• 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!

CO2 saturation and climate sensitivity

Jack Hays said:
Then you should stop posting what you don't understand.
Click to expand...

It's you who seems confused. As I said, it's the paper you cited, not I, that showed non-correlation between CO2 and temperature was true a long time ago. I don't suppose you bothered reading or trying to understand the paper, though, so I guess your confusion is an inevitable consequence.
 
Surface Detail said:
It's you who seems confused. As I said, it's the paper you cited, not I, that showed non-correlation between CO2 and temperature was true a long time ago. I don't suppose you bothered reading or trying to understand the paper, though, so I guess your confusion is an inevitable consequence.
Click to expand...

There's no confusion.
 
longview said:
Even the paper says the bands between 13.5 um and 16 um are saturated.
What the paper neglected to say was that the secondary bands have a much lower response.
While there may still be some response, it is an order of magnitude lower.
Click to expand...

For God's sake long... did you even read the study?

This is from the introduction:

More recently the saturation issue has been resurrected in attempts to deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change. Very clear explanations (e.g. by Archer, 2007; Pierrehumbert, 2011) have been given of the basic physics as to why these arguments are flawed. Here we show in detail how, although the very centre of the 15μm band does become saturated, greenhouse trapping by CO2 at other wavelengths is far from saturation and that, as its concentration exceeds approximately 800ppmv1, its effect actually increases at a rate faster than logarithmic.
Click to expand...

And from the conclusion:

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). This is the situation in the contemporary atmosphere, for which the concentration is 389ppmv and total RF about 38Wm–2. For higher concentrations, however, the rate of increase becomes supra-logarithmic. This is because, while the centre of the 15μm band becomes saturated, the band wings and, especially, the 10μm bands become dominant in determining the radiative effects – and these are nowhere near saturation.
Click to expand...

And the most important part:

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
Click to expand...
emphisis mine

Are you done making a fool of yourself yet?
 
Buzz said:
For God's sake long... did you even read the study?

<snip>

Are you done making a fool of yourself yet?
Click to expand...

OMG man... Are you done making a fool of yourself? Your highlighted part:

This is because, while the centre of the 15μm band becomes saturated, the band wings and, especially, the 10μm bands become dominant in determining the radiative effects – and these are nowhere near saturation.
​

You don't even comprehend is this is significant or not. It doesn't matter. It's insignificant. On the log graph, the peak of the 15 micron area is around the -3 mark, and the 10 micron area about the -7 area. This is a factor of 1,000! When plotted on a linear graph, it's significance is zero. Zip, zilch, nada...



Here is the power levels on a log[SUB]10[/SUB] scale with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O in the mix, using Spectral Calc at 4 km height, then with a linear scale:

NjGxcFu.png


Do you realize how foolish you make yourself to be every time you states your propaganda?

You need to learn what logs are in math.
 
Lord of Planar said:
OMG man... Are you done making a fool of yourself? Your highlighted part:

This is because, while the centre of the 15μm band becomes saturated, the band wings and, especially, the 10μm bands become dominant in determining the radiative effects – and these are nowhere near saturation.
​

You don't even comprehend is this is significant or not. It doesn't matter. It's insignificant. On the log graph, the peak of the 15 micron area is around the -3 mark, and the 10 micron area about the -7 area. This is a factor of 1,000! When plotted on a linear graph, it's significance is zero. Zip, zilch, nada...



Here is the power levels on a log[SUB]10[/SUB] scale with H[SUB]2[/SUB]O in the mix, using Spectral Calc at 4 km height, then with a linear scale:

NjGxcFu.png


Do you realize how foolish you make yourself to be every time you states your propaganda?

You need to learn what logs are in math.
Click to expand...

Again... I know what a logarithmic scale is. Do you know what the HITRAN database is and what it shows? It doesn't look like it to me.

HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular absorption database. HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...
HITRANonline

So your graph is not showing "power". It is showing absorption. They just call it intensity in the specracalc.com graphs.

You don't know what you are talking about. As usual.
 
Buzz said:
Again... I know what a logarithmic scale is. Do you know what the HITRAN database is and what it shows? It doesn't look like it to me.

HITRANonline

So your graph is not showing "power". It is showing absorption. They just call it intensity in the specracalc.com graphs.

