• 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!

Climate Change Evidence Mounts

Buzz, a person cannot cite an entire web site, and simply say, "THERE IS THE EVIDENCE" without pointing out the section that they think contains the evidence! My analogy stands, it is like pointing to the bible and saying the proof is in there.

Fine... it is o.k. to insist that people back up their beliefs with actual evidence. But it is not o.k. to imply that there is no evidence just because they can't back themselves up. Especially when you know there is evidence.
 
Climate researchers know..

Funny how you don’t know this basic info, yet you’re sure the climate researchers don’t know as much as you.

I don’t want to bring up Dunning Kruger again, since I know you are sensitive...but...

But I do know the basics. And far beyond the basics. You don't even know how they calculate RE or GWP.

For the simpler one, can you explain in your own words how they calculate RE?

It's very simple.
 
If you think you understand this so well, then why are the RE values in the AR4 for CO2, CH4, and N2O at 1.4 x 10[SUP]-5[/SUP], 3.7 x 10[SUP]-4[/SUP], and 3.03 x 10[SUP]-3[/SUP] but in the AR5, they are 1.37 x 10[SUP]-5[/SUP], 3.63 x 10[SUP]-4[/SUP], and 3.00 x 10[SUP]-3[/SUP]?

What is your explanation?

I completely understand why this is.

See page 212 of the AR4 and page 731 of the AR5.
 
Last edited:
I found what appears to be an interesting write-up by a college professor:

Saturation, Nonlinearity and Overlap in the Radiative Efficiencies of
Greenhouse Gases


Two selected excerpts:

Climate Change 2001 gives a figure for the radiative efficiency of CO2 of 0.01548 W/m²/ppmv but emphasizes this figure is to be used only for the computation of global warming potentials. It is incredible how the scientific works on global warming can leave H2O entirely out of the picture. A diligent search of sources other than Climate Change 2001 reveals that the radiative efficiency of water vapor is fifty to sixty percent greater than that of CO2. For more on the role of water, in liquid and vapor forms, on the climate see Water.

--------------

The absence of a value for water vapor is perplexing. Even more perplexing are these question-and-answer presentations on U.S. Department of Energy websites:

Q. I am curious about the global warming potential of water vapor.

A. Water vapor is indeed a very potent "greenhouse" gas, in terms of its absorbing and re-radiating outgoing infrared radiation. It is commonly not mentioned as an important factor in global warming, because it is not clear that the atmospheric concentration (as compared with CO2, methane, etc.) is rising.

What is the global warming potential of water vapor? Are the anthropogenic water vapor emissions significant?

Water vapor is a very important part of the earth's natural greenhouse gas effect and the chemical species that exerts the largest heat trapping effect. Water has the biggest heat trapping effect because of its large concentration compared to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Water vapor is present in the atmosphere in concentrations of 3-4% whereas carbon dioxide is at 387 ppm or 0.0386%. Clouds absorb a portion of the energy incident sunlight and water vapor absorbs reflected heat as well.

The questions call for a numerical answer. Global Warming Potential (GWP) is a technical term widely used in the literature on global warming. The babbling answers suggests that the numerical value is not readily available even to people who are specialists in global warming. This ignoring of the technicalities of the role H2O in the climatology of the Earth is mind boggling.
 
Last edited:
The imbalance of 150 Wm-2 forces the earth to be 33°C warmer.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_sc05400j.pdf

Yep, 33°C forced from 155Wm-2 of imbalance (present day).
The math is simple, and does not matter if the imbalance is 150 Wm-2 or 155 Wm-2,
33°C/155 155 W/m2= .213°C per watt per meter squared of imbalance.

This study also says this:

The impact of entirely removing CO2 is almost 7 times the impact of doubling CO2, underlining the highly nonlinear nature of the forcing due to CO2 concentration change over this range.[26] It is in part due to these nonlinearities combined with associated feedbacks that the attribution calculations are not directly useful for determining climate sensitivity. For instance, one cannot simply take the attribution to CO2 of the total greenhouse effect (20% of 33°C) and project that onto a 2 × CO2 scenario. That would exaggerate the no‐feedback impact of the extra CO2 while ignoring the role of feedbacks that might change the water vapor and clouds.

and this...

We conclude that, given the uncertainties, that water vapor is responsible for just over half, clouds around a quarter and CO2 about a fifth of the present‐day total greenhouse effect. Given that the attribution is closer to 20% than 2%, it might make a more intuitive sense that changes in CO2 could be important for climate change. Nonetheless, climate sensitivity can only be properly assessed from examining changes in climate, not from the mean climatology alone [Annan and Hargreaves, 2006].

