March In Like a Lamb

[Buzz]

If you want to say it has warmed, then you compare it to earlier warm periods.
Almost everyone acknowledges that the 1930's was a very warm period.

The 1930s was partly caused by extensive land-use changes that snowballed into a localized ecological disaster. And we realized what we had done and were able get things relatively back to normal. Cherry-picking that timeframe is just intellectually dishonest no matter how much you rationalize it.

 

[zincwarrior]

At least in the mid Atlantic, does that mean that it goes out like a lion?

Its 90 here. Thats 20 degrees above normal.

 

[Queen Margo]

Yes, that's the point. It's not supposed to be warm in MO in the winter. And we're not supposed to get half a year's snow in three days.



Two years in a row they'll be skiing on the 4th of July. Two years prior, the record was broken and then matched with 22 days over 100 degrees. All the heat records for consecutive days over 80, 90 and 100 have been set since the late 80's. A tropical storm hit the Black Rock. The valley filled with smoke three summers in a row. This is the point. Things just ain't right.

I guess global warming is working out for me.

 

[Michael Cole]

I guess global warming is working out for me.

Enjoy the moment. It's really not kind.

 

[longview]

Just because a warming planet radiates more energy out into space does not mean that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas. This is just dumb.

Wrong! If it didn’t work this way that the earth wouldn’t ever be able to return to equilibrium.

You clearly don’t understand how this works

What you refuse to see is that the forcing equation already includes the Planck's law radiation.
That is partially why forcing is on a natural log curve, added CO2 becomes less effective as the level increases.
This is why the forcing for 5.35 X ln(200/100) =3.708 W m-2 is greater than the same 100 ppm increase between
200 and 300 ppm, 5.35 X ln(300/200)=2.169 W m-2 .
What cannot happen is the forcing go negative, while the CO2 level is increasing.
No combination of 5.35 X ln( N+X/N) will produce a negative number.
Think about it for just a second, if the Planck's law radiation, increased faster than the forcing, then
added CO2 would cause a negative energy imbalance, i.e. cooling.

 

[longview]

The 1930s was partly caused by extensive land-use changes that snowballed into a localized ecological disaster. And we realized what we had done and were able get things relatively back to normal. Cherry-picking that timeframe is just intellectually dishonest no matter how much you rationalize it.

Regardless of the cause the 1930's were a hot period, if you want to say we are hot now, the question is relative to when.

 

[Helix]

Check your own location, NOAA is fully on board with AGW, why would they lie about the observed data.
I look at the summers of my teens (Early 1970's) and the big difference is nighttime lows not going as low.
This is also reflected in the national records. most of the people saying the highs are much higher as seeing
a result of aging and heat island effect.

My experience is different than yours.

 

[longview]

My experience is different than yours.

I do not think so, it seems hotter to me also, but I have to follow the data.
It warmed quite a bit in evening lows, and just a little in daily highs.
There is a very large difference between the evening lows about 72F of my youth, and the lows of about 79 F now.

 

[Glitch]

Yes, that's the point. It's not supposed to be warm in MO in the winter. And we're not supposed to get half a year's snow in three days.



Two years in a row they'll be skiing on the 4th of July. Two years prior, the record was broken and then matched with 22 days over 100 degrees. All the heat records for consecutive days over 80, 90 and 100 have been set since the late 80's. A tropical storm hit the Black Rock. The valley filled with smoke three summers in a row. This is the point. Things just ain't right.

You are mistaken. It always has been warm with mild Winters in Missouri, and they do indeed know what it is like to get two-thirds of their annual snowfall within 24 hours.

It also demonstrates my point that El Nino and La Nina years effect the western US more than they effect States east of the Rocky mountains. I-80 is closed specifically because of the additional snowfall that resulted from the El Nino season over Pacific. During La Nina years you will experience year-long droughts. These effects are amplified by the presence of the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountain ranges. What little moisture that manages to slip over those mountains gets dumped just before the Rocky mountains as it travels east. By the time those winds reach the leeward side of the Rocky mountains they are bone dry and cold. The effect of El Nino is gone.

Missouri's climate is governed more by the winds coming up from the Gulf of Mexico. When those warm moist winds from the Gulf of Mexico collide with the dry cold winds coming from over the Rocky mountains, that is when you get massive thunder storms and lots of tornadoes. You would not want to be in Missouri on such days.