You don't know what you are talking about. As usual.
Click to expand...

I understand absorption. It takes absorption to heat the gas and to re-emit. That's how greenhouse gasses work.

How did you fail to comprehend that? It is also reflective of the optical depth, or optical density. Similar sciences are why the solar spectrum at the higher frequencies dominate the ocean warming, but then if you claim to understand this more than I, then you would agree the sun is the primary factor of ocean warning.

Besides, that's all you have? I was prepared to counter something else, that someone who understood the power relationships would say. You obviously don't. That's OK, I don't expect any of the other Chicken Little's to understand either.

Hint.

Where is the saturation line vs. the power output around the 10 micron area...

Now if you want to have fun, how does it affect the solar energy in the 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, and 2.7 micron areas, where CO2 has even stronger absorption lines than the 10 micron area?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I understand absorption. It takes absorption to heat the gas and to re-emit. That's how greenhouse gasses work.
Click to expand...

No **** Sherlock! So, tell me... why were you calling absorption power? Have you ever seen any power measurements shown in increments of CM-1/CM? You obviously didn't really understand what the HITRAN database is showing.

Lord of Planar said:
How did you fail to comprehend that? It is also reflective of the optical depth, or optical density. Similar sciences are why the solar spectrum at the higher frequencies dominate the ocean warming, but then if you claim to understand this more than I, then you would agree the sun is the primary factor of ocean warning.
Click to expand...

Ocean warming?? Now you are just trying to change the subject.

Lord of Planar said:
Besides, that's all you have? I was prepared to counter something else, that someone who understood the power relationships would say. You obviously don't. That's OK, I don't expect any of the other Chicken Little's to understand either.
Click to expand...

Oh... I'm a Chicken Little am I? Your the one who ignored most of my arguments the last time I pointed out to you that the HITRAN data was about absorption and not power. And all you could do was call what I said gibberish and run away like a chicken.

Lord of Planar said:
Where is the saturation line vs. the power output around the 10 micron area...
Click to expand...

What the hell are you even talking about? This makes no sense at all.

Lord of Planar said:
Now if you want to have fun, how does it affect the solar energy in the 1.2, 1.4, 1.8, and 2.7 micron areas, where CO2 has even stronger absorption lines than the 10 micron area?
Click to expand...

WOW!! You are just losing it. Here is an illustration of the absorption bands of H2O and CO2:

CO2_H2O_absorption_atmospheric_gases_unique_pattern_energy_wavelengths_of_energy_transparent_to_.jpg
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

You don't know what you are talking about. As usual.

Or have you been drinking again?
 
Buzz said:
No **** Sherlock! So, tell me... why were you calling absorption power? Have you ever seen any power measurements shown in increments of CM-1/CM? You obviously didn't really understand what the HITRAN database is showing.



Ocean warming?? Now you are just trying to change the subject.



Oh... I'm a Chicken Little am I? Your the one who ignored most of my arguments the last time I pointed out to you that the HITRAN data was about absorption and not power. And all you could do was call what I said gibberish and run away like a chicken.



What the hell are you even talking about? This makes no sense at all.



WOW!! You are just losing it. Here is an illustration of the absorption bands of H2O and CO2:

View attachment 67270884
Radiative forcing - Wikipedia

You don't know what you are talking about. As usual.

Or have you been drinking again?
Click to expand...

Sorry, you are the one losing it. CO2 also absorbs some solar energy which peaks at a far higher wavelength. Your presented a absorption graph based on land based temperatures of around 288K instead of the sun's 5760K. I specifically said solar energy. Those four regions of CO2 absorption I stated, affect the incoming solar energy. As the CO2 in those regions increase, we have some cooling by them, because the do the opposite of the 15 micron region. The 15 micron region returns terrestrial energy back to the surface. The four regions I specified return solar IR back to space.

So...

What are you smoking?
 
As for my point of the 10 micron regions significance, this graph presented earlier comes from Gavin's blog:

CO2Abs4x.jpg
 
Lord of Planar said:
Sorry, you are the one losing it. CO2 also absorbs some solar energy which peaks at a far higher wavelength. Your presented a absorption graph based on land based temperatures of around 288K instead of the sun's 5760K. I specifically said solar energy. Those four regions of CO2 absorption I stated, affect the incoming solar energy. As the CO2 in those regions increase, we have some cooling by them, because the do the opposite of the 15 micron region. The 15 micron region returns terrestrial energy back to the surface. The four regions I specified return solar IR back to space.
Click to expand...