And finally, this...

In GISS ModelE, the Charney sensitivity is 2.7°C for a doubling of CO2(or∼0.7°C/(W/m2)) [Schmidt et al.,2006].

So... it looks to me like you are making calculations that are similar to what your own citation says you can't do.

:lamo
 
This study also says this:
The impact of entirely removing CO2 is almost 7 times the impact of doubling CO2, underlining the highly nonlinear nature of the forcing due to CO2 concentration change over this range.[26] It is in part due to these nonlinearities combined with associated feedbacks that the attribution calculations are not directly useful for determining climate sensitivity. For instance, one cannot simply take the attribution to CO2 of the total greenhouse effect (20% of 33°C) and project that onto a 2 × CO2 scenario. That would exaggerate the no‐feedback impact of the extra CO2 while ignoring the role of feedbacks that might change the water vapor and clouds.


and this...
We conclude that, given the uncertainties, that water vapor is responsible for just over half, clouds around a quarter and CO2 about a fifth of the present‐day total greenhouse effect. Given that the attribution is closer to 20% than 2%, it might make a more intuitive sense that changes in CO2 could be important for climate change. Nonetheless, climate sensitivity can only be properly assessed from examining changes in climate, not from the mean climatology alone [Annan and Hargreaves, 2006].


And finally, this...
In GISS ModelE, the Charney sensitivity is 2.7°C for a doubling of CO2(or∼0.7°C/(W/m2)) [Schmidt et al.,2006].


So... it looks to me like you are making calculations that are similar to what your own citation says you can't do.

:lamo

Interesting.

Removing all of CO2 is equivalent to seven doubling.

A doubling is 2.7 C.

7 x 2.7 = 18.9.

This is nice and deceptive though.

When you completely remove one variable, you allow other variable to fill in where there is overlap. That reference for the seven times reference uses table 3. Please note in table 3 that a 2 x of H2O is given a value of 12, almost three times the CO2 value of 4.1.

18.9 x 12 / 4.1 = 55.3

Are you saying that H2O is responsible for 55.3 degrees of the 33 degree warming?

These sciences are not so straight forward as you might think. This is why you guys are so easily duped by how a paper is written.
 
Fine... it is o.k. to insist that people back up their beliefs with actual evidence. But it is not o.k. to imply that there is no evidence just because they can't back themselves up. Especially when you know there is evidence.
There is some evidence, that CO2 may create some very modest warming, but even that is not cited within that NASA link.
There is no real scientific evidence that added CO2 does much of anything, cited in the NASA link.
 
This study also says this:



and this...



And finally, this...



So... it looks to me like you are making calculations that are similar to what your own citation says you can't do.

:lamo

Finally, you post something useful,
The impact of entirely removing CO2 is almost 7 times the impact of doubling CO2, underlining the highly nonlinear nature of the forcing due to CO2 concentration change over this range.
let's discuss this for a second and where the 7 times comes from.
Of the 33°C, CO2 is said to account for up to 26%, 8.58°C, now 8.58°C/7=1.22°C, so each doubling of CO2 has the potential of 1.22°C.
If we start from 1 ppm of CO2
step 1 1ppm to 2ppm 1.22°C
step 2 2ppm to 4ppm 1.22°C
step 3 4ppm to 8ppm 1.22°C
step 4 8ppm to 16ppm 1.22°C
step 5 16ppm to 32 ppm 1.22°C
step 6 32ppm to 64 ppm 1.22C
step 7 64ppm to 128ppm 1.22°C
step 8 128ppm to 256ppm 1.22°C
Depending on where you start we are right in line with almost 7 times the impact,and yes it demonstrates that CO2 is on a doubling curve.

The models vary according to what is used for sensitivity input, Schmidt is going to be in lockstep with Hansen in 2006,
and his model included a feedback factor equal to an 2% increase in solar output, that has never been seen in any evidence
 
But I do know the basics. And far beyond the basics. You don't even know how they calculate RE or GWP.

For the simpler one, can you explain in your own words how they calculate RE?

It's very simple.

Why would it matter what calculations an anonymous internet poster can do?

You’re saying you don’t know a basic fact about climate response, but are also saying you know more than the people who were the people who discovered that fact.
 