FYI: Missouri's record low temperature is -40°F (-40°C) established February 13, 1905. Missouri's record high temperature is 118°F (47.8°C) established on July 14, 1954. Missouri's maximum snow depth was 36" established March 20, 1960, and they received 24" of snowfall within 24 hours on February 25, 1979.

Source:

State Climate Extremes Committee (SCEC) | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

The State Climate Extremes Committee (SCEC) was created in 2006 in response to the need for proper and comprehensive evaluation of meteorological observations which may have tied or exceeded existing statewide all-time record values.

www.ncei.noaa.gov

 

[Queen Margo]

Enjoy the moment. It's really not kind.

Neither is calling Trump supporters names.

 

[Buzz]

What you refuse to see is that the forcing equation already includes the Planck's law radiation.

You keep saying that but in all of my almost 19 years of learning about the science of climate change, I have never seen anything that says this. How about something that backs this up other than just your say so.

That is partially why forcing is on a natural log curve, added CO2 becomes less effective as the level increases.
This is why the forcing for 5.35 X ln(200/100) =3.708 W m-2 is greater than the same 100 ppm increase between
200 and 300 ppm, 5.35 X ln(300/200)=2.169 W m-2 .

Prove it. Cite someone or something that says this and prove that you are not just making shit up again.

What cannot happen is the forcing go negative, while the CO2 level is increasing.
No combination of 5.35 X ln( N+X/N) will produce a negative number.

Nobody is saying that CO2 forcing is going negative. As a matter of fact the study you keep citing says it is still positive. It also says that it is the warming of the planet that is causing the negative forcing. Why do you keep ignoring large portions of that study?

Think about it for just a second, if the Planck's law radiation, increased faster than the forcing, then
added CO2 would cause a negative energy imbalance, i.e. cooling.

Why would the radiation increase faster than the forcing? What you seem to not want to acknowledge is the indirect warming caused by the feedbacks. That’s why most scientists think that increasing GHGs are going to continue to cause more warming even though the direct forcing decreases as the levels increase.

When are you going to quit misrepresenting the science of climate change?

 

[longview]

You keep saying that but in all of my almost 19 years of learning about the science of climate change, I have never seen anything that says this. How about something that backs this up other than just your say so.

Prove it. Cite someone or something that says this and prove that you are not just making shit up again.

You should read more!
While I am loathed to quote Skeptical Science, here we go.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect

The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively. So the greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer - like a blanket conserving body heat - and voila, you have global warming.

This describes how the warming is because the greenhouse gases do not allow Earth to shed heat effectively, (Longwave radiation)
but the upper limit of this is if no outbound longwave radiation were restricted. The system cannot produce additional heat to
radiate heat beyond what was restricted, they are part and parcel of the of the same heat.

Nobody is saying that CO2 forcing is going negative. As a matter of fact the study you keep citing says it is still positive. It also says that it is the warming of the planet that is causing the negative forcing. Why do you keep ignoring large portions of that study?

The CERES satellite data is saying exactly that.
Between 2002 and 2020 the CO2 level increased from 373.48 ppm to 414.21 ppm.
This increase would require a DECREASE in the outgoing longwave radiation od 5.35 X ln(414.21/373.48) = -0.55 W m-2.
The observed INCREASE in OLR was +0.432 W m-2.
If you want to talk about downward longwave radiation the signs would swap, because they are opposite sides of the same coin.

Why would the radiation increase faster than the forcing? What you seem to not want to acknowledge is the indirect warming caused by the feedbacks. That’s why most scientists think that increasing GHGs are going to continue to cause more warming even though the direct forcing decreases as the levels increase.

Again feedbacks are in response to a warming perturbation. In this case, because the added CO2 between 2002 and 2020, caused less than zero
energy imbalance, they cannot cause any warming, if all the warming we are seeing is feedback from some past warming perturbation,
then it will come to an end.

When are you going to quit misrepresenting the science of climate change?

Simply because you do not understand the science, does not mean it is misrepresented!

 

[Argent]

In my area of Oregon, March has DID. Yesterday in a span of 20 minutes we had rain, sleet, hail, snow, sun and it repeated at that interval all day but mostly we're getting the rain that is California's snow. Two weeks ago we had mild spring temps.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

55 degrees here today..and yet again we suppose to get pouring rain later...years ago these winter coastal storms use to be snow, now they are rain.. I'm sitting outside, no winter coat.. Amazing for early March..

 

[Buzz]

You should read more!
While I am loathed to quote Skeptical Science, here we go.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect

This describes how the warming is because the greenhouse gases do not allow Earth to shed heat effectively, (Longwave radiation)
but the upper limit of this is if no outbound longwave radiation were restricted. The system cannot produce additional heat to
radiate heat beyond what was restricted, they are part and parcel of the of the same heat.