Oh... so all that BS was just another attempt to change the subject.

And after checking your claim that CO2 absorbs incoming solar IR differently then outgoing longwave IR seams to be just more BS. Sure... there are some bands in the range of the numbers you cited but you obviously were depending on that failing memory of yours because they were off a bit. There was nothing wrong with the illustration I provided. And I see no evidence that these absorption bands have a cooling effect on the Earth. Remember that CO2 in these bands causes absorption of IR energy and not reflectance like a cloud would provide.

Lord of Planar said:
As for my point of the 10 micron regions significance, this graph presented earlier comes from Gavin's blog:

CO2Abs4x.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes... I know what and where it came from. It is the graph where you and your fellow denialists first mistook absorption for power.

You don't know what you're talking about. As usual.
 
Buzz said:
Oh... so all that BS was just another attempt to change the subject.

And after checking your claim that CO2 absorbs incoming solar IR differently then outgoing longwave IR seams to be just more BS. Sure... there are some bands in the range of the numbers you cited but you obviously were depending on that failing memory of yours because they were off a bit. There was nothing wrong with the illustration I provided. And I see no evidence that these absorption bands have a cooling effect on the Earth. Remember that CO2 in these bands causes absorption of IR energy and not reflectance like a cloud would provide.



Yes... I know what and where it came from. It is the graph where you and your fellow denialists first mistook absorption for power.

You don't know what you're talking about. As usual.
Click to expand...

Power absorbed is power released.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Power absorbed is power released.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there is no 1000X difference in power between the different wavelengths like you were incorrectly saying. I doubt there is even a 10x difference.

You need to face the facts Lord... you have gone and made a fool of yourself again.

And Longview has done the same but far worse. He has cut and pasted a graph of the change in IR flux of the Earth if all CO2 could be removed from the atmosphere and claimed it would cause the most warming. He also claimed that adding 32X more CO2 than now would cause cooling. This is just obviously wrong! He needs to admit his mistakes or accept the fact that he has completely discredited himself forever. At least I will never let him forget about it as long as I am posting here.

Just like I keep pointing out that many of your pet theories are unproven and highly speculative. Or even mostly disproven like your theory that UHI(urban heat island) is biasing the temp record. This has been looked at and studied several times and all the results I have seen say you are wrong.
 
Buzz said:
For God's sake long... did you even read the study?

This is from the introduction:



And from the conclusion:



And the most important part:


emphisis mine

Are you done making a fool of yourself yet?
Click to expand...

The text is clear the vast bulk of the forcing from added CO2 is centered on the 15 um band, which you just quoted as saturated,
there are other CO2 bands, but they are already absorbed by H20 or O2.
 
Buzz said:
Yes, but there is no 1000X difference in power between the different wavelengths like you were incorrectly saying. I doubt there is even a 10x difference.

You need to face the facts Lord... you have gone and made a fool of yourself again.

And Longview has done the same but far worse. He has cut and pasted a graph of the change in IR flux of the Earth if all CO2 could be removed from the atmosphere and claimed it would cause the most warming. He also claimed that adding 32X more CO2 than now would cause cooling. This is just obviously wrong! He needs to admit his mistakes or accept the fact that he has completely discredited himself forever. At least I will never let him forget about it as long as I am posting here.

Just like I keep pointing out that many of your pet theories are unproven and highly speculative. Or even mostly disproven like your theory that UHI(urban heat island) is biasing the temp record. This has been looked at and studied several times and all the results I have seen say you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Actually you did not read the graph correctly!
It read strange because they baselined on a CO2 level of 389 ppm as 1XCO2,
so the reading "radiative flux difference" was as CO2 increased form 0XCO2 to 1XCO2, and for 1XCO2 to 2XCO2, ect.
The positive numbers are positive forcing.
CO2 is mostly saturated in the 13.5 to 16 um band where most of the CO2 greenhouse forcing occurs, what remains,
while not zero, is many times less than what has already occurred!
 
longview said:
The text is clear the vast bulk of the forcing from added CO2 is centered on the 15 um band, which you just quoted as saturated,
there are other CO2 bands, but they are already absorbed by H20 or O2.
Click to expand...