You’re saying you don’t know a basic fact about climate response, but are also saying you know more than the people who were the people who discovered that fact.

I never said I don't know the basic facts.

It's obvious that you do not!

You don't know how RE is determined. Do you?
 
I never said I don't know the basic facts.

It's obvious that you do not!

You don't know how RE is determined. Do you?

So is GWP linear or non linear?

Sounds like you don’t know.

How would one find you?

Bet you find out from a climate scientist.

But you already claim that they’re wrong.
 
A simple lesson for RE (radiative efficiency) for all that don't know.

RE is the a number that is equal to the change of 1 ppb. For example. The AR4 uses 1.4 x 10[SUP]-5[/SUP] for CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. The level for CO[SUB]2[/SUB] in the AR4 was 379 ppm. Here is how it works:

RE(CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) = 5.35 x ln(379/(379-.001)) = 1.41 x 10[SUP]-5[/SUP].

The AR5 value for CO[SUB]2[/SUB] RE is 1.37 x 10[SUP]-5[/SUP].

RE(CO[SUB]2[/SUB]) = 5.35 x ln(391/(391-.001)) = 1.37 x 10[SUP]-5[/SUP].

Now for CH4...

RE(CH[SUB]4[/SUB]) = 0.654 x ln(1.803/(1.803-.001)) = 3.63 x 10[SUP]-4[/SUP].

Please note how much smaller the coefficient is for CH[SUB]4[/SUB] than for CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. This is because CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is about 8 times stronger of a greenhouse gas than CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is at equal concentrations.

5.35 x 0.654 = 8.18
 
So is GWP linear or non linear?

Sounds like you don’t know.

How would one find you?

Bet you find out from a climate scientist.

But you already claim that they’re wrong.

GWP is only good for a change from the current level. It is nonlinear. It is defined as the forcing change over time from an instantaneous increase of 1 ton of gas. Using mass instead of mols automatically gives CH[SUB]4[/SUB] a deceptive 44:16 advantage over CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. Since the RE of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is about 26.5 times greater than CO[SUB]2[/SUB], the arbitrary GWP number starts at year zero at 44/16 x 26.5 or 72.9 times greater.

But...

CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is about 8.18 times stronger of a greenhouse gas than CH[SUB]4[/SUB] at equal levels.

See the deception by chance?
 
GWP is only good for a change from the current level. It is nonlinear. It is defined as the forcing change over time from an instantaneous increase of 1 ton of gas. Using mass instead of mols automatically gives CH[SUB]4[/SUB] a deceptive 44:16 advantage over CO[SUB]2[/SUB]. Since the RE of CH[SUB]4[/SUB] is about 26.5 times greater than CO[SUB]2[/SUB], the arbitrary GWP number starts at year zero at 44/16 x 26.5 or 72.9 times greater.

But...

CO[SUB]2[/SUB] is about 8.18 times stronger of a greenhouse gas than CH[SUB]4[/SUB] at equal levels.

See the deception by chance?

So now you know it’s nonlinear when you didn’t before.

I bet a climate scientist taught you that.
 
Climate researchers know..

Funny how you don’t know this basic info, yet you’re sure the climate researchers don’t know as much as you.

Please point out the ones with a degree in climatology.

Authors — IPCC
 
At least they actually could make it through college.

Anyone can do that.

The hard part is applying it to work.

Those who can, do. Those who can't teach...

Notice how many are teachers?
 
Anyone can do that.

The hard part is applying it to work.

Those who can, do. Those who can't teach...

Notice how many are teachers?

Notice how many are bad students and pretend they teach themselves instead of actually learning from working scientists?
 
Anyone can do that.

The hard part is applying it to work.

Those who can, do. Those who can't teach...

Notice how many are teachers?

Never graduated college....huh? Lol
 
Anyone can do that.

The hard part is applying it to work.

Those who can, do. Those who can't teach...

Notice how many are teachers?

That's stupid and painfully ignorant. Most teachers succeeded in their field. All graduate school professors have time in the field as a business owner, executive or director. There are no grad profs lacking real world success.

You've turned a glib shot at teachers (among the most respected professions) into an anti intellectual pile of ****. Big surprise.
 
That's stupid and painfully ignorant. Most teachers succeeded in their field. All graduate school professors have time in the field as a business owner, executive or director. There are no grad profs without real world success.

You've turned a glib shot at teachers (among the most respected professions) into an anti intellectual pile of ****. Big surprise.

If you say so.
 
Back
Top Bottom