The CERES satellite data is saying exactly that.
Between 2002 and 2020 the CO2 level increased from 373.48 ppm to 414.21 ppm.
This increase would require a DECREASE in the outgoing longwave radiation od 5.35 X ln(414.21/373.48) = -0.55 W m-2.
The observed INCREASE in OLR was +0.432 W m-2.
If you want to talk about downward longwave radiation the signs would swap, because they are opposite sides of the same coin.

Again feedbacks are in response to a warming perturbation. In this case, because the added CO2 between 2002 and 2020, caused less than zero
energy imbalance, they cannot cause any warming, if all the warming we are seeing is feedback from some past warming perturbation,
then it will come to an end.

Simply because you do not understand the science, does not mean it is misrepresented!

Whatever...

I knew you couldn't back up your BS about Planck's law being included in the CO2 forcing equation.

And I'm not going down another of your stupid rabbit holes again when I have debunked all of this stupidity several times already. Now if you or anyone else wants to see some of those debunkings, there are some here, here, and here.

 

[longview]

Whatever...

I knew you couldn't back up your BS about Planck's law being included in the CO2 forcing equation.

And I'm not going down another of your stupid rabbit holes again when I have debunked all of this stupidity several times already. Now if you or anyone else wants to see some of those debunkings, there are some here, here, and here.

Planck's law is basically that the warmer a body is the more it radiates.
and you have debunked nothing!
If the feedbacks were self amplifying, life would have never started on earth, the feedback require
an input warming perturbation!

But this brings up a more interesting question.
We often hear that Earth would be 33°C cooler than it is, if it did not have an atmosphere.
NASA Greenhouse Effect

Earth so amenable is its natural greenhouse effect, which maintains an average temperature of 15 °C (59 °F) .

Yet the moon receives almost the same energy as the earth, and has average temperature od -6 °C,
only 21°C less than Earth. (121°C + -133°C)/2 = -6 °C
NASA weather on the moon

The lunar exosphere is too skimpy to trap or spread the Sun’s energy, so differences between sunlit and shadowed areas on the Moon are extreme. Temperatures near the Moon’s equator can spike to 250°F (121°C) in daylight, then plummet after nightfall to -208°F (-133°C).

NASA Solar System Temperatures
NASA lists Earths average temperature as +15 °C.
I understand some have trouble with higher levels of math, but the difference between -6°C and 15°C is 21°C.
If the entire atmosphere, including greenhouse gases cause the Earth to be 21°C warmer than the moon (little to no atmosphere).
then which portion of that 21°C warming is a result of simply having an atmosphere vs having an
atmosphere that contains some greenhouse gases?

 

[Buzz]

Planck's law is basically that the warmer a body is the more it radiates.

I know what Planck’s law is. And you can’t show that it is actually included in the CO2 forcing equation. It looks to me like that is just more of your made up BS.

and you have debunked nothing!

Yes, I have. Those links contain both quotes and data taken directly from that study that refutes your often repeated lie that CO2 is no longer causing warming. And you are completely unable to address those quotes and data. All you can do is repeatedly quote that one data point and pretend that CO2 is the only factor that determines the amount of infrared radiation that escapes out into space.

If the feedbacks were self amplifying, life would have never started on earth, the feedback require
an input warming perturbation!

My God man… are you really unable to understand how forcings and feedbacks work? Let me explain it for everyone…

The warm forcing from CO2 and other greenhouse gases warm the planet then things like snow and ice melt which increase the amount of sunlight that the earth absorbs which melts more snow and ice which further increases the amount of heat the earth absorbs. So, there are, in fact, self amplifying feedbacks. And that is one reason why the absorbed solar radiation is increasing. The study you keep mentioning explicitly states this.

But this brings up a more interesting question.
We often hear that Earth would be 33°C cooler than it is, if it did not have an atmosphere.
NASA Greenhouse Effect

Yet the moon receives almost the same energy as the earth, and has average temperature od -6 °C,
only 21°C less than Earth. (121°C + -133°C)/2 = -6 °C
NASA weather on the moon

NASA Solar System Temperatures
NASA lists Earths average temperature as +15 °C.
I understand some have trouble with higher levels of math, but the difference between -6°C and 15°C is 21°C.
If the entire atmosphere, including greenhouse gases cause the Earth to be 21°C warmer than the moon (little to no atmosphere).
then which portion of that 21°C warming is a result of simply having an atmosphere vs having an
atmosphere that contains some greenhouse gases?

Here we go again. I can always tell when you can’t refute what I’m saying because you resort to changing the subject and digging a new rabbit hole of obfuscation. Sorry, not going down there again.

 

[longview]

I know what Planck’s law is. And you can’t show that it is actually included in the CO2 forcing equation. It looks to me like that is just more of your made up BS.

Yes, I have. Those links contain both quotes and data taken directly from that study that refutes your often repeated lie that CO2 is no longer causing warming. And you are completely unable to address those quotes and data. All you can do is repeatedly quote that one data point and pretend that CO2 is the only factor that determines the amount of infrared radiation that escapes out into space.

My God man… are you really unable to understand how forcings and feedbacks work? Let me explain it for everyone…

The warm forcing from CO2 and other greenhouse gases warm the planet then things like snow and ice melt which increase the amount of sunlight that the earth absorbs which melts more snow and ice which further increases the amount of heat the earth absorbs. So, there are, in fact, self amplifying feedbacks. And that is one reason why the absorbed solar radiation is increasing. The study you keep mentioning explicitly states this.

Here we go again. I can always tell when you can’t refute what I’m saying because you resort to changing the subject and digging a new rabbit hole of obfuscation. Sorry, not going down there again.

Except I did show that Planck's law is included in the forcing formula.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect

The sun warms the Earth. The Earth and its atmosphere radiate heat away into space. They radiate most of the heat that is received from the sun, so the average temperature of the Earth stays more or less constant. Greenhouse gases trap some of the escaping heat closer to the Earth's surface, making it harder for it to shed that heat, so the Earth warms up in order to radiate the heat more effectively.

Planck's law is what determines when the earth is at an energy equilibrium, when the
amount radiating from the warmer body become equal to the input energy.
When there is no energy imbalance, there is no warming.
While we still have an energy imbalance due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation, the supposed driver, greenhouse gases are subtracting from the energy imbalance, not adding to it!

Actually the feedbacks on a sphere heated from one side would be self attenuating.
On the edges of the sphere, the angle of light incidence is much lower.
On the Arctic ocean for example, the difference in reflectivity between ice and water, would be almost nothing.
On June 21, the Sum climbs to it's peak in the Arctic of 23.5°, but the angle of total reflection for air to water is about 48°,
meaning everything is reflected from ether ice or water.
Were Earth to have a self amplifying feedback without a limit, it would never have cooled down from earlier interglacial periods.

 

[Buzz]

Except I did show that Planck's law is included in the forcing formula.

No, you didn’t.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the greenhouse effect

Planck's law is what determines when the earth is at an energy equilibrium, when the
amount radiating from the warmer body become equal to the input energy.
When there is no energy imbalance, there is no warming.
While we still have an energy imbalance due to an increase in absorbed solar radiation, the supposed driver, greenhouse gases are subtracting from the energy imbalance, not adding to it!

Neither your quote, nor the post it came from even mentions Planck’s law. And the rest of that doesn’t prove anything either.

Actually the feedbacks on a sphere heated from one side would be self attenuating.
On the edges of the sphere, the angle of light incidence is much lower.
On the Arctic ocean for example, the difference in reflectivity between ice and water, would be almost nothing.
On June 21, the Sum climbs to it's peak in the Arctic of 23.5°, but the angle of total reflection for air to water is about 48°,
meaning everything is reflected from ether ice or water.
Were Earth to have a self amplifying feedback without a limit, it would never have cooled down from earlier interglacial periods.

Do you think that snow and ice only exist in the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica? And do you think that water in the Arctic oceans is always perfectly flat? What about land that that is exposed after its snow and ice has melted off? Obviously everything is not all reflected. This is nothing but another stupid rabbit hole.

 

[longview]

No, you didn’t.

Neither your quote, nor the post it came from even mentions Planck’s law. And the rest of that doesn’t prove anything either.

Do you think that snow and ice only exist in the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica? And do you think that water in the Arctic oceans is always perfectly flat? What about land that that is exposed after its snow and ice has melted off? Obviously everything is not all reflected. This is nothing but another stupid rabbit hole.

Planck's law is what defines the outbound longwave radiation for the Earth.
All a greenhouse gas could do is to reduce the flow. The reduced flow would require Earth to warm to come back into
balance. The decrease flow can never be greater than the total flow.