OMG!!

Centered does not mean all.

And the study directly addresses the other gases and it doesn't show that all the other CO2 bands are adsorbed by H2O and O2.

You are literally making **** up.

And if the Text is so clear then why can't you back up anything you are saying with any quotes? You have quoted the conclusion of the article exactly once and then immediately blew it off as subjective. You then continued to lie about the study several times and haven't quoted anything since!!

longview said:
Actually you did not read the graph correctly!
It read strange because they baselined on a CO2 level of 389 ppm as 1XCO2,
so the reading "radiative flux difference" was as CO2 increased form 0XCO2 to 1XCO2, and for 1XCO2 to 2XCO2, ect.
The positive numbers are positive forcing.
CO2 is mostly saturated in the 13.5 to 16 um band where most of the CO2 greenhouse forcing occurs, what remains,
while not zero, is many times less than what has already occurred!
Click to expand...

This is just more of the same bull **** you keep repeating without any back up what so ever. Quote the part of the text that says this or just give up. I have provided numerous quotes. Why can't you? It is because the study doesn't say what you claim it does.

Seriously dude... if the text is so clear than quote it!!
 
[h=2]Scientists Document A DECLINE In Overall Greenhouse Effect Forcing From 1985-2014[/h]By Kenneth Richard on 30. December 2019
[h=4]CO2 concentrations rose from 345 ppm to 398 ppm in the 29 years from 1985 to 2014. Mainstream scientists sympathetic to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm have nonetheless reported the overall greenhouse effect forcing has been flat to declining throughout this period.[/h]1. Cess and Udelhofen, 2003 Due to the downward trend in cloud cover, absorbed shortwave radiation increased and the overall greenhouse effect’s forcing influence declined from 1985-1999. The authors consider these trends to be driven by natural variability.
Greenhouse-Effect-Hiatus-Decline-1985-99-Cess-Udelhofen-2003.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Cess and Udelhofen, 2003[/h]2. Song et al., 2016 The overall greenhouse effect went on “hiatus” from 1992-2014, with the combined forcing effects of water vapor, cloud, and CO2 declining by -0.04 W/m² per year (-0.4 W/m² per decade) during this interval. Again, the main reason for the declining greenhouse effect trend was the downward trend in cloud cover.
A-Hiatus-of-the-Greenhouse-Effect-Song-Wang-and-Tang-2016.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Song et al., 2016[/h]3. Kato et al., 2018 Downward longwave radiation (DLR), or the overall greenhouse effect, responds to variability in water vapor and cloud. CO2 isn’t mentioned in the paper as a factor influencing DLR. Total DLR was negative (-0.2 W/m²) during this decade, insinuating rising CO2 had no net warming climate impact. In contrast, downward shortwave forcing increased by +2.2 W/m² per decade from 1986-2000 and by +1.3 W/m² from 2005-2014. These positive shortwave absorption trends explain the warming during this period.
Shortwave-vs-Longwave-forcing-2005-2014-uncertainty-Kato-2018.jpg

[h=6]Image Source: Kato et al., 2018[/h]
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Greenland Ice Core CO2 Concentrations Deserve Reconsideration[/h][FONT=&quot]Guest post by Renee Hannon IntroductionIce cores datasets are important tools when reconstructing Earth’s paleoclimate. Antarctic ice core data are routinely used as proxies for past CO2 concentrations. This is because twenty years ago scientists theorized Greenland ice core CO2 data was unreliable since CO2 trapped in air bubbles had potentially been altered by in-situ…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
longview said:
I went looking for the earliest source of Earth being 33°C warmer than it would
be if the atmosphere were transparent. It looks like Arrhenius first mentioned
the Earth average temperature was 15 °C in 1896.
Along the way I found that Knut Ångström had challenged Arrhenius's findings of climate sensitivity,in 1900,
saying that CO2 has a greenhouse effect at lower levels, but quickly becomes saturated.
Ångström's findings in turned were challenged by the alarmist blog real climate.
A Saturated Gassy Argument << RealClimate
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument-part-ii
Where this gets interesting, is if we evaluate what data we can extract from the realclimate graph.
TransLongPaths.jpg

While they did not link to any numerical data, the graph roughly says that at 1XCO2
between .661 and .664% of the of the transmission passes.
For 2XCO2 between .636 and .639% of the light transmitted passes.
The greenhouse warming of 33°C is based on an energy imbalance of 150 Wm-2,
of this 150 Wm-2 up to 26%, or 39 Wm-2 is attributed to CO2.
If we convert the above percentages to changes in energy imbalance,
we see that doubling the CO2 level, will add an imbalance of between
.86 and 1.1 Wm-2. This amount from an alarmist blog site is much lower
than the predicted amount of forcing of 3.71 Wm-2.
Click to expand...

