March In Like a Lamb

[longview]

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

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?

Buzz the raising average temperature is part of the forcing equation.
The blue line in the graph is the Planck's line.

The blue curve is the flux with no GHGs in the atmosphere.

As you get warmer the wavelength gets shorter, and the central line simply moves further to the left.

 

[Buzz]

Buzz the raising average temperature is part of the forcing equation.
The blue line in the graph is the Planck's line.

As you get warmer the wavelength gets shorter, and the central line simply moves further to the left.

So what? None of this changes the fact that you are lying when you claim that rising GHGs are no longer warming the planet.

 

[bomberfox]

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.

Snow in Ohio now only lasts about 3-4 days

 

[longview]

So what? None of this changes the fact that you are lying when you claim that rising GHGs are no longer warming the planet.

I am not lying that is what the observed data is showing, CO2 added between 2002 and 2020, did not add to the energy imbalance,
so they could not have caused any warming, all the warming came from an increase in Absorbed Solar Radiation (Shortwave radiation).
Yes this could have resulted from earlier warming, but from what we can see, that is not added CO2.

 

[Buzz]

I am not lying that is what the observed data is showing, CO2 added between 2002 and 2020, did not add to the energy imbalance,
so they could not have caused any warming, all the warming came from an increase in Absorbed Solar Radiation (Shortwave radiation).
Yes this could have resulted from earlier warming, but from what we can see, that is not added CO2.

Yes... you are lying. The study you cite says that GHGs are still helping increase warming several times. Here is just one of those times:

We show that these two independent approaches yield a decadal increase in the rate of energy uptake by Earth from mid-2005 through mid-2019, which we attribute to decreased reflection of energy back into space by clouds and sea-ice and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases and water vapor.

When will you quit ignoring what the study says and stop lying about it?

 

[longview]

Yes... you are lying. The study you cite says that GHGs are still helping increase warming several times. Here is just one of those times:

When will you quit ignoring what the study says and stop lying about it?

That is what they say but not what the data says!
Greenhouse gases only work in the longwave spectrum, where the trend is moving in the opposite direction.

 

[Buzz]

That is what they say but not what the data says!

Oh... so the truth finally comes out!! You are well aware of the fact that what you keep repeating about the data in this study is directly contradictory to what the authors of this study say in it. No wonder you have always refused to address what the study actually concludes.

Greenhouse gases only work in the longwave spectrum,

This is not true. Greenhouse gases do have a small effect on shortwave radiation. You would know this if you read the study in question. But you refuse to read it all because you don't like its conclusions.

where the trend is moving in the opposite direction.

This would be true if GHGs were the only determining factor on how much OLR there is but it isn't. Your insistence on pretending that the increase in the temperature of the planet doesn't have anything to do with OLR is why you are wrong and why nobody should take anything you say seriously.

 

[longview]

Oh... so the truth finally comes out!! You are well aware of the fact that what you keep repeating about the data in this study is directly contradictory to what the authors of this study say in it. No wonder you have always refused to address what the study actually concludes.

This is not true. Greenhouse gases do have a small effect on shortwave radiation. You would know this if you read the study in question. But you refuse to read it all because you don't like its conclusions.

This would be true if GHGs were the only determining factor on how much OLR there is but it isn't. Your insistence on pretending that the increase in the temperature of the planet doesn't have anything to do with OLR is why you are wrong and why nobody should take anything you say seriously.

The data in the study absolutely shows that the increase in energy imbalance between 2002 and 2020 occurred
in the shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation(ASR) spectrum.
While they say t hey think the imbalance is from added greenhouse gases, that is their subjective opinion, not a description of the empirical data.

Quote the section of the study
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate
where they say greenhouse gases effect the shortwave radiation?
Or better still show what shortwave wavelengths are absorbed.
Keep in mind the definition of a greenhouse gas is that it is mostly transparent to shortwave radiation.

Buzz you do not understand that Planck radiation is completely tied up in this concept of AGW.
Positive Energy imbalance, forces surface warming to restore the balance, via increased Planck radiation!

 

[Buzz]

The data in the study absolutely shows that the increase in energy imbalance between 2002 and 2020 occurred
in the shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation(ASR) spectrum.
While they say t hey think the imbalance is from added greenhouse gases, that is their subjective opinion, not a description of the empirical data.

Quote the section of the study
Satellite and Ocean Data Reveal Marked Increase in Earth’s Heating Rate
where they say greenhouse gases effect the shortwave radiation?
Or better still show what shortwave wavelengths are absorbed.
Keep in mind the definition of a greenhouse gas is that it is mostly transparent to shortwave radiation.

Buzz you do not understand that Planck radiation is completely tied up in this concept of AGW.
Positive Energy imbalance, forces surface warming to restore the balance, via increased Planck radiation!

Whatever...

We have been over all this before numerous times and I am not going to repeat myself for the umpteenth time just so you can repeat the same denialist lies.

The fact of the matter is that the study backs up what I am saying and contradicts what you say.

Oh... and the next time you bring up this study and its associated data, it would be nice if you were honest about it and explained to everyone that your interpretation of the data and conclusions are completely contradictory to how the authors interpret the data and what their conclusions are. And then when you do I (and hopefully others) will point out that you are a known climate change denialist and that the authors are actual climate scientists who have had their conclusions peer-reviewed and published.

 

[longview]

Whatever...

We have been over all this before numerous times and I am not going to repeat myself for the umpteenth time just so you can repeat the same denialist lies.

The fact of the matter is that the study backs up what I am saying and contradicts what you say.

Oh... and the next time you bring up this study and its associated data, it would be nice if you were honest about it and explained to everyone that your interpretation of the data and conclusions are completely contradictory to how the authors interpret the data and what their conclusions are. And then when you do I (and hopefully others) will point out that you are a known climate change denialist and that the authors are actual climate scientists who have had their conclusions peer-reviewed and published.

I am not sure why you choose to lie!
In any study they have the data, and their opinions about the data.
In this study the data quite clearly shows,

3.2.

Attribution of EEI Trends

We consider CERES TOA EEI trends for 09/2002–03/2020 and examine the underlying contributions from different atmospheric and surface variables available over that time period. Trends are determined from a least squares regression fit to deseasonalized monthly anomalies with uncertainties given as 5%–95% con-fidence intervals.For this period, the observations show a trend in net downward radiation of 0.41 ± 0.22 W m−2 decade−1that is the result of the sum of a 0.65 ± 0.17 W m−2 decade−1 trend in absorbed solar radiation (ASR) and a −0.24 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 trend in downward radiation due to an increase in OLR (Figures 2a–2c). TOA fluxes are defined positive downwards so that a positive anomaly/trend corresponds to a heat gain and a negative anomaly corresponds to a heat loss. As such, emitted thermal radiation (ETR) is defined positive downward and is therefore equal to −OLR.

any opinions about that data is simply that opinions, they do not change the data!

 

[SuperDS77]

So, global warming picks and choose which states?

Yeah it was mild season in some part of the country. The climate alarmists seem to forget the notion of "averages".

 

[Buzz]

I am not sure why you choose to lie!
In any study they have the data, and their opinions about the data.
In this study the data quite clearly shows,

any opinions about that data is simply that opinions, they do not change the data!

I am not lying about anything. That is what you do.

Oh,... and you are cherry-picking one data point and ignoring all the other data.

 

[longview]

I am not lying about anything. That is what you do.

Oh,... and you are cherry-picking one data point and ignoring all the other data.

Buzz, the data is the data, do you think they recorded a,
−0.24 ± 0.13 W m−2 decade−1 trend in downward radiation due to an increase in OLR because they were cherry picking?