 

[Buzz]

Planck's law is what defines the outbound longwave radiation for the Earth.

Obviously. But that fact doesn’t prove that CO2s forcing equation includes Planck’s law.

All a greenhouse gas could do is to reduce the flow.

No duh. And that is what CO2 is still doing.

The reduced flow would require Earth to warm to come back into balance.

Also obvious.

The decrease flow can never be greater than the total flow.

And nobody is saying that it is other than you. Even the study you got the Ceres data from doesn’t say that. It says that the increase in temperatures is what is causing the increase in outgoing radiation. When are you going to stop ignoring what that study says? Is your denialist religion so important that you just can’t be honest?

 

[longview]

Obviously. But that fact doesn’t prove that CO2s forcing equation includes Planck’s law.

No duh. And that is what CO2 is still doing.

Also obvious.

And nobody is saying that it is other than you. Even the study you got the Ceres data from doesn’t say that. It says that the increase in temperatures is what is causing the increase in outgoing radiation. When are you going to stop ignoring what that study says? Is your denialist religion so important that you just can’t be honest?

Why do you think the CO2 forcing equation is on a natural log curve?
It is because as the planet warms, it becomes a more effective radiator, because of Planck's law.

If I have a flow of water in a stream bed, how much can I reduce the flow?
The answer is the greatest reduction I can cause is to stop the flow, a 100% reduction.
The outbound longwave radiation cannot exceed the Planck's curve, all we can do is reduce the area under the Planck's curve.
Notice how in the areas of minimal absorption it gets right up to the Planck's curve, but not beyond it.
All that added CO2 can do is reduce the flow below the Planck's curve.
The Greenhouse Effect, A Summary of Wijngaarden and Happer

 

[Buzz]

Why do you think the CO2 forcing equation is on a natural log curve?
It is because as the planet warms, it becomes a more effective radiator, because of Planck's law.

If I have a flow of water in a stream bed, how much can I reduce the flow?
The answer is the greatest reduction I can cause is to stop the flow, a 100% reduction.
The outbound longwave radiation cannot exceed the Planck's curve, all we can do is reduce the area under the Planck's curve.
Notice how in the areas of minimal absorption it gets right up to the Planck's curve, but not beyond it.
All that added CO2 can do is reduce the flow below the Planck's curve.
The Greenhouse Effect, A Summary of Wijngaarden and Happer
View attachment 67496979

Damn, long... this whole Planck's law thing is just another of your stupid rabbit holes.

Look at your graph! It says that "doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm results in added forcing of 3 W/m2". But you want everyone to believe, based on your flawed interpretation of this study, that rising CO2 is no longer causing warming.



This is just stupid no matter how you rationalize it. The fact of the matter is that that study directly refutes what you claim many times. All you can do is cherry-pick one data point and pretend that CO2 is the only determining factor to get the conclusion you want, when, in fact, there are many.

I'm done with this stupid debate for now. Just know that if you continue to push this denialist BS I will continue to call you out on it when I have time to waste.

 

[longview]

Damn, long... this whole Planck's law thing is just another of your stupid rabbit holes.

Look at your graph! It says that "doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm results in added forcing of 3 W/m2". But you want everyone to believe, based on your flawed interpretation of this study, that rising CO2 is no longer causing warming.



This is just stupid no matter how you rationalize it. The fact of the matter is that that study directly refutes what you claim many times. All you can do is cherry-pick one data point and pretend that CO2 is the only determining factor to get the conclusion you want, when, in fact, there are many.

I'm done with this stupid debate for now. Just know that if you continue to push this denialist BS I will continue to call you out on it when I have time to waste.

Buzz do you not understand the difference between hypothetical data and empirical data?
The graph is a result of a line by line HITRAN database study, (how in theory the atmosphere would respond.)
The CERES satellite data is a results of actually measuring the changes as the CO2 level increased. (How the atmosphere did respond.)

 

[Buzz]

Buzz do you not understand the difference between hypothetical data and empirical data?
The graph is a result of a line by line HITRAN database study, (how in theory the atmosphere would respond.)

I understand the difference just fine. But what, exactly, does this prove? Nothing. This is just another of your stupid rabbit holes.

The CERES satellite data is a results of actually measuring the changes as the CO2 level increased. (How the atmosphere did respond.)

It isn't just the change in CO2. There are several other factors. Like rising planetary temperatures. Your insistence on pretending that CO2 is the only factor is why your interpretation of the data is all wrong. It is also why you ignore most of the study except for just one data point.

Why can't you just stop lying about this?