I don't even understand whatever the chart and article are trying to say. I do know that a common sense review of the history and science of the troposphere show me that there's nothing there. It's all bullsh*t - propaganda so that the globalists can use energy to control the populace. via carbon credits. They tried it and failed in the 80's, but never gave up.
Don't believe me - check out the failed Chicago and California Carbon Exchanges. Take a look at the failures and refinements the "climate change" process has gone through - from global warming to global cooling and so on. This crap has been going on for the past 40 years and all that we have are the same failed liars and the same fake news screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling"

I'm so sick of the lies they are feeding us with the caveat that we are all incapable of understanding the complexities involved in recognizing that an inert, non-toxic gas that comprises .0004 of the total atmosphere is dangerous to us and to the Earth because of man made emissions whose impact can't be effectively measured.

There are people out there who trust the media to tell them the truth and to expose the lies - when in fact, the media are the problem.

I look at the antics of the Democrat politicians as they impeach the President and promise to give everything to everybody without consequence - at except for the immediate need to ration energy usage to all people everywhere - excepting of couirse the elitists who are pushing this trash and who "need" their perqs because they are so important.

I pray that the adults take over at some point and send Pelosi and her congressional coven to the funny farm or maybe to Canada.
 
iluvTrump said:
I don't even understand whatever the chart and article are trying to say. I do know that a common sense review of the history and science of the troposphere show me that there's nothing there. It's all bullsh*t - propaganda so that the globalists can use energy to control the populace. via carbon credits. They tried it and failed in the 80's, but never gave up.
Don't believe me - check out the failed Chicago and California Carbon Exchanges. Take a look at the failures and refinements the "climate change" process has gone through - from global warming to global cooling and so on. This crap has been going on for the past 40 years and all that we have are the same failed liars and the same fake news screaming "the sky is falling, the sky is falling"

I'm so sick of the lies they are feeding us with the caveat that we are all incapable of understanding the complexities involved in recognizing that an inert, non-toxic gas that comprises .0004 of the total atmosphere is dangerous to us and to the Earth because of man made emissions whose impact can't be effectively measured.

There are people out there who trust the media to tell them the truth and to expose the lies - when in fact, the media are the problem.

I look at the antics of the Democrat politicians as they impeach the President and promise to give everything to everybody without consequence - at except for the immediate need to ration energy usage to all people everywhere - excepting of couirse the elitists who are pushing this trash and who "need" their perqs because they are so important.

I pray that the adults take over at some point and send Pelosi and her congressional coven to the funny farm or maybe to Canada.
Click to expand...
The chart is valid based on the input assumptions, but more importantly shows that added CO2 from this point will have much less effect than earlier CO2 level changes.
Look at the graph from the perspective that it took 8.18 doubling s of CO2 to reach 1XCO2 at 280 ppm.
Also CO2's active range is not 10 to 22um, but rather a much tighter 13 to 17 um.
 
As a followup on an earlier idea I was looking at NOAA's,
Table 2. Global Radiative Forcing, CO2-equivalent mixing ratio
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
While the table only goes back to 1979, I was interested in what the CO2-eq would be in 1950.
Figure 5 is a graph showing CO2-eq going back to 1750, and 1950 looks like ~325 ppm.
The GISS shows the pre1900 average is -.20619C and the decade ending at 1950 average was .045C, a delta of .251C.
The average of the decade ending in 2018 of the GISS is .728C. (2018 because that is the last NOAA year for CO2-eq)
Total warming above the pre 1900 average, .934C
Warming between pre 1900 average to 1950, .251C
Warming from 1950 to 2018, .683C
Forcing warming from increases in all greenhouse gasses since 1950,
(5.35 X ln(496/325) X .3)=.678C, well within the GISS's error margin of ±0.05°C.

