explained it to me, too (though of course I was not so ignorant and arrogant as to imagine that I was disproving decades of climate research).
 
Last edited:
Sure, NASA is just cherry-picking the data 'cause it's simply not possible that your speculation is incorrect :roll:
Please check your confirmation bias. That is not what my statement implied.

I won't bother correcting you every time, since confirmation bias has become a habit of yours, and it seems you will always maintain your conformation bias no matter what facts are presented. What I meant was cherry picking a region instead of explaining the sinking in the polar regions were also increased. What matters is the global effect. Not a particular region.
 
Back
Top Bottom