The bottom line is that simple greenhouse gas forcing, accounts for 100% of the observed warming
without any feedbacks, but I would like to consider the feedbacks for a second.
Were the 2XCO2 ECS actually 3°C it would require a feedback factor of 2.72, to increase the 2XCO2 forcing
warming of 1.1°C to the ECS level of 3°C.
We see in the record that we already had some warming by 1950, of .251°C,
and James Hansen has a published paper stating that 60% of the equalization will be complete within 25 to 50 years.
It has been 70 years since 1950, so surly we should see that 60% of that feedback factor.
So .251°C X 2.72 X .6= .409°C, yet the difference between the simple forcing warming and the actual warming is nearly ZERO.
The empirical support for the high level feedbacks, simply does not exists.
 
longview said:
As a followup on an earlier idea I was looking at NOAA's,
Table 2. Global Radiative Forcing, CO2-equivalent mixing ratio
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Division - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
While the table only goes back to 1979, I was interested in what the CO2-eq would be in 1950.
Figure 5 is a graph showing CO2-eq going back to 1750, and 1950 looks like ~325 ppm.
The GISS shows the pre1900 average is -.20619C and the decade ending at 1950 average was .045C, a delta of .251C.
The average of the decade ending in 2018 of the GISS is .728C. (2018 because that is the last NOAA year for CO2-eq)
Total warming above the pre 1900 average, .934C
Warming between pre 1900 average to 1950, .251C
Warming from 1950 to 2018, .683C
Forcing warming from increases in all greenhouse gasses since 1950,
(5.35 X ln(496/325) X .3)=.678C, well within the GISS's error margin of ±0.05°C.

The bottom line is that simple greenhouse gas forcing, accounts for 100% of the observed warming
without any feedbacks, but I would like to consider the feedbacks for a second.
Were the 2XCO2 ECS actually 3°C it would require a feedback factor of 2.72, to increase the 2XCO2 forcing
warming of 1.1°C to the ECS level of 3°C.
We see in the record that we already had some warming by 1950, of .251°C,
and James Hansen has a published paper stating that 60% of the equalization will be complete within 25 to 50 years.
It has been 70 years since 1950, so surly we should see that 60% of that feedback factor.
So .251°C X 2.72 X .6= .409°C, yet the difference between the simple forcing warming and the actual warming is nearly ZERO.
The empirical support for the high level feedbacks, simply does not exists.
Click to expand...

Gotta link for Hansen's paper? I have a strong suspicion that long is mischaracterizing his paper again?
 
Buzz said:
Gotta link for Hansen's paper? I have a strong suspicion that long is mischaracterizing his paper again?
Click to expand...
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_ha00110y.pdf
Evidence from Earth_s history (3–6)and climate models (7) suggests that climate sensitivity is 0.75 ±.25-C per W/m2,
implying that 25 to 50 years are needed for Earth_s surface temperature to reach 60% of its equilibrium response (1).
Click to expand...
Now Hansen is basing that on his expectation that climate sensitivity for added CO2 has a fully equalized level of 0.75 ±.25-C per W/m2,
meaning the difference between the ACS straight forcing number of .3 C per W/m2, is all feedback.
The latency time is also longer because he says,
The lag in the climate response to a forcingis a sensitive function of equilibrium climatesensitivity, varying approximately as the squareof the sensitivity (1), and it depends on therate of heat exchange between the ocean_s surface mixed layer and the deeper ocean (2–4).The lag could be as short as a decade, if climate sensitivity is as small as 0.25-C per W/m2 of forcing, but it is a century or longer if climate sensitivity is 1-C per W/m2or larger
Click to expand...
The bottom line is that As cited Hansen's paper says that 60% of the equilibrium response should be realized in 25 to 50 years.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]Bad news for climate alarmists: global carbon dioxide emissions flatlined in 2019[/h][FONT=&quot]From the inconvenient data department and the IEA comes this press release. Despite widespread expectations of another increase, global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions stopped growing in 2019, according to IEA data released today. After two years of growth, global emissions were unchanged at 33 gigatonnes in 2019 even as the world economy expanded by 2.9%. This was…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom