First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect

First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect at the Earth's surface
The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments at two sites operated by the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility. This research site is on the North Slope of Alaska near the town of Barrow. They also collected data from a site in Oklahoma. Credit: Jonathan Gero

Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at the Earth's surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth's surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet's energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature.

The results agree with theoretical predictions of the greenhouse effect due to human activity. The research also provides further confirmation that the calculations used in today's climate models are on track when it comes to representing the impact of CO2.

The scientists measured 's contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet's is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when the Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as back to space. It can be measured at the Earth's surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.

They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.

"We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming ," says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.

These graphs show carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect at two locations on the Earth's surface. The first graph shows carbon dioxide radiative forcing measurements obtained at a research facility in Oklahoma. As the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (blue) increased from 2000 to the end of 2010, so did surface radiative forcing due to C02 (orange), and both quantities have upward trends. This means the Earth absorbed more energy from solar radiation than it emitted as heat back to space. The seasonal fluctuations in surface forcing are caused by plant-based photosynthetic activity. The second graph shows similar upward trends at a research facility on the North Slope of Alaska. Credit: Berkeley Lab
"Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the ," Feldman adds.

He conducted the research with fellow Berkeley Lab scientists Bill Collins and Margaret Torn, as well as Jonathan Gero of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Timothy Shippert of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, and Eli Mlawer of Atmospheric and Environmental Research.

The scientists used incredibly precise spectroscopic instruments operated by the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, a DOE Office of Science User Facility. These instruments, located at ARM research sites in Oklahoma and Alaska, measure thermal infrared energy that travels down through the atmosphere to the surface. They can detect the unique spectral signature of infrared energy from CO2.

Other instruments at the two locations detect the unique signatures of phenomena that can also emit infrared energy, such as clouds and water vapor. The combination of these measurements enabled the scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to CO2.

"We measured radiation in the form of infrared energy. Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements, such as a weather system moving through the area," says Feldman.

The result is two time-series from two very different locations. Each series spans from 2000 to the end of 2010, and includes 3300 measurements from Alaska and 8300 measurements from Oklahoma obtained on a near-daily basis.

Both series showed the same trend: atmospheric CO2 emitted an increasing amount of infrared energy, to the tune of 0.2 Watts per square meter per decade. This increase is about ten percent of the trend from all sources of infrared energy such as clouds and water vapor.

Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2 -attributed radiative forcing to fossil and fires.

The measurements also enabled the scientists to detect, for the first time, the influence of photosynthesis on the balance of energy at the surface. They found that CO2 -attributed dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air.


Explore further

Land use looms as large factor in global warming

More information: Nature DOI: 10.1038/nature14240
Journal information: Nature

Citation: First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect (2015, February 25) retrieved 24 June 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
113 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 25, 2015
!, 2, 3, 4 ............ where are you?
Denying the undeniable.
Like why the sky is blue or why prisms refract light - red, green blue violet.....

And so around the goldfish bowl they swim again trying to change the world to fit their beliefs.

Feb 25, 2015
red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet.

Feb 25, 2015
Lol speaking of "bowls", where's water prffffttt?

Feb 25, 2015
They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010.


The average TSI for Earth is ~1361 W/m^2, so how is .2 W/m^2 a decade is a cause for panic?

Feb 25, 2015
So where's the data on the percentage for error?

Feb 25, 2015
They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010.


The average TSI for Earth is ~1361 W/m^2, so how is .2 W/m^2 a decade is a cause for panic?


Panic? First of all, it's 0.2/decade, a cumulative effect. Secondly, this is only for the period of time under study. Third, it adds to the overall energy budget - as science has been saying for years now, the overall planetary energy budget is showing more energy coming in than what is going out. That's the whole premise of global warming scroof.

Feb 25, 2015

Panic? First of all, it's 0.2/decade, a cumulative effect. Secondly, this is only for the period of time under study. Third, it adds to the overall energy budget - as science has been saying for years now, the overall planetary energy budget is showing more energy coming in than what is going out. That's the whole premise of global warming scroof.


Still no evidence outside of a computer model.

Feb 25, 2015
So where's the data on the percentage for error?


It can be found at the link a the bottom of the article.

http://www.nature...240.html

Feb 25, 2015
The average TSI for Earth is ~1361 W/m^2, so how is .2 W/m^2 a decade is a cause for panic?

Scroof;

1366W/m^2 is insolation arriving at TOA - then you have to compute the amount absobed by the climate system of a rotating sphere, of which half is always receiving zero (apart from said back-radiated IR).
Comes out at ~340W/m^2.
Look it is going to be a small number, obviously, as even with a 40% increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times we've only seen an increase in forcing of around 1.9 W/m2. 0.2 W/m^2/decade sees around 3 W/m^2 by 2070, which equates to an expected value of 3.7W/m2 in RF for a doubling of CO2 sometime around then.
This finding agrees very well with IPCC estimates and what's important is the indisputable finding that CO2 gives a forcing in the real world that is demonstrable. Even though science knew that was the case, an instrument has now quantitatively measured it. And it agrees with empirical physics. As of course it must do.

Feb 25, 2015
If you read the actual article, they measured a wide variation in warming from .01 to .2 using a model which adjusted for H20 and other factors and than used a model to smooth the data and even than their final numbers,each site is different, have an error range of about 30 to 40 percent. Since the final number is from two models in sequence both untested by other studies the figures should be suspect until further notice. Look at the facts, they use 2000 and 2010 thereby ignoring 2013 and 2014 when it got colder with more CO2. Basically they used a tiny slice of time and pretend that slice which was a warming trend slice is everything. if they had got the same numbers when the arctic was cooling than the results would be better supported otherwise you stand a good chance of garbage in garbage out.

Feb 25, 2015
So where's the data on the percentage for error?


It can be found at the link a the bottom of the article.

http://www.nature...240.html


So 0.06 per year and 0.07 per decade. That's a huge margin of error for something that is claiming to be accurate for 0.2. That's greater than a 45% margin of error over one decade. For two decades it would be near 65-75% of a margin of error.

This is a garbage finding and isn't even relevant, as the chance for a calculation error alone is greater than the amount of potential measurement...

Feb 25, 2015
runrig: your comment above is hard to understand. Unless you explain yourself better, I'm just going to ignore it.

"They found that CO2 -attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air."

If "radiative forcing" dipped in the spring, then temperature fluctuations---puny as they might be---will be dependent on the length of winter and spring. It sure seems like the seasonal fluctuations will have a greater impact on the 'forcing' than the CO2.

Much ado about nothing.

Feb 25, 2015
a cumulative effect


Where is the precise data measuring heat radiating through the large 8-12 micron atmospheric windows?

Are CLARREO and TRUTHS on orbit?

Feb 25, 2015
Did they measure methane also? With all the northern tundra's melting and the methane coming from that and from the sea that should also had some form of effect on the results. Methane has a lot more effect than co2 does even if it doesn't last that long in the atmosphere.

Feb 25, 2015
here is a list of current list of temp extremes

http://www.eldora...emes.php

from -54 to + 41 C , so how will a few C from GW make any difference?

Feb 25, 2015
i think the article above is measuring the effects of seasonal Co2 swings on radiation balance, and hence by implication on GW , fair enough

Feb 25, 2015
so how will a few C from GW make any difference?

Well, of course a list of temperature extremes will hide the difference that raising the average temperature will make, so your link isn't very useful. As far as problems, raising the temperature a couple C will mean the difference between being able to grow crops or not in some areas of the world. More land would become available in, say, Canada, but given Canada's rocky and lousy soil in those areas, the net would be a loss of arable land. Rising temperatures mean more heat waves and extreme winter weather, more droughts, more flooding, and strong hurricanes become stronger. Melting permafrost leads to an increase in CH4 in the atmosphere which leads to more warming. Melting glaciers mean water shortages for billions of people. Warming weather means more pests and disease. And, of course, higher CO2 has other affects, like ocean acidification. There's certainly more problems, but that's off the top of my head.

Feb 25, 2015
Well, of course a list of temperature extremes will hide the difference that raising the average temperature will make,''

i'm still not sure i understand, it will still get cold. One of my concerns , GW has some markings of a ' moral panic' . and there are more immediate problems like deforestation or population growth .


Feb 26, 2015
runrig: your comment above is hard to understand. Unless you explain yourself better, I'm just going to ignore it.

"They found that CO2 -attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air."

If "radiative forcing" dipped in the spring, then temperature fluctuations---puny as they might be---will be dependent on the length of winter and spring. It sure seems like the seasonal fluctuations will have a greater impact on the 'forcing' than the CO2.

Much ado about nothing.

No - Forcings will dip in spring in the NH as deciduous growth begins and takes up some CO2 for synthesis. Less atmospheric CO2 less forcing. That's the wiggles on this graph:
http://en.wikiped...xide.png

To rise again from the Autumn ...and the trend rises.
Much ado about the one thing we need to do much about my friend. No thanks to deniers.

Feb 26, 2015
There is no question of what is happening.

The Deniers just want to think we are all liars like Bill O'Reilly and Bush/Cheney.

Now that the game is proven real, what is our response? How do we get off the Saudi Teat?

We do what we are doing now. And it is too late for the Koch Monsters to stop it.

Feb 26, 2015
Lawrence Berkley and Nature magazine embarrass themselves once more. And we wonder why taxpayers dismiss the frivolous money-wasting claptrap that out-of-touch academics claim is "science". 0.2 Watts-Up-With-That against what level of uncertainty ?? Since the foregone conclusion is that the uptick in human-produced CO2 is causing the collapse of human civilization, of course we must measure it with ever greater precision, in order to justify our grant funding. A former mentor of mine and a great engineer warned me about the "Tyranny of Little Numbers." All of these same piddling heat observations can be just as well explained by natural variations of heat coming from within the earth. Same as the Ice Ages and warm Interglacials.

Feb 26, 2015
Oh, my gosh, when are the Deniers going to learn we are not all cursed with poor character?

They continue to claim the data are due to the poor character of lying scientists. Where do we find these folk with such poor personal character, who assume we are all the same?

Feb 26, 2015
All of these same piddling heat observations can be just as well explained by natural variations of heat coming from within the earth. Same as the Ice Ages and warm Interglacials.


Please provide (scientific) support for those claims.

Feb 26, 2015
Wow!! All this heat being trapped by CO2, and yet the US continues to cool from the 1930's when CO2 was significantly lower.
http://wattsupwit...warmest/

Feb 26, 2015
thereby ignoring 2013 and 2014 when it got colder with more CO2

Very good point, I wonder how they would explain the downward trend in that data?

Runrig, you're correct, TSI is not always 1366 W/m^2, that is just the average at 1 AU.

My point is if .02 W/m^2 a year can "cause warming", then why do you still ignore the effects of the Sun's solar cycle? At .1%-.2% variation, and using your very approximate ~340W/m^2, the Sun's variation still accounts for more change on average than CO2s greenhouse effect does.

Yet the Sun isn't responsible. The logic does not add up.

Feb 26, 2015


My point is if .02 W/m^2 a year can "cause warming", then why do you still ignore the effects of the Sun's solar cycle? At .1%-.2% variation, and using your very approximate ~340W/m^2, the Sun's variation still accounts for more change on average than CO2s greenhouse effect does.

Yet the Sun isn't responsible. The logic does not add up.

Scroof:
It can't drive warming.... Precisely because it is cyclic, and where there is a solar min of any length changes are driven from the Strat down due large UV reduction. Ie a change of Arctic pressure pattern and meridional air-mass distribution. Regional change.
The 11 year cycle cycles +/- with a mean of zero.

Unless you come back to your magnetic influence theory, which I still maintain is cyclic.

http://en.m.wikip...-co2.svg


Feb 26, 2015
My point is if .02 W/m^2 a year can "cause warming", then why do you still ignore the effects of the Sun's solar cycle?


Look at the units on that number .. that is describing the INCREASE in total radiant power density absorbed by the earth EACH YEAR. So in other words, each year an ADDITIONAL approx, (0.02 J/(s*m^2))*(5x10^8 m^2)*(3x10^7 s) = 300 TJ of heat is being retained by the Earth. Thus if we call last year's total heating X, then this year's will be X + 315 TJ, and next year's will be X + 630 TJ. Do you see how that will inexorably lead to warming now, as opposed to cyclic fluctuations in total insolation, which will average to zero over time (neglecting the positive feedback effect of the increased GE, which will ensure a bit more heat is retained at the high points, and a bit less is lost at the lows)?

Feb 27, 2015
As an Atmospheric Scientist myself, I rely on observations: The scientists in this article said these observations were done at the surface? Seems strange when the supposed warming is in the troposphere?

Here is what I observe

Source:

NASA GISS chart 1880-2010 (Global Avg. Temp.)

From 1910-1940 the earth warmed by .06 C
From 1980-2010 the earth warmed by .06 C

In the 1st period, almost no added C02
In the 2nd period, massive amounts of added C02.

Yet the rate of change is the same.  There is no unprecedented warming.  I argue that if the earth warmed naturally, by .06 C, in the 1st period, then how can anyone assume that the 2nd period is not natural as well?  You can't.

Feb 27, 2015
As an Atmospheric Scientist myself, I rely on observations: The scientists in this article said these observations were done at the surface? Seems strange when the supposed warming is in the troposphere?
No you're not, or you would not make such obviously incorrect and misunderstood statements.

Here is what I observe
Source:
NASA GISS chart 1880-2010 (Global Avg. Temp.
From 1910-1940 the earth warmed by .06 C
From 1980-2010 the earth warmed by .06 C
In the 1st period, almost no added C02
Um, pardon? From 1900 to 1940, atmospheric CO2 levels increased from approximately 295 to 310 (ppmv). That was after rising from 280ppmv to 295ppmv from ~1840-1900. Trying to rewrite history is bad form.
In the 2nd period, massive amounts of added C02.
Hey, where'd the middle go?
Yet the rate of change is the same...blah blah..You can't.
So, Mr. Atmospheric Scientist (is there such a thing?) maybe you should try to get your money back. You were misled.

Feb 27, 2015
Well, it's says on my college diploma that I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences, in the department of Meteorology. So, yes, there is such a thing, and as a matter of fact my field of science qualifies me more than a Climatologist whose study is to look at the past climate to predict future climates. Which really does not have that much to do with the physic's of the atmosphere.

I think going from 295 to 310, statistically is nothing compared with the increase in the latter part of the century. The middle is a cooling period, and what we are concerned with is the rate of warming. Actually your argument makes my point perfectly, thank you.

Meaning that for two periods with a increase of 15 ppm, had the same increase in temperature as the last period (1980-2010) where the C02 and risen by about 80 ppm! And yet, the rate of temperature increase was the same. .06 C Again thanks for so eloquently, without realizing it (Obviously), proved my point even better than I did!

Feb 27, 2015
Notice how I so simply destroy the argument. I did not have to quote other (Peer reviewed, which means nothing) papers, all I had to do was look at a simple observation involving the real argument which is "Rate of change". As a scientist, I am sceptical, in fact I approach every paper with the thought, "This is not necessarily true".

Remember it is your side, that says we are having "Unprecedented Warming" and I just proved that it is not. It is completely normal. Of course we know what the natural warming/cooling is caused from over the last 100+ years. It's called "Pacific Decadal Oscillations" along with a few other factors of course, but PDO is the primary.

As for a consensus, that you all claim as an argument. I will quote from Einstein

"If everybody says so, it's probably not"

Let me ask you this Maggnus,

What percentage of the last warming period, was man made, and what percentage was natural? If you don't know, than how can you argue?

Thank you

Feb 27, 2015
As an Atmospheric Scientist myself, I rely on observations: The scientists in this article said these observations were done at the surface? Seems strange when the supposed warming is in the troposphere?

Here is what I observe

Source:

NASA GISS chart 1880-2010 (Global Avg. Temp.)

From 1910-1940 the earth warmed by .06 C
From 1980-2010 the earth warmed by .06 C

In the 1st period, almost no added C02
In the 2nd period, massive amounts of added C02.

Yet the rate of change is the same.  There is no unprecedented warming.  I argue that if the earth warmed naturally, by .06 C, in the 1st period, then how can anyone assume that the 2nd period is not natural as well?  You can't.

No "atmospheric scientist" would ever write that my friend.
BTW: I was.

Feb 27, 2015
Well, it's says on my college diploma that I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences, in the department of Meteorology. So, yes, there is such a thing, and as a matter of fact my field of science qualifies me more than a Climatologist whose study is to look at the past climate to predict future climates. Which really does not have that much to do with the physic's of the atmosphere.

I think going from 295 to 310, statistically is nothing compared with the increase in the latter part of the century. The middle is a cooling period, and what we are concerned with is the rate of warming. Actually your argument makes my point perfectly, thank you.

Meaning that for two periods with a increase of 15 ppm, had the same increase in temperature as the last period (1980-2010) where the C02 and risen by about 80 ppm! And yet, the rate of temperature increase was the same. .06 C

Again no "atmospheric scientist" would expect a parallel correlation, only an ignoramus.

Feb 27, 2015
Well, it's says on my college diploma that I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences, in the department of Meteorology. So, yes, there is such a thing, and as a matter of fact my field of science qualifies me more than a Climatologist whose study is to look at the past climate to predict future climates. Which really does not have that much to do with the physic's of the atmosphere.
You're not helping your "scientist" claim with statements like that last sentence.
Notice how I so simply destroy the argument. I did not have to quote other (Peer reviewed, which means nothing) papers, all I had to do was look at a simple observation involving the real argument which is "Rate of change". As a scientist, ...
If you were a scientist, you would understand the difference between "heating" and "warming", and not make asinine claims based on "rate of change" of the temperature of a complex system.

Feb 27, 2015
My point is if .02 W/m^2 a year can "cause warming", then why do you still ignore the effects of the Sun's solar cycle?


Look at the units on that number .. that is describing the INCREASE in total radiant power density absorbed by the earth EACH YEAR. So in other words, each year an ADDITIONAL approx, (0.02 J/(s*m^2))*(5x10^8 m^2)*(3x10^7 s) = 300 TJ of heat is being retained by the Earth.


My goodness, I am a bit red-faced here, that calculation was too low by a factor of one million, because I forgot to convert km to m .. a very silly mistake .. my only excuse is that it was late and I was rushing. Anyway, here is the corrected calculation:

(0.02 J/(s*m^2))*(5x10^14 m^2)*(3x10^7 s) = 3 x 10^20 J, or 300 EJ (exajoules)

I thought it sounded low at the time, but only realized the error in the shower this morning. My apologies. 300 TJ would be the amount of power generated by a 10 MW plant in a year, 300 EJ is a bit more significant ;)

Feb 27, 2015
I argue that if the earth warmed naturally, by .06 C, in the 1st period, then how can anyone assume that the 2nd period is not natural as well? You can't.

Here's a question that, as a "scientist", I'm sure you must have answered before you made this comment: What were the forcings that caused the changes during the 1st period, and what were the forcings that caused the changes during the 2nd period? Look at your "observations" and identify the differences between the two periods. If you can't or you haven't already answered this question, then you're a pretty crappy excuse for a "scientist". And if you have answered the question, then you already know that the warming in the 2nd period isn't natural and your comment was a lie.

By the way, the warming trend over the 2nd period was ~0.169C/decode, which means the warming in the second period was ~0.5C, not 0.06C as you made up. The warming during the 1st period was ~0.4C. Both of these are according to GISTEMP.

Feb 27, 2015

Again no "atmospheric scientist" would expect a parallel correlation, only an ignoramus.

--runrig
Well ignoramus, it's very likely that lone neuron, you share with the rest of the AGW Cult's Chicken Littles, is burning out, but the point being made is that the warming is NOT UNPRECEDENTED. I know it's tough for you, but try to read, comprehend and then argue against.

Feb 27, 2015
If you were a scientist, you would understand the difference between "heating" and "warming", and not make asinine claims based on "rate of change" of the temperature of a complex system.

Wow!! That lone neuron you AGW Chicken LIttles share sure gets passed around. Isn't it exactly temperature and it's rate of change aka the Hockey Schtick, that you morons in the AGW Cult are using to support your dogma.

Feb 27, 2015
Save the copepods!

Feb 28, 2015
Why do you all seem so angry? I am not angry, I am not insulting anyone? Is it your position that, all "Real" scientist's agree the earth is having unprecedented warming and it is man's fault?

zz555: "second period was ~0.5C, not 0.06C as you made up. The warming during the 1st period was ~0.4C."

I would like to thank you, (Again for some, without realizing it) for making my point even stronger.

You said, that the earth warmed by .4 C from 1910-1940, and as you said, .5 C from 1980-2010, the 2nd period, that's fine. I don't want to split hairs, .1 C over 30 years, even if you could assume that all of the .1C was man made, which you can't but I will play along, then you have just agreed with me, that man made global warming is insignificant.

This article says they have observed the affect of C02 as a greenhouse gas, and I am saying we have global observations, for the last 130 years which have shown no unprecedented warming. How does anyone argue that? You can't!

Feb 28, 2015
This article says they have observed the affect of C02 as a greenhouse gas, and I am saying we have global observations, for the last 130 years which have shown no unprecedented warming.

Again, you haven't addressed why it warmed from 1910-1940 and why it is warming now. You also haven't addressed the problem that the causes of the current warming (primarily CO2) are such that the warming won't stop. You claim to be a "scientist", but you've given absolutely no thought to what's happening or why or where were headed. Again, that's pretty crappy work for someone claiming to be a "scientist".
How does anyone argue that?

It's actually pretty easy. The earlier warming was short term. The current warming isn't. We still have a pretty large amount of warming ahead of us, even if we stop generating CO2 (which we won't). So, according to you, the current warming is currently greater than 1910-1940 and it's only going to get worse.

Feb 28, 2015
zz5555
"What were the forcings that caused the changes during the 1st period, and what were the forcings that caused the changes during the 2nd period?"

The ocean. and the ocean.

If the scientists are right in this article, and they may be, and I don't know, because to me it would seem like voodoo magic that

"They can detect the unique spectral signature of infra-red energy from CO2"

Here is the kicker:

"Then we controlled for other factors that would impact our measurements"

Once a scientist says something like that, I think all bets are off, meaning they have to "Fix" (Whether it's right or wrong) the data. They are talking about using extremely precise instrumentation, then they adjust this data for weather, which is chaotic?

Seems to me they could come up with any figure they wanted?

Feb 28, 2015
I trust nobody, and I use my eyes, (Observations) such as tropospheric temperatures which are following a very natural sine curve, and continue to do the same even with added C02.

https://www.googl...23%3B648

Feb 28, 2015
I trust nobody, and I use my eyes, (Observations) such as tropospheric temperatures which are following a very natural sine curve, and continue to do the same even with added C02.

You aren't using your eyes, you're trusting a graph created by a denier.

You should look at this:

https://www.googl...40%3B441

Feb 28, 2015
However, if your side is right, we still have nothing to worry about, because the oceans are the great moderator's of climate, easily being able to store the added energy.

I find it amazing that you climate nazi's think that changing one (C02 by 3.5%, of the over 500 natural perimeters that affect the earth's climate) will totally drive the earth's climate. Talk about letting the tail wag the dog. That makes no sense to anyone.

This is why almost none of the ridiculous claims we have heard about for the last 20 years, come true.

I will admit, I do rather enjoy destroying your arguments, and I use nothing but "Observations" I don't say, "Here, here, read this peer reviewed paper, or that peer reviewed paper" like somehow that makes it necessarily proof that it's right.

Fact: The earth is an extremely complex system, (Just take one class in cloud physics')and there is not one person who understands how it works, not one! We don't even know how gravity works yet!

Feb 28, 2015
Veitvet:

I am glad you brought this graph up. I don't understand it. I need someone like you who understands the graph, (Otherwise why would you bring it up) to explain it to me.

It says,

"Noaa Surface y =0.01464x-32464 R2 (Squared)=0.7472 blue curve

similar stuff on the red curve.

What does the "Y" part of that graph represent?

Thank you so much


Feb 28, 2015
zz5555;

"the current warming is currently greater than 1910-1940 and it's only going to get worse"

Hey genius, maybe your living in a vacuum, the earth is not warming now. I think every graph, including satellite, depicts this.

The earth is going to cool for another 15-20 years, and then it will start warming again as it has done, since observed temperature records began. Don't talk to me about tree rings,
those have been proven to be wrong, due to changing precipitation.

"You also haven't addressed the problem that the causes of the current warming (primarily CO2)"

I did, the ocean. Don't try to mess with a scientist, who does not rely on Government funding, we know the facts, even if so many scientist's depend on changing the facts to keep the funding coming.

Feb 28, 2015
"I think every graph, including satellite, depicts this."

This is why we know you're lying when you say you're a scientist.

Feb 28, 2015
"I think every graph, including satellite, depicts this."

This is why we know you're lying when you say you're a scientist.

Mooster - As well as:
because to me it would seem like voodoo magic that

"They can detect the unique spectral signature of infra-red energy from CO2"


WTF????

Feb 28, 2015
President Obama will be very happy receiving this good news. More mathematical models and peer reviewed studies verifying his climate change/global warming hysteria and yes of course on a lesser level of climate change authority the Pope will also be happy!!!

Feb 28, 2015
Lol, You guys just can't stand that I am scientist. Some of my after graduate work included, long term forecasting using Global Geo Potential Heights in the 200-500 mb range. Did extensive work on airframe icing while I worked for the Federal Aviation Administration. Also worked at the Center for Aero Space Sciences in North Dakota. I taught Meteorology courses many years ago.

I am waiting for any of you to say something intelligent. Instead, you just repeat my words, and say nasty things.

Why don't you all go and buy a text book in Cloud Physics? Learn for yourselves, so you can determine when your being lied too. You can learn about the many different things that affect temperature, things that dwarf the 3.5% of added C02.

Advice, don't believe anything you read on AGW, I see many lies on both sides! Use your eyes, look at observations, graphs, after you get a little bit of knowledge, it will be easy for you to understand the truth.

Feb 28, 2015
the earth is not warming now. I think every graph, including satellite, depicts this.

Umm, none of the data sets show this. If you really were a scientist, you'd know that. Even the satellites, with their cooling bias, don't show this.
Don't talk to me about tree rings, those have been proven to be wrong, due to changing precipitation.

Hmm, fascinating. Tree rings have nothing to do with this and, yet, you felt compelled to bring them up. Why is that? Are you trying to find anything, however unrelated, to confirm your "theory"? Here's something else that's unrelated - maybe it'll help your "theory": OJ Simpson's glove. "If the glove don't fit, you must, umm, find that global warming is a fraud." Doesn't quite track, but that's what happens when you try to shoehorn unrelated things in.
I am waiting for any of you to say something intelligent.

Umm, ditto. You've indicated you don't understand data or physics, I'm not sure what you do understand.

Feb 28, 2015
As far as clouds are concerned, the data doesn't support the idea that there's a big influence through clouds (http://www.skepti...iate.htm ). Clouds likely cause some positive feedback of the warming driven by CO2 (and the error bars show that this could be slightly negative - but much less than the warming from CO2). As for clouds themselves causing the current warming, as a scientist I'm sure you can explain to everyone why water vapor cannot drive the climate. ;)
You can learn about the many different things that affect temperature, things that dwarf the 3.5% of added C02.

Out of curiosity, I'd be interested in what those things are and, more importantly, what they're doing right now. For example, it's quite possible to imagine a situation where the sun dramatically increases or decreases its output - resulting in climate change. But that's not happening right now, so it's not the sun.

Feb 28, 2015
I trust nobody, and I use my eyes, (Observations) such as tropospheric temperatures which are following a very natural sine curve, and continue to do the same even with added C02.


Oh good grief. A curve fit with 0 physics. Yeah, that's proves it ;). And a curve fit over satellite measurements which don't even measure surface temperatures. Excellent. Oh and, of course, the curve fit is only shown for a short period because the fit doesn't work if you extend it. Your sine curve is ~22 years from peak to trough meaning that there should have been a high (above 1986) around 1964. But temperatures were ~0.2C cooler in 1964. Yeah, that's a great "theory" and you're a brilliant "scientist". Nice eyes with your "observations". ;)

FFS (as runrig is apt to say)

Feb 28, 2015
"As far as clouds are concerned, the data doesn't support the idea that there's a big influence through clouds"

I would like you too listen to Kerry Emanual at 1:05;00 at the website below, and keep in mind this guy is a big time scientist on your side! Listen to what he says about the knowledge we have on climate sensitivity as it relates to clouds. He correctly admits, and I waited for it, cause I know that is the key issue, and he got it right, saying basically "We don't know anything about clouds and their sensitivity to the earth's energy budget.

https://www.youtu...8GRCWA1k

I love it when I can use your scientist's to completely destroy your argument.

Your scientist speaks the truth, but you feel the need to quote from SkS website? Are you kidding me?

As to your last point. I say again. The oceans, not the sun, and it's the increased irradiation as the earth naturally balances itself, like it has done for many years. The oceans my friend!


Feb 28, 2015
2/10 of a watt per square meter, all I am saying is do the math. 0.2 out of 250, a 0.08% change. Now consider 0.00135% in change CO2 allegedly incurred this. Just think about it, dummy test it.

Now consider that the Solar flux changes from peak to trough about 0.07%, every 11 years. So CO2 apparently has a greater effect on climate than solar out put. I think we all know the truth of this statement.

Just saying...

Feb 28, 2015
Sorry @Scroof, I didn't see you'd already covered this. God job.
@Runrig, huh? huh? huh?

I am afraid it is the AGW-ers in denial now. About CO2.

Climate is changing guys, doesn't anyone remember September being a cold month? Frost on the ground, etc.?

CO2 can't be the cause, and as long as you are charging that windmill, you are doing zero good.

Wake up please.

Feb 28, 2015
WP, let's discuss another aspect of AGW, the Acidification of the Oceans.

How did all that CO2 get there?

What happens when we lose the bottom of the Marine Food Chain?

Feb 28, 2015
rugs
Advice, don't believe anything you read on AGW, I see many lies on both sides! Use your eyes, look at observations, graphs, after you get a little bit of knowledge, it will be easy for you to understand the truth.


Advice; There are posters on here who can match/trump your credentials ... if true (I was a Meteorologist with the UKMO for 32 years), and unfortunately for you you've said quite a few *non-scientific" things, such as "because to me it would seem like voodoo magic that "They can detect the unique spectral signature of infra-red energy from CO2".
As I said, no scientist would say that.....
http://www.ncbi.n...19385195
So then go here...
http://forecast.u...rig.html
And choose tropical atmos + 75mm/hr rain + Zero CO2
Then again with 400ppm CO2.
Notice the difference?
Exactly.
That's how it most certainly is not "voodoo magic".

ctd

Feb 28, 2015
ctd

You say "tropospheric temperatures which are following a very natural sine curve, and continue to do the same even with added C02."
One dip does not a sine curve make my friend.
The best explanation (as in this recent "pause") for the "dip" ~'45 to '80 is a lengthy period of -ve PDO/ENSO phase.....

http://www.skepti...temp.gif

Along with "global dimming (period after WW2 when industry was particularly dirty) ....

http://en.wikiped..._dimming
http://www.dailym...ortfilms

Feb 28, 2015
ruguyscrazy claimed
As an Atmospheric Scientist (AS) myself, I rely on observations: The scientists in this article said these observations were done at the surface? Seems strange when the supposed warming is in the troposphere..
Great news u r an AS, essential for AGW & obviously u know extremely well re infra-red & the vibrational states of all GHG's affecting climate, the principals being water vapour & CO2 of course :-)

Tell us ruguyscrazy, what is increase in thermal resistivity (per ppm) due to CO2 in W/m^2 ?

Would U be so kind to articulate it in reference to this link, so its clear to AGW deniers:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

U see, we had this childish dick who claimed 4, yes four, Technical degrees including Physical Chemistry BUT, just couldn'tt work out Watts per square meter for CO2 resistivity despite him being prodded by me to work out human generated heat was approx 0.1% Total Solar Insolation.

Can u as an AS settle it ?

Feb 28, 2015
I would like you too listen to Kerry Emanual at 1:05;00 at the website below

Excellent. You've given up on making your own observations and are now going with expert scientists. I think that's a good choice given your statement of "all graphs show no warming" and your mistaking a 3rd order polynomial fit that Spencer added for fun (and that "should not be construed as having any predictive value whatsoever" - http://www.drroys...9-deg-c/ ) as something important. Your observations haven't been too good. But on to Emanuel.
I love it when I can use your scientist's to completely destroy your argument.

Your scientist speaks the truth, but you feel the need to quote from SkS website? Are you kidding me?

And how did Emanuel's comments destroy the argument or refute the data presented on SkS? Because clouds reaction to climate change is the biggest unknown?

Cont.

Feb 28, 2015
You forget that we have measurements of the effect climate change has had on clouds (see, again, the SkS page I linked to). So even if we don't have a handle on the mechanisms for how clouds react, we do have a range of values that for that reaction. It's like you said about gravity - we don't know how it works. But we have a pretty good handle on the effects. We even used Newton's laws (which we know are wrong) in our models to get us to the Moon and back. So there is nothing in Emanuel's talk that indicates clouds are going to be more powerful than CO2 and observation (you ought to like this) shows no indication that it is.

But what was Emanuel's comments about clouds? It was how did clouds react to climate change. You see clouds are made of water vapor and, as I'm sure you know, water vapor is a short lived gas in the atmosphere and, therefore, cannot possibly drive climate change. It can only serve as a feedback.

Cont.

Feb 28, 2015
Further to this paper - I've come across another that was published in 2009 that to do the same thing with data from 1973 to 2008.

http://onlinelibr...800/full

Feb 28, 2015
So in order for water vapor/clouds to do any warming (or cooling, depending on what the feedback actually is), they first need some other thing to change the temperature. If something warms the atmosphere, more water vapor goes in the atmosphere and water vapor can than provide some feedback. Or if something cools it, there's less water vapor and less feedback. But something has to warm the earth first (and there's extensive evidence that the earth is still warming despite your claim about "no warming"). So what is warming the earth? The sun? No, that's working to cool the earth. Orbital changes? No, that's working to cool the earth. Waste heat? No, that's about 55x smaller than additional heat from CO2. From the earth's core? No, there's no sign of change and the constant level is still much less than CO2 (http://www.skepti...low.html ).

Cont.

Feb 28, 2015
Cycles? No, that's silly. That still requires a forcing and one that just happens to look like CO2 (and other greenhouse gases). Cosmic rays? No, data from the past indicates that changing levels of cosmic rays don't have much affect on the climate and studies haven't shown any reason to not accept that.

So, if you're claiming that it's clouds, what is the forcing that is increasing or decreasing the amount of cloud cover?

Feb 28, 2015
Hey gkam, well there are two effects at hand. The one that leads to acidification of the oceans, and the increase in CO2 is the ridiculously named "Dead Zones." Probably given that name so anyone talking about it seems like they would be at home in a tin-foil hat.

Dead Zones are where fertilizer kills off Oxygen producing plankton;
http://disc.sci.g...es.shtml

If you wiki it, you'll notice that there is a spin on it.

The oceans, particularly those close to shore produce the majority of the Earth's Oxygen, significant reduction of this is a direct cause of CO2 acidification.

Feb 28, 2015
WP, I do not have to "look it up on Wiki", I understand it already. Anoxic, or "dead" zones are where the decay of (usually) plant matter creates high BOD.

Do you understand BOD?

Feb 28, 2015
Wow, team, looks like we have another guy who simply and elegantly destroys CO2 as a causal factor. Just how do you argue that 0.6 degree change with 15ppm and a 0.6 change with 80ppm?

Thank you, ruguyscrazy!

Feb 28, 2015
Why...so angry?
@ruguyscrazy
it's not anger, it is debunking of trolls

now, i can understand the odd typo, but you are talking like an amateur troll trying to figure out the best persona to adopt for argument from authority

also: RULE 37 applies with a caveat (instead of girls/women it is scientists)

IOW - unless you can prove yourself with your CV as well as published papers, you are NOT who you say you are
I am saying we have global observations, for the last 130 years which have shown no unprecedented warming
besides re-reading above
what part about CO2 and the WV forcing/feedback cycle are you saying is wrong?
you are claiming all modern climate science is wrong, with NO evidence

if you were a scientist, you would have peer reviewed studies published in a reputable mag that debunks every other study out there

so start presenting said papers as verification/validation of claims
(something which a scientist would do, IMHO, provide references)

Feb 28, 2015
WP, once again, do you understand Biological Oxygen Demand?

Is that the "fertilizer" to which you referred from that source you did not understand?

Feb 28, 2015
gkam, if you throw a random acronym at me to sound intelligent, assume I am not convinced and don't know what it is.

I assume you're flailing at Biological Oxygen Demand, which to me implies that your next comment will be to deliberately segue the conversation to something inane and irrelevant, rather than just admit that NOAA's, (my link is to NOAA) not wiki's, explanation answers your question above completely.

Feb 28, 2015
and now we finally see the TRUTH
I did, the ocean. Don't try to mess with a scientist, who does not rely on Government funding, we know the facts, even if so many scientist's depend on changing the facts to keep the funding coming
@ruguyscrazy
so this pretty much says you are NOT a scientist
you are simply another nutter trying the argument from authority angle without knowledge of facts, like confoundedUba and ALCHE/h2ocrybaby profit$

you should read this, mr Conspiracy-the-gov't-is-out-to-get-you: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

your single admission above not only validates the study and it's premise but also proves that you are NOT a scientist

a scientist is like an investigator: they follow the evidence
they don't make conspiratorial claims

Feb 28, 2015
Ah, stumps, r u mad that there is another scientist on the board who uses basic principles to destroy your CO2 theory?

Another guy who just needs to point at physical constants and makes all your references to lopsided journal articles, irrelevant.

Riddle me this. I'll even read your reply this time, why if you are defending science for the people you feel are too stupid to make conclusions for themselves, do you not encourage experiments and measurements that anyone can do?

Feb 28, 2015
@ruguyscrazy CONT'D
they don't make conspiratorial claims unless they can prove them using the scientific method, like this study does: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

you can see that there are active "scientists" who are being paid to obfuscate the science as much as possible

i would think that if you ARE actually some degree'd pro, that you are in this group, considering your evidence linked thus far, which is far outweighed by the overwhelming amount out there

a real scientist follows the evidence
Even Richard Muller learned the truth: https://www.youtu...8Dhr15Kw

http://blogs.scie...sagrees/

perhaps you would like to start presenting your sources of info?
it appears that you prefer the extremist WUWT over legitimate papers or legit science

Feb 28, 2015
Gkam, now you know why I call myself "prophet," did I peg it or what?

(For posterity, I wrote my reply above before I was able to see gkams!)

Feb 28, 2015
another scientist
@ALCHE/h2ocrybaby
1- there is a person CLAIMING to be a scientist (just like YOU did)
2- there is still no empirical evidence he has given (just like you haven't)
3- just because he interprets data, doesn't mean he is 100% correct (just like you are prone to)
4- there is no evidence that he has debunked any scientific papers or scientific knowledge in any way, shape or form (just like you)

in fact, there seems to me a redundant set of arguments that are JUST LIKE YOU

interesting
including the whole conspiracy BS

this poster (just like YOU) fails to address all the science with equivalent data or papers which would refute the knows science, he/she/it is only making CLAIMS

just like you do

So ALCHE-where are those studies that refuted MY studies?
still no evidence for you eh?
imagine that
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Feb 28, 2015
And you and your skeptigoons still can't answer a direct question.
You don't need studies to refute those studies you present that align with your all-mighty opinion. You just need physical constants, technical ability, or an ability to look at graphs and notice a CO2 correlation ain't there. (Please read ruguyscrazy responses to Maggnus.)

Bye bye.

Feb 28, 2015
You don't need studies
@ALCHE
you keep saying this but the evidence is against you

IF you were correct, then the study would have been retracted as soon as the world scientists looked at it and said "hey look! this is a major screw-up because he is not using the physical properties of the gasses/objects etc"

but there is NO retraction
there is NO debunking study
there is NOTHING but your CLAIMS

keyword = CLAIMS
claims are NOT scientific evidence unless you can validate them by applying them to a known situation and then show where they debunk/invalidate it through your application of science

and THAT is what i am getting at

you have personal conjecture but you have never once been able to validate your "interpretations" as scientifically valid, nor have you been able to apply said "interpretations" to the studies to get them retracted

you can leave
i don't CARE
i will continue to POINT OUT that you have NO EVIDENCE for those who READ
and follow evidence

Feb 28, 2015
one last point
You just need
what i love about debunking ALCHE

he makes CLAIMS with NO evidence
like this one
Stumpy get's challenge accepted: Rabbits
found here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
but when i am NOT gone, and i continue to request evidence, what does ALCHE do?
You just need ...
Bye bye
LMFAO

ALCHE rabbits!

so as you can see, ALCHE makes a claim, but when debunked, RABBITS
ALCHE makes claims/assertions but then rabbits when he cannot provide evidence of applicability
ALCHE rabbits because he knows that he is spreading a LIE
not sharing scientific information

something that is not supported by scientific evidence is personal conjecture
you are simply promoting pseudoscience and conspiracy theory
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

nice validation of the study, BTW

Feb 28, 2015
Stumpy, go check out my NOAA link referenced above.

There you go again, I make citations, you rabbit, you claim I don't or ignore them.
I shoot your pet articles to pieces you never show up again then pretend I haven't.

And look at all the folks who see right through you skeptigoonishness now. Seems to me it's everybody but you now. Even some of you are warping over to the truth. runrig believes oceans are important drivers, although not cured of CO2 disease. Maggnus actually said something intelligent a few posts ago, as did Caliban. Thermo understands it's the heat.

Everybody but you Stumps.

Feb 28, 2015
go check out my NOAA link
@ALCHE
you don't have a NOAA link, you have a NASA link: http://disc.sci.g...es.shtml

problems reading HTML address or site names?

i noticed you are making more of the same "rabbit" claims
except that here i am talking to you again... and the only one "rabbiting" is you

you are STILL avoiding the issue (you STILL have NO evidence)
you are STILL making false claims (from me rabbiting to the blatantly false interpretations of your own evidence)
look at all the folks who see right through you skeptigoonishness now
like these folk? http://www.sunysu...3713.asp

i will ask you again:
where is your evidence refuting the studies i linked?
not your "interpretations" of what is said... but EVIDENCE
as in something that could be used to get it retracted or changed

thats right
you have NOTHING
STILL


Feb 28, 2015
Well, they're wrong, as my NASA link demonstrates, pretty blatantly, as they ignore the effect completely. Of course we should all trust the work of a community college, knowing how well funded they are and knowing the experience their students have.
Debunked?

Which one is next?

Feb 28, 2015
Well, they're wrong, as my NASA link demonstrates,
@ALCHE
HOW are the studies i linked to you wrong because of the NASA link?
(and i am not even going to address your literacy problem with regard to said link... and how it might be connected to your inability to recognize science or comprehend the links i've already sent)
Of course we should all trust the work of a community college
IOW - they proven you to be a complete idiot with facts and figures, so you will attack the source because you cannot find fault with the SCIENCE or the FACTS

imagine that... the exact same thing you are doing above

lets get back to the situation with the studies i link which you are still avoiding

where is that evidence?

Feb 28, 2015
runrig:

So you went to number 48 at Sks webpage. I really wish all of you would realize how absurd that website is, I go there for entertainment. Global dimming? Has nothing to do with anything, a ridiculous theory. Why would anybody believe anything from that site? Global dimming assumes industrialization aka pollution ended. Go to other countries, I am in Manila now, talk about pollution! Go to China, omg the pollution. Number 48 basically says that mankind is solely responsible for temperature. They don't even mention PDO.

"Then we controlled (The data) for other factors (Weather) that would impact our measurements" That seems like Voodoo.

Does this not bother anyone? Data is data

At that point I think they could make the data say anything they want it to say. I don't know what they did, or how they did the manipulations, seems fishy.

btw thanks for some of the papers sent to me from you and others, on the technology they are using, it was helpful.

Feb 28, 2015
To all:

I look forward to addressing the posts to me, however I am travelling to Boracay, number 1 tropical beach in the world! So I will need a bit of time, and there are a lot of interesting posts, which I thank all of you for that! See we all don't need to be nasty to each other. Global warming (man made) is a very interesting debate, but no reason to get nasty when people present other idea's or things to think about.

To all, I would like to hear your input on this question. The heart of the debate.

What percentage of the recent warming cycle is man made, and what percentage is natural?

Thanks again.

Feb 28, 2015
What percentage of the recent warming cycle is man made, and what percentage is natural?
@crazy
that is the heart of the debate to YOU
it is NOT the heart of the debate... there IS no "debate" if one is actually reading the science
not the politics
not the religious perspectives
not because of gore, WUWT or any other "site"

the SCIENCE!

&
not TRYING to be rude, but: to simply imply that there is a debate is not only fallacious, but truly indicates that you are not well versed in the scientific publications surrounding the issue, let alone a competent "Atmospheric Scientist" as claimed

especially considering there IS a movement to undermine the science by all means possible... as PROVEN by studies: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

i am not even going to address the fact that you are bringing up ALCHE arguments while making ALCHE claims and using ALCHE links and similar syntax etc

Mar 01, 2015
"Then we controlled (The data) for other factors (Weather) that would impact our measurements" That seems like Voodoo.

Does this not bother anyone? Data is data

I may be misunderstanding you, but the statement "Data is data" seems horribly wrong and anyone going into this with that attitude is guaranteed to get incorrect answers. Anthony Watts of WUWT fame learned this the hard way when he announced a paper that "showed" that there wasn't as much warming as had been claimed. But he hadn't accounted for the different Time Of Day of data collection at all the sensors over the last 100 years or so. Because he didn't adjust the raw data, he introduced a cooling bias, so it seemed that the temperature in the '30s, say, was warmer than reality. I never got along with experimental work (which is why I went into CFD), but it seems that you have 2 choices: you can either control for the extraneous factors in preprocessing or post processing. But you have to do it sometime.

Mar 01, 2015
What percentage of the recent warming cycle is man made, and what percentage is natural?

I think you're starting off wrong with putting the word "cycle" in there. There's no evidence that the current warming is part of any cycle (though there are obviously going to be cycles within the warming - I hope that's not too confusing ;).

There's also the question of what constitutes "recent". The IPCC puts out a chart of the relative forcings since 1750 (http://www.realcl...-charts/ gives a discussion of the charts used over time). From that chart, the anthropogenic part is 2.29W/m2 (but note the large error bars) while the natural part is 0.05W/m2. Even with the worst case error bar, anthropogenic is much greater than natural.

For more recent periods (say, since the 70s), it's often stated that anthropogenic is > 100% because we're warming and natural forcings tend to cool right now.

Mar 01, 2015
I look forward to addressing the posts to me, however I am travelling to Boracay, number 1 tropical beach in the world! So I will need a bit of time, and there are a lot of interesting posts, which I thank all of you for that!

Yeah, it was time for the graceful disappearance attempt. Nothing personal, but you're probably the worst (as in 'not very good') denier troll I've seen here.

Mar 01, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
.. there is another scientist on the board who uses basic principles to destroy your CO2 theory
Liar!
Where did U or ANY "scientist" on any of the phys.org forums actually show CO2's IR thermal resistivity in Watts per sq meter ?

Water_Prophet claimed
Another guy who just needs to point at physical constants..
Liar (again).
Fortunately all [real] educated scientists KNOW full well that just pointing to physical constants is shallow, naive & rather stupid, reclimate change one MUST determine Watts per sq m.

Water_Prophet claimed
.. do you not encourage experiments and measurements that anyone can do?
Not anyone can understand how to craft an experiment which has a definitive outcome re comparative IR absorbance, u failed with your home test, proves u could NOT have graduated as a Physical Chemist as u claim !

Why Water_Prophet, can't U work out CO2's thermal resistivity in Watts per sq m But, U did for AGW heat re 0.1% TSI ?

Mar 01, 2015
Captain Stumpy observed
@ALCHE/h2ocrybaby
1- there is a person CLAIMING to be a scientist (just like YOU did)
2- there is still no empirical evidence he has given (just like you haven't)
3- just because he interprets data, doesn't mean he is 100% correct (just like you are prone to)
4- there is no evidence that he has debunked any scientific papers or scientific knowledge in any way, shape or form (just like you)
in fact, there seems to me a redundant set of arguments that are JUST LIKE YOU
interesting
including the whole conspiracy BS
this poster (just like YOU) fails to address all the science with equivalent data or papers which would refute the knows science, he/she/it is only making CLAIMS
just like you do
Thanks Captain Stumpy, u just reminded me to look up this

https://sciencex....yscrazy/

Their linguistics r very similar AND joining of ruguyscrazy coincides with the lull in Water_Prophet's postings - LOL !

Like fish in a barrel ;-)

Mar 01, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
And you and your skeptigoons still can't answer a direct question
I asked U a Q re CO2's thermal resistivity re Watts per sq meter, its simple & direct which a Physical Chemist (PC) SHOULD know how to assess.

But, u can't do that, instead u claim I would criticise it anyway. Such response shows immense insecurity not consistent with anyone who has studied at uni AND graduated !

They WOULD be able to present it on their best merits & OBVIOUSLY connected with physical constants U bark about so it is definitive & using concise math & unit dimensions.

BUT, U Water_Prophet cannot do that !

Y ?

Water_Prophet claimed
..You just need physical constants, technical ability, or an ability to look at graphs and notice a CO2 correlation ain't there
No, as a PC SHOULD know correlation is not absolute proof of causation, try maths !

U need definitive math re integrating CO2's physical constants over atmosphere.

Y don't U know that ?

Mar 01, 2015
ruguyscrazy offered
Does this not bother anyone? Data is data
Correct & of course subject to error analysis as I am sure you know as an Atmospheric Scientist (AS).

So as a qualified AS u can clearly show definitively integrating CO2's thermal properties as reflected in that gas' physical properties has a certain relationship between the gas' concentration in ppm vs its delta thermal resistivity in Watts per sq meter.

ie A formula of the form Thermal Resistivity[Watts/m^2] = f(CO2, ppm)

We have this deluded Dick here who claims a brass bowl (not copper, silica or wood) is a 'perfect' predictor of the climate pause of 1998 Eg ENSO but, cannot show why, is he deluded or trying for a Nobel ?

&
Whats worse this same Dick claims four (4) technical degrees, one is Physical Chemistry but cannot work out formula above or even basic procedure to arrive at but, always evades ?

Yet when I prodded him, he worked out human heat contribution as 0.1% TSI.

Y not CO2 ?

Hmmm

Mar 01, 2015
ruguyscrazy asked
What percentage of the recent warming cycle is man made, and what percentage is natural?
Beg pardon ?

Its immensely qualitative, any Scientist knows to qualify terms of reference but, U haven't, Y ?

Pray tell where I can get a diploma (1 yr?) as Atmospheric Scientist (AS) but, not have any required pre-requisites in Physics, Eg Specific Heat, Enthalpy, Energy Spectra eg Visible light from Total Solar Insolation (TSI) & its conversion function to Infra Red (IR) as processed by Earth's atmosphere, oceans & land etc ?

It's immensely interesting & I will pursue this.

I would be prepared to pay as much as $20 to gain such Diploma to add to my CV from Western Australian Institute of Technology & Curtin University as it seems a qualified Atmospheric Scientist of your credentials I will likely gain any number of grant funding from the local petrochemical industry, which as we know is driven to pump more oil given lower cost !

Where did U get it ?

Mar 01, 2015
Sorry new deniers, aka CO2 fans, ruguyscrazy is absolutely right, and you can't dispose his arguments either. Now that I have another perspective seeing you folks inanely and insultingly try to remove facts from this site it makes me realize there is something wrong with you.

You don't believe what you're posting.

So what are you?

Mar 01, 2015
!, 2, 3, 4 ............ where are you?
Denying the undeniable.
Like why the sky is blue or why prisms refract light - red, green blue violet.....

And so around the goldfish bowl they swim again trying to change the world to fit their beliefs.


Do people actually disagree that the climate has warmed?

The Climate Changes for 4.5 billion years.

"The polar bears will be fine". - Dyson. Not because it isn't warmer but because the warming is within historical norms (Glaciation on one end (or if you prefer, Little Ice Age), Roman and Medieval Climate Optimums on the other). Polar bears are fine, either way.

When wheat and dairy are produced for 400 years in Greenland, let me know, Then and only then will the planet have warmed to what is was 1000 years ago.


Mar 01, 2015
Ah, Mike if only you weren't so ignorant.

You'd realize the wonder of thermodynamics means you don't have to perform complicated integrals. You'd know the difference between state functions and path functions, and you would stop bother the site with these allegations you don't even understand.

Mar 01, 2015
Headlines I want to see:

DYSON EATEN BY STARVING POLAR BEAR

Mar 01, 2015
ruguyscrazy ...you can't dispose his arguments
@ruALCHEcrazy
why do you need to create a series of SOCKS to support your own fallacious position if it is supported by the science?

because of the old "repeat a lie often enough and someone will think it is true" argument!

Funny how neither of you have any scientific basis for your claims other than "i told you" or a misinterpretation of the science

so i will simply reiterate my requests:
WHERE is the equivalent evidence (equivalent to my studies) that are refuting, debunking or that prove the studies i linked are false

you've not been able to prove my studies false or provide empirical evidence and tie it into the studies showing a false assumption
(otherwise the studies would have been retracted or corrected)

all you are offering in unsubstantiated conjecture based upon your delusional beliefs...
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

Mar 01, 2015
I wish these blind deniers would put their money where their mouth is on global warming.
If the year is hotter than average every denier should pay out 100 bucks, every year it's cooler, the experts pay out 100

Mar 01, 2015
rugs:
So you went to number 48 at SkS webpage.

Which is a site run by climate scientists that link to peer-reviewed papers, and not Blogs run by people who promulgate conspiracy theories, lies and myths.
Try "hockeyschtick" to learn that the GHE effect violated the 2nd Law of thermodynamics for instance. I do take it you accept that is absurd re the GHE?

Global dimming? Has nothing to do with anything, a ridiculous theory. Why would anybody believe anything from that site?

You mean Wiki do you (dimming)?
Hand-waving isn't discussion of science - that statement is a personal opinion, and as such worthless.
At that point I think they could make the data say anything they want it to say. I don't know what they did, or how they did the manipulations, seems fishy.

Conspiracy theory, bizarre logically and probabilistically. Says much more of you my friend to resort to that conclusion.

ctd

Mar 01, 2015
ctd

"Then we controlled (The data) for other factors (Weather) that would impact our measurements" That seems like Voodoo.
Does this not bother anyone? Data is data

Doesn't bother me, then I recognise that data must be corrected for errors/biases. Or they should at least be identified and listed. That is the scientific method - then of course you know this as an AS.

Mar 01, 2015
zz5555

Again, I don't have much time, did not have internet for the last 24 hours, and will not have it again for another 24 hours, but let me address this:

" From that chart, the anthropogenic part is 2.29W/m2 (but note the large error bars) while the natural part is 0.05W/m2"

If that was true, how do you explain the warming from 1910-1940? Look at PDO, what your saying is impossible. PDO has a hugh impact on fluctuations of the earth's Temp. I have not seen anything, ever that does not show the hugh impact of PDO.

Also, show me the graph's that you all are using which shows that we have the same warming now as we did before 1998?

Got to check out of the hotel now, will get back to this

When I check in again, I will be asking any of you to put your money where your mouth is. That's right, a bet. So far nobody has ever taken me up on that. I will let you know about that when I get online again.

Thanks,

Rick


Mar 01, 2015
When I check in again, I will be asking any of you to put your money where your mouth is. That's right, a bet.
@rucrazy
ok, if it is money that motivates you, why didn't you win this challenge? http://dialogueso...nge.html

it was very simple:
I will award $10,000 of my own money, plus another $20,000 vouched for by The Young Turks, to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;

You must be 18 years old or older to enter;

Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first;
Are you saying that you have managed to win that bet?

because i've not heard ANY news on it... and i know that i am pretty much asking for the exact same thing

give me proof, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;

this means arguments equivalent to the studies that prove it DOES exist
SIMPLE
so where is it?


Mar 02, 2015
Unless you come back to your magnetic influence theory, which I still maintain is cyclic.

It always comes back to magnetic influence, but not just that. The other influences of note are the M cycles and the torque perturbations the Sun goes through over the course of the solar cycle.

Everything is cyclic, even the carbon cycle.

Mar 02, 2015
@ruguyscrazy

Your credentials as Atmospheric Scientist (AS) are important obviously, can u answer my query which I posted earlier but unfortunately u eitherhavent seen or thought important to address at the time.

I trust you understand well as a fellow scientist this is a defining issue of immense importance as it relates substantively physical properties with a thermal resistivity equivalent index, so had likely seen it & being independent as scientist with integrity U would address it, can u please ?

So as a qualified AS u can clearly show definitively integrating CO2's thermal properties as reflected in the gas' physical properties has a clear relationship between the gas' concentration (in ppm) vs its delta thermal resistivity in Watts per sq meter.

ie Formula of form Thermal Resistivity[Watts/m^2] = f(CO2, ppm)

Please ruguyscrazy, your considered comments as a scientist "in the field" ?

Incidentally, how long have you been working as a fully fledged AS ?

Mar 02, 2015
Unless you come back to your magnetic influence theory, which I still maintain is cyclic.

It always comes back to magnetic influence, but not just that. The other influences of note are the M cycles and the torque perturbations the Sun goes through over the course of the solar cycle.

Everything is cyclic, even the carbon cycle.

AGW isn't though that's the point. If not increasing anthro atmospheric CO2 then what other driver is there that isn't cyclic as well.

Mar 02, 2015
Scroofinator claimed
It always comes back to magnetic influence, but not just that
Does it, then please show the energy flux in watts per square meter & where that energy is depleted from and the associated evidence & whether it is anywhere near the magnitude of Total Solar Insolation (TSI) ?

Can U show Evidence ?

Scroofinator added
The other influences of note are the M cycles and the torque perturbations the Sun goes through over the course of the solar cycle
No as warming alread shown to be out of phase with Milankovitch cycles !

If not show Evidence ?

Scroofinator claimed
Everything is cyclic, even the carbon cycle.
Without the purposeful nature of vast industrial expansion sure, how is industrial continued growth cyclical for last 1200 or so yrs ?

Seen it before eg prior to & post the previous Milankovitch cycle ?

Mar 02, 2015
@Scroofinator
big thumbs, should have been
"Without the purposeful nature of vast industrial expansion sure, how is industrial continued growth cyclical for last 200 or so yrs"

Mar 02, 2015
I wish these blind deniers would put their money where their mouth is on global warming.
If the year is hotter than average every denier should pay out 100 bucks, every year it's cooler, the experts pay out 100

Here's a better solution. You AGW Chicken Littles share with us your non-CO2 producing sources of electricity, fuel and chemicals, and then we join you in ushering in the next ice age.

Mar 02, 2015
AGW isn't though that's the point.

It is though, based on seasonal changes. Granted, it's still on an upward trend but it's still cyclic. The debatable part is how much CO2 is actually influencing temperature, as I don't think it can be questioned it does affect the climate.

It also seems the Sun's 'cold phases' (i.e grand minimums) have more of an effect on the climate then previously realized by the "science community".
http://www.spaced...999.html
"The detailed study makes it possible to draw comparisons with records of fluctuations of solar energy bursts in the same period, and the results show a clear correlation between climate change in the North Atlantic and variations in solar activity during the last 4,000 years, both on a large time scale over periods of hundreds of years and right down to fluctuations over periods of 10-20 years"

Landscheidt had it right, therefore, I told you so ;)

Mar 02, 2015
The debatable part is how much CO2 is actually influencing temperature, as I don't think it can be questioned it does affect the climate.
@scroof
why don't you think it affects the climate?
it hangs around for a long time...
and it causes a feedback with WV, a vicious loop as noted by Lacis et al
http://pubs.giss....al_1.pdf
this is one of the reasons that CO2 is considered the control knob, it's interaction with WV as well as the feedback/cycle
It also seems the Sun's 'cold phases'
IMHO - if you are going to link something as supporting evidence, you should go with the study, not the article

http://geology.gs...abstract

do you have a free version of that study so that we can view the contents?
if you find one, link it here so that we can all see it
THANKS
I told you so
i am waiting to see all the evidence before making a decision,
just sayin

Mar 02, 2015
Landscheidt had it right, therefore, I told you so ;)

Scroof;
You know I agree a Solar min does cause some climate change. But it's a regional one caused by a shift in the meridional movement of Arctic air (and thus also temperate NH air) by a weakening of the PJS.
We do not have enough evidence to suggest the LIA was an effect that produced a reduction in ave global temps. I suspect it was a little, but there were volcanic events that complicate.
Whatever, the current fading of TSi is certainly not the cause of warming.

See this chapter in IPCC AR4 for details of current understanding....

http://www.ipcc.c...1-1.html

Mar 02, 2015
If that was true, how do you explain the warming from 1910-1940? Look at PDO, what your saying is impossible.

You seem to be confused again. The PDO is a cycle - as such it cannot cause long term warming. The PDO has had a number of cycles since 1920 (a good guess for one of the minimums) and we're in a minimum now, near the end of the current negative PDO. Global temperatures are now ~0.7C higher than in 1920. If it was because of the PDO cycle, we'd be about the same temperature as 1920 (http://www.skepti...nced.htm ). So the PDO is a silly suggestion.

You also seem to have forgotten about that big star in our sky. The global temperature tracked the solar irradiance very well until CO2 started to dominate the climate drivers and solar irradiance started to drop (http://www.skepti...ming.htm ). Really, that didn't seem that difficult.

Mar 02, 2015
zz5555
"So, if you're claiming that it's clouds, what is the forcing that is increasing or decreasing the amount of cloud cover?"

Cosmic Rays, many people don't realize that without an aerosol, you can not have condensation. One of my main points is that we still understand very little about this earth, and I am not seeing the climate change that you all seem to see? I am sure these hotels will be here for another 100 years, and it is very flat going into the ocean just outside my resort. They are suppose to be under water now, according to forecast models from 10 years ago.

http://junkscienc...-clouds/

I am in Boracay now, but my gf lost a bag with the airline, that has her passport in it, so I have to go the airport now.

Don"t worry I will have a bet that not one person was willing to take, and it's pretty simple, hopefully I can get that post out later today, and answer some more of the questions you asked.

Thanks

Mar 02, 2015
Cosmic Rays, many people don't realize that without an aerosol, you can not have condensation.

Seriously? Haven't you done any research into this at all? In the past, when cosmic rays were much greater, there was no drastic change in the climate and all the evidence indicates that cosmic rays contribute insignificantly to climate change (http://www.skepti...nced.htm ). The CERN CLOUD experiments appear to agree that cosmic rays have little effect on clouds. Cosmic rays also don't match the signature of the current warming. Really, with absolutely no evidence supporting the cosmic ray conjecture and a great deal of evidence rejecting it, why would anyone jump to cosmic rays?

Anyway, good luck with the bag and passport. I'm not sure what the bet is about, but most bets on the climate seem silly to me since you need to wait a long time to resolve the bet (I'm not much of a gambler anyway).

Mar 03, 2015
why don't you think it affects the climate?

It does affect climate, I specifically said that. I just think it's not the cause of climate change, although it does amplify it's effects.
you should go with the study, not the article

You're right, my error. Here you go (click researchgate pdf).
https://scholar.g...e=active
We do not have enough evidence to suggest the LIA was an effect that produced a reduction in ave global temps. I suspect it was a little, but there were volcanic events that complicate

It's not clear cut but the evidence is there, and it's the best hypothesis around.

Speaking of volcanic activity, how do you think the recent eruption of Villarrica will affect the climate? Last time it erupted was in 1971, just before the last "cooling" period.

Mar 03, 2015
I'll make you (Believers in AGW) a deal, we will know the answer in just 5 years:

$1000.00 Bet

I predict the ocean will rise 15 mm by the year 2020.

The lowest prediction that I have seen from the alarmist, the lowest amount of sea level rise, by the year 2100, is 1,000 mm, or a meter, if we do the math,

1000 mm / 85 years = 11.75 mm/ yr then 5 yr. X 11.75 mm/ yr = 58.82 mm Thats the LOWEST prediction!

I predict, 15 mm, AGW side predicts at a minimum 59 mm.

I have heard/read many many in the AGW camp, predict 5 times that amount or, 295 mm, by 2020!

Let's check the ocean level rise by 2020, then you will know who is making the correct predictions, me or the warmist?

The money goes in a trust account for 5 years. USA lower 48 participants only, and not CA. I will travel to the city of anyone that takes the bet, and spend a few minutes at a bank of your choice. One other thing, winner pays for dinner at very nice restaurant, for a good debate!


Mar 04, 2015
I'll make you (Believers in AGW) a deal, we will know the answer in just 5 years:

$1000.00 Bet
@crazy
i will make you and all you deniers an even BETTER bet!
winner gets a Nobel as well as worldwide recognition and the ability to get a job almost anywhere due to the overwhelming publicity ... guaranteed medial coverage that will make you a household name overnight!!!

all you gotta do is:
Using the Scientific Method, prove that there is NO global warming, that CO2 is NO threat to the environment and show that the studies already published are all wrong due to mistakes in math, observation and the science/physics behind it!

you already had your chance to prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring; and make $30,000 of easy money: http://dialogueso...nge.html

but you didn't

why is that?

why aren't you famous and $30,000 richer?

Mar 04, 2015
1000 mm / 85 years = 11.75 mm/ yr then 5 yr. X 11.75 mm/ yr = 58.82 mm Thats the LOWEST prediction!

I predict, 15 mm, AGW side predicts at a minimum 59 mm.

Did you mean this to sound as silly as it does? AGW does not (and never has) predicted a minimum of 59mm in 5 years. What, in nature, is linear? The answer is: very little and certainly not sea level rise. The acceleration in sea level, in all the projections I've seen, doesn't really become noticeable until mid-century, so sea level should rise at ~3.2mm/year until then. But before you say "oh, that means 16mm in 5 years" look at the recent sea level history: http://sealevel.colorado.edu . Weather can make sea level rise or drop by millimeters in a year. A La Nina can make the level temporarily drop by 10mm. The only way someone should take this bet is based on the best estimate trend. And, in that case, I would suggest you've already lost - the inertia is against you.

Mar 04, 2015
I should add that this is precisely why I think betting on the climate is idiotic. If, in 5 years, we're in the middle of an ENSO event (not unlikely), then the loser - again, almost by definition, that is you - would be correct to say we have to wait until the ENSO event is over before declaring a winner. That could take 5 years (maybe more if another ENSO event follows). So you could be looking at waiting 10+ years to double your money. That's not a horrible investment, but it's certainly not a great one. I, for one, can do better.

Mar 04, 2015
ruguyscrazy claimed
I'll make you (Believers in AGW) a deal, we will know the answer in just 5 years
Far better, lower cost & nil risk for any group is for an Atmospheric Scientist (AS) YOU to work out added thermal resistivity to infra-red properties of CO2 (& other greenhouse gases if u want) in comparable units to Total Solar Insolation (TSI) ie. Watts per square meter ?

Can U do that ?

We had this pathetic DICK who claimed to be a Physical Chemist (PC) who SHOULD be able to work it out EASILY as it is directly related to the core physical properties of molecular vibrations with substantive quantification of such vibrations to IR absorbance/emission which a PC SHOULD know from uni !

But LOL, not only did the DICK claim 4 technical degrees, he focused on qualitative relative ppm which could NOT be placed in the correct units of Watts per square meter, ie a DICK !

So as AS, please show us a glimpse of your claimed education & IQ with such calculation

Can U ?

Mar 04, 2015
Scroofinator claimed (AGAIN)
It does affect climate, I specifically said that. I just think it's not the cause of climate change, although it does amplify it's effects
Beg Pardon ?

Either it adds immense Watts/m^2 or somehow redirects existing W/m^2 elsewhere, where ?

& HOW - ie Physics ?

Scroofinator claimed
It's not clear cut but the evidence is there, and it's the best hypothesis around
NO. What evidence, Medieval LIA appears to be a local effect & appears to be related to the thermohaline re Atlantic, sometimes called the "Atlantic Conveyor".

The FAR better hypothesis is that CO2, with known & irrefutable thermal properties of adding thermal resistivity vibration states & infra-red (IR) interferes with emission to space.

For cosmic rays to have sufficient energy they need to have a VERY high comparable POWER in Watts per sq m related as some proportion of energy from Sun, ie resulting in heat as IR !

Evidence pls, even a little ?

Mar 04, 2015
Mikey,
I tell you what, the truth is so much easier to prove than a falsehood, therefor why don't you show us an integral or computation?

Show us how a 0.0135% change in CO2, results in a 0.1% change in heat. It is supposed to be a linear effect, right?

But if it is linear, then how is it there that between two periods of CO2 increase, temperature is no linear?

Mar 04, 2015
Mikey,
I tell you what, the truth is so much easier to prove than a falsehood, therefor why don't you show us an integral or computation?

Show us how a 0.0135% change in CO2, results in a 0.1% change in heat. It is supposed to be a linear effect, right?

But if it is linear, then how is it there that between two periods of CO2 increase, temperature is no linear?

Water:
I'll jump in and answer for Mike:
Each greenhouse gas has a different radiative forcing formula, but for CO2:

dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co)

Where 'dF' is the radiative forcing in Watts per square meter, 'C' is the concentration of atmospheric CO2, and 'Co' is the reference CO2concentration. Normally the value of Co is chosen at the pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppmv.

Go here to do the calcs>

https://www.googl...lculator

Gives 1.9W/m2 for 400ppm over pre-industrial 280

Mar 04, 2015
No, you can't cut in for Mikey. He needs to put his brains where his mouth is.

Besides, you are just data-fitting. What's you're justification for using a log? Do you have some constraint?

What happens if we reduce the amount of CO2, back to 280? Wow, zero contribution from CO2! We can actually reverse the laws of thermodynamics, just by making it smaller than pre-industrial levels! You've solved our problem, clearly it diminishes much faster than it grows, so all we have to do is create pockets of atm with near zero CO2.

5.35 ln(>~0) will clearly allow us to fine tune the amount of heat we want to leave the atm..

Of did you mean the integral. That's good to, then F --> ∞ as CO2 --> 0.

Mar 04, 2015
What's you're justification for using a log?
If you don't know that, then you really don't know anything about how the greenhouse effect works.
What happens if we reduce the amount of CO2, back to 280? Wow, zero contribution from CO2! We can actually reverse the laws of thermodynamics, just by making it smaller than pre-industrial levels! You've solved our problem, clearly it diminishes much faster than it grows, so all we have to do is create pockets of atm with near zero CO2.
If you are serious about the preceding, then you also don't understand how to interpret logarithms.
Of did you mean the integral. That's good to, then F --> ��� as CO2 --> 0.

Or to calculate integrals.

In short, what you posted there gives absolutely no confidence to anyone familiar with the subject matter that you have any clue what you are talking about. Would you like to try to repair the damage, or are you not actually serious about the science here?

Mar 04, 2015
If you are serious about the preceding, then you also don't understand how to interpret logarithms.

Yes, the "We can actually reverse the laws of thermodynamics, just by making it smaller than pre-industrial levels!" is a profoundly silly comment, even for Water_Prophet.

Mar 05, 2015
DLK, as usual, you flap like a fish on dry land. Your support of AGW defeats the cause.

ln (1) = 0.
ln(0) = -�ž

I only know what you AGW-ers are claiming-using your own assumptions against you.
Int of ln (C) = C ln(C) -C. What is this near 0?

What makes you think that such a simplistic "model" is going to fit more than two data points? When all these complicated model are so controversial and have constraints with which to derive equations.

Ah, well, at least you are in there trying. But making false claims helps you not at all.

Let's get Mikey, he won't eat it, he hates everything.

Look, Mikey, everyone is falling on their sword for you, why don't you save them from this embarrassment? Stop them from humiliating themselves with these TSI and integrals you are always talking about!

Save them!

Mar 05, 2015
Stumpy

"all you gotta do is:
Using the Scientific Method, prove that there is NO global warming, that CO2 is NO threat"

Impossible, and a ridiculous reply to my bet. Let me make this clear, there is not a soul on this planet, that knows the future or could prove anything either way. It would be easier for mankind to understand and replicate the human brain.

You all seem to forget that the oceans will not allow drastic changes in temperature.

Stumpy, from your comment it's very apparent that you probably thought about it, (My bet) and realized I was right. Keep in mind that in my bet I gave the climate models the benefit of the doubt and went with the lowest prediction, and I just laugh because you won't even make the bet under those conditions? I don't think I could be more fair.

You obviously know I am right. So easy to prove you "Warmist" don't really believe the garbage you put out there. Otherwise you would bet me.

Mar 05, 2015
You obviously know I am right. So easy to prove you "Warmist" don't really believe the garbage you put out there. Otherwise you would bet me.

You didn't pay attention to anything I said, did you? You variously claimed that it was PDO or clouds that were causing the warming - both of which are known to be untrue. Now you want to bet someone that sea level will rise < 15mm in 5 years - 1 mm less than climate science says it should rise. But sea level is noisy and varies +/- several mm every year. So your bet really isn't about climate science at all. It's just a random bet, like "how many red cars will pass us in 5 minutes." If you won the bet, it wouldn't mean climate science was wrong - it wouldn't say anything about climate science.

I'm genuinely interested here - pretty much everything you've said has been shown to be wrong. Maybe you should step back and try to learn something about science before you comment again.

Mar 05, 2015
I'm genuinely interested here - pretty much everything you've said has been shown to be wrong.

Sorry, I meant to ask a question here: Why do you keep commenting when the odds are good that your comment will be nonsense? I'd think, "scientist" that you are, that you'd want to try to learn from your previous mistakes, but I see no indication of that from you. Maybe that's the big difference between those of us that accept science and those, like you, that oppose it - we like to learn, you don't.

Mar 05, 2015
zz5555

"Did you mean this to sound as silly as it does? AGW does not (and never has) predicted a minimum of 59mm in 5 years. What, in nature, is linear?

The rise of the ocean. X=1 and Y=-1


Mar 05, 2015
Guinness Book of World Records "Year 2085"

BIGGEST HOAX

"To date the worlds greatest hoax ever perpetrated, started at the turn of the century. There was so much propaganda on man made climate change, that over half the people in the world were convinced, that the earth's climate was doomed from a small increase in C02. This Hoax went on for over two decades.

To date, it's the furthest a lie has ever gone, and it involved more people than any other lie in history of mankind, making it, the world's biggest hoax!"

Mar 05, 2015
Hmm, thinking about this some more, I notice that you never really follow through on one of your arguments - you just wait until someone shows it's wrong and then move on to another argument without ever acknowledging your error. And your bet isn't even about testing whether climate science is right or not.

This is sounding more and more like you're just here to argue, not to discuss - that is, you're just a troll. Have I got that about right?

Mar 05, 2015
zz5555

That comment was not to you? I started on your comment, but decided to enjoy a nice evening on the #1 tropical beach, but in just a few minutes you commented back. Don't worry I am not done with you yet. LOL Gotta go for now, will comment tomorrow on your comments.

Mar 05, 2015
zz5555

"Did you mean this to sound as silly as it does? AGW does not (and never has) predicted a minimum of 59mm in 5 years. What, in nature, is linear?

The rise of the ocean. X=1 and Y=-1


Except, of course, it isn't: http://www.vliz.b...8675.pdf . And neither are the projections: http://www.ipcc.c...e-1.html .

Didn't you think to research this even the least little bit before making your bet? Or do you find making stuff up more enjoyable?

Mar 05, 2015
@Water_Prophet Wow, you pooped the bed with that first comment, and when I tried to give you a chance to mitigate your mistakes, you just rolled around in it proudly, and even doubled down by trying to insult me. It's becoming increasingly clear that you are just another troll, with not scientific acumen to speak of, and no interest in actually discussing these issues in a scientific context.

You asked why the function for radiative forcing from CO2 should be logarithmic with concentration:
simplistic answer: because the most intense part of the 15 micron absorbance band saturates very quickly at low concentrations, so the increased absorbance at higher concentrations comes only from the lower intensity sidebands.

more complex answer: realistic models need to include factors like the thermal lapse rate with altitude in the atmosphere, and the feedback from water vapor; when this is done, the functional form is still logarithmic, in accordance with runrig's post.

Mar 05, 2015
@Water_Prophet

You asked:

I only know what you AGW-ers are claiming-using your own assumptions against you.
Int of ln (C) = C ln(C) -C. What is this near 0?


Well, that function has an indeterminate form near C=0, but if you apply L'Hopital's rule appropriately, it's easy to see that the limit of the integral as C approaches zero (from above) is 0.
This is why I suggested that you might want to correct the mistakes in your earlier post (where you claimed this integral approached positive infinity as C approached zero) yourself, but since you decided to ridicule me for trying to help you, I have no problem pointing out your errors in detail so that everyone can appreciate them.

Mar 05, 2015
As for insults, I seem to recall your sneers before, I'll say I'm wrong and apologize.

You are obviously smarter than a skeptigoon, so you yourself must see how you are wrong.
L'Hopital's rule, we don't really need that in our argument do we? And it doesn't really help yours at all, does it? Sure you get rid of the infinity, but you are still left with a unbound very strong exponential function.
simplistic answer: because the most intense part of the 15 micron absorbance band saturates very quickly at low concentrations, so the increased absorbance at higher concentrations comes only from the lower intensity sidebands.

Well this is rejected of necessity by GW proponents. It doesn't really fit with your exponential above. Water Vapor "feedback" has two components: 1. Water Vapor, which over 70% of the Earth has 100% humidity, the other 17% has > 23x more water vapor than CO2.

Cont.

Mar 05, 2015
This is especially important at the equator. Over 25% of the Earth's area! It has an remarkably stable average humidity of <~ 81ppm greater than CO2 ppm.

It is a more powerful GHG, and it has increased by 435 ppm, not a measly 135ppm. This means apples to apples.

Now 2. Evaporation/condensation effect is ~5x greater than the GHE.

Therefore, the increase in steady-state water vapor trumps CO2 two ways; by concentration and by power, AGWers claim WV is 7(?) times greater than CO2, I say ~40. The increase of energy dissipated by VW from evaporation/condensation it's increase should also be trumped, even by the 435ppm.

This means, CO2 is not the causal agent.
I can continue down the log-function strain, but I am confident that if you have familiarity with L'Hopital's rule, you've already gotten it, or will. If not, we can continue.

Apology: I must have mixed you up with someone else. It was rude and I apologize.

Mikey, your friends are dying for you, help them!

Mar 05, 2015
a ridiculous reply
@crazy
no, it is logical
Let me make this clear, there is not a soul on this planet, that knows the future or could prove anything either way
this is called personal conjecture without evidence and only shows that you are unfamiliar with the scientific method
there ARE certain things that are possible to predict given our knowledge of physics

case in point: i can predict with 99.9% accuracy that you will not be alive in 250 years

this is based upon sound physical evidence, repeated and observed over and over, as well as the known laws of physics and the known medical studies
it's very apparent that you probably thought about it, (My bet) and realized I was right
actually, what i realised was that you are a loon and you have NO scientific acumen, only CLAIMS- like ALCHE

you have NO ability to refute the known science so your "bet" is simply a red herring
distraction to get people to stop proving you wrong

it wont work

Mar 05, 2015
You obviously know I am right. So easy to prove you "Warmist" don't really believe the garbage you put out there. Otherwise you would bet me
@crazy/ALCHE
actually, this is nothing more than a red herring distraction

might i also point out that if you had ANY scientific ability
AND if you had the ability to "put your money where your mouth is"
AND if you actually had the education that is CLAIMED
AND if you were even remotely correct in ANY way...

you would have published actual scientific papers that:
-refuted the known science and studies
-won you a Nobel
-gotten you incredible amounts of attention from the scientific community making you a household name

what we SEE instead is that you are sharing personal conjecture and assuming it has the same scientific validity as the observation, experiments, evidence and more that is included in a study

that is NOT the scientific method
that is PSEUDOSCIENCE
and why you will fail

i would bet a YEARS pay on that

Mar 05, 2015

Guinness Book of World Records "Year 2085"
BIGGEST HOAX
@crazy/ALCHE
Personal Conjecture based upon delusion, faith and no scientific evidence involved

so tell us
do you/ALCHE have ANY scientific evidence using the scientific method substantiating your comments?

no?

i didn't think so

all i am seeing is your intentional misrepresentation of the physics by using the kohl-slaw method of science -
throw enough minutia out there and cloud the issue with distortions of physics and known laws based upon your religious faith in something and someone will believe you because they are too afraid to research the actual science

IOW - this is PSEUDOSCIENCE

if you were correct, the studies would be retracted or corrected

Mar 05, 2015
Stumpy, if you understood science, you would note all I reference is "scientific evidence." Water Vapor is controlled by availability and temperature. (THAT IS SCIENCE.)
The Tropics cover >25% of the Earth. (THAT IS SCIENCE.)
That is the most important area in terms of heat and insulation, via thermodynamics. (THAT IS SCIENCE.)
Evaporation/condensation transfers more heat than the GHE. (THAT IS SCIENCE.)
Etc., etc., etc., what more do you need? References? They are very well established, considered common, they don't need references.

But it is apparent you don't care. You are just here to ensure reasonable thought is harassed and chased away. What is the salary for that?

Mar 05, 2015
you would note all I reference is "scientific evidence."
@ALCHE
no, what you are doing is INTERPRETING scientific evidence
there is a huge difference
take your post above
Water Vapor is controlled by ...Etc., etc., etc.,
you look at individual points and ASSUME something
whereas I took a scientific study that observed and measured CO2 as well as WV ( http://www.scienc...abstract ) and read the conclusions, the methodology, and more which take into account factors that you intentionally IGNORE because it would mean undermining your own position and fallacious interpretation of the evidence

what you are doing is flooding the site with minutia, then cherry picking specific data that you THINK gives a preordained conclusion (but you don't understand all the factors involved), then you make an ASSUMPTION and draw a delusional conclusion regardless of the FACTS

you should have followed thru with the Thermo experiment


Mar 05, 2015
what more do you need? References?
@ALCHE
what YOU need is studies that conclude the same thing that you are promoting

just because you have a faith in your own Dunning-Kruger, doesn't mean it is true or scientifically valid
They are very well established, considered common, they don't need references
just because you can flood with data doesn't mean you can interpret that data
If i took you to an accident with three Tractor/trailers and trained you as a firefighter, you would stand a good chance of being killed because of the lack of knowledge of HAZ-MAT and the failure of you to understand how certain things burned, vaporized, atomized, spread or could possible kill, or how they are marked to make you watch for possible problems...

THAT is the point i am making
just because you can throw out data doesn't mean you understand anything about it
it only means that you can link irrelevant minutia and then make conjectures

Mar 05, 2015
@ALCHE
last point
But it is apparent you don't care. You are just here to ensure reasonable thought is harassed and chased away. What is the salary for that?
You are wrong

i DO care... about actual, PROVABLE science
that means, when YOU can provide a study that states the same thing you are trying to fallaciously claim, then i will take far more notice of it

why?

like i said above: just because you can flood the site with data and make a claim doesn't mean that it is correct or even relevant

it is also NOT scientific

if you want to impress anyone with your "conclusions"
get them published
refute the studies that are out there and publish the results in a reputable peer reviewed publication

it would hold more water than "hey, look at this data point and listen to what i say"

what you are claiming is no different than saying "the wind picks up every time a fairy farts, therefore evidence says cyclones are caused by Fairies camping en masse and eating beans"

Mar 05, 2015
digression
What is the salary for that?
@ALCHE
lets see... i've provided EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE in the highest form possible by linking studies published in reputable peer reviewed journals etc
That would mean that my claims are backed up by proven science

now lets look at ALCHE
alche takes various collected data points and makes ASSUMPTIONS about the conclusions that are REFUTED by the studies

then cannot back up said claims with further studies that support her conclusions

to top it off, there is the knowledge that there is a movement intentionally trying to promote false science and undermine REAL knowledge and studies
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

Now, there is only one conclusion that we can make from this:
ALCHE is paid to promote false science and obfuscate knowledge with intentional misinformation and conjecture

THAT is why you never produce studies

Mar 05, 2015
You are obviously smarter than a skeptigoon, so you yourself must see how you are wrong.
L'Hopital's rule, we don't really need that in our argument do we? And it doesn't really help yours at all, does it? Sure you get rid of the infinity, but you are still left with a unbound very strong exponential function.


You are seriously going to try to resist on this? You claimed that the function: [ x ln(x) - x ] tends towards positive infinity as x goes to zero. It does not .. it goes to zero as x goes to zero. I you don't see it from L'Hopital's rule, then just plot it up in excel. Calculate x ln(x) at for the following series of points: 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001 ... do the results look like they are trending towards positive infinity, as you claimed?

Also, where the heck are you getting an "exponential" function from? None of the rest of us have been talking about one.

Mar 05, 2015
So how am I interpreting the size of the tropics? If I ask someone else will they change their surface area? How am I interpreting humidity/water vapor ppm is a function of availability and temp?

NO, THERE IS NO INTERPRETATION, they just are. That is my MO. Use physical properties to demonstrate reality.

By all means, let's follow through with themos "experiment." Let's pick up by addressing my objections. Which were clearly stated before, during and after, but over-ruled with the statement, "Let's just wait and see what Thermo comes up with."

Fine, Well I saw what thermo came up with, my objections still were unaddressed, and I object to what thermo came up with, now lets go back to why we should not have waited in the first place.

Indeed, not "you," either, just thermo.

Indeed, let's press. Let's do it. If he's right than my objections should be demonstrably refutable.

Mar 05, 2015
simplistic answer: because the most intense part of the 15 micron absorbance band saturates very quickly at low concentrations, so the increased absorbance at higher concentrations comes only from the lower intensity sidebands.

Well this is rejected of necessity by GW proponents.
What are you talking about? This is the entire basis for the calculation of the contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect. You integrate the total absorbance of IR light down a column of atmosphere, including all of the measured spectral lines. The most intense parts of the bands saturate quickly even at low CO2 conc., but the less intense parts don't saturate at all, and so increase the overall absorbance as a function of CO2 conc. The result of the column integral is a function that increases logarithmically with CO2 concentration. It's straightforward.
It doesn't really fit with your exponential above.
What exponential? Who mentioned an exponential?

Mar 05, 2015
DLK, Hey, don't object to me over the equation! I am not proposing it! I just did an integration (assuming that was desired), took it at face value and exposed it's flaws. I can't defend what I obviously think is preposterous!

Riddle me this, how is a concentration function going to zero going to yield OTHER than zero?

Effect = F([CO2]). Or do you object to the idea that radiative forcing from CO2 at [CO2] = 0, is other than zero? CO2 can affect the atmosphere when it is not there? And yes, I understand the initial concentration was based on 280ppm.

Now do you see?

Exponential function. Sorry, to anyone who deals with logs and exponents frequently, they are basically synonymous: x = e^-t --> t = - ln x.

Mikey, they need your help!

Mar 05, 2015
This is especially important at the equator. Over 25% of the Earth's area! It has an remarkably stable average humidity of <~ 81ppm greater than CO2 ppm.

It is a more powerful GHG, and it has increased by 435 ppm, not a measly 135ppm. This means apples to apples.
This is not "apples to apples", it's the very definition of "apples to oranges". You cannot meaningfully compare the radiative effects of two different gases just by looking at their concentrations. You have to account for their absorption profiles over the entire spectral region where they absorb radiation.

But more importantly, the only reason the WV concentration has increased is BECAUSE of the higher CO2, and other non-WV GHG's. This is because WV is condensible, so it's lifetime in the atmosphere is short. If you suddenly doubled the concentration of WV, the condensation rate would increase and it would fall quickly back to its original level, without extra heat to sustain the increased evaporation.

Mar 05, 2015
DLK, Hey, don't object to me over the equation! I am not proposing it! I just did an integration (assuming that was desired), took it at face value and exposed it's flaws
But you got the wrong answer, and I guess you are now trying to pretend that you didn't? Otherwise how can you be claiming to have "exposed it's flaws"?

Riddle me this, how is a concentration function going to zero going to yield OTHER than zero?
It's not, nobody is claiming any different. You just apparently missed an important part of the definition of the equation, which is that it described the *increase* in radiative forcing *relative to the 280 ppm level*. So the fact that it will give a negative value when you plug in a concentration lower than 280 ppm (i.e. your claimed "flaw" in the equation) is utterly apparent to anyone who understands what the equation means .. it's supposed to do that, because a negative increase is a decrease.

Mar 05, 2015
Exponential function. Sorry, to anyone who deals with logs and exponents frequently, they are basically synonymous: x = e^-t --> t = - ln x.


You cannot be serious. You try to speak as if you have the intellectual/mathematical/scientific upper hand in these exchanges, and yet you continue make posts that are the intellectual/mathematical/scientific equivalent of screaming and smearing poo on yourself. Exponentiation is the mathematical INVERSE of taking the logarithm, but that is completely different from being synonymous. The two functions have completely different functional forms, and in fact are not even defined over the same domain of possible arguments.

But you still haven't made it clear: do you accept that you were wrong when you claimed that the function [x ln(x) - x] tends to positive infinity as x approaches zero? What confidence can you expect us to have in your intellectual ability, if you cannot recognize such a simple mistake?

Mar 05, 2015
Yes, I do:
Water vapor is a broad spectrum absorber with two broad peaks.
CO2 has one significant peak in the IR.

Where water vapor doesn't have peaks, it still absorbs IR between 0.1 and 4. Adjusted for, using between 9x and 45x the concentration of CO2, is very impressive.

So, a small change in CO2 creates a larger change in a stronger GHG. Using mechanics as you understand them, can you explain how this works?

I see it as a transistor given a little juice by CO2. It causes H2O juice to be released, But that juice is also fed-back into that transistor, right? And H2O juice is by concentration alone, 3x greater than CO2 juice, so it should increase, again right?

What am I missing?

Mar 05, 2015
Riddle me this, how is a concentration function going to zero going to yield OTHER than zero?
It's not, nobody is claiming any different. You just apparently missed an important part of the definition of the equation, which is that it described the *increase* in radiative forcing *relative to the 280 ppm level*. So the fact that it will give a negative value when you plug in a concentration lower than 280 ppm (i.e. your claimed "flaw" in the equation) is utterly apparent to anyone who understands what the equation means .. it's supposed to do that, because a negative increase is a decrease.

I should point out that the equation shows the correct *qualitative* behavior for CO2 concentrations lower than 280 ppm (i.e. decreasing forcing), but would only give quantitatively correct answers for CO2 concentrations fairly close to that value. Nobody expects or claims that it should give correct behavior for near-zero CO2 levels.

Mar 05, 2015
And yes, I understand the initial concentration was based on 280ppm.


DLK, plug in some values near, but not zero, then compare their magnitudes with the 400ppm. That's all I ask.

PS: C-C ln C, I can't defend what is preposterous. The integral is correct, the premise of using it is preposterous.

Mikey, how can you let you brothers in arms suffer so? Have you no mercy?

Mar 05, 2015
So, a small change in CO2 creates a larger change in a stronger GHG. Using mechanics as you understand them, can you explain how this works?
I (and others) have already tried. You need to do some homework to absorb the answers.
I see it as a transistor given a little juice by CO2. It causes H2O juice to be released, But that juice is also fed-back into that transistor, right? And H2O juice is by concentration alone, 3x greater than CO2 juice, so it should increase, again right?
No, that is not a useful analogy. Mostly because it assumes an endless supply of "juice", and does not include any feature that would be analogous to radiative balance.
What am I missing?
Basically everything. Look, there are lots of high quality resources online (or even in books) that can help you understand the basics. Read up, come back, ask questions. The good thing about science is that the correct answers will still be correct when you get back ;)

Mar 05, 2015
DLK, the transistor analogy BETTER be a good analogy, and only a moron would assume infinite juice. Indeed, that pipe-dream is dispelled after the first week of using transistors.
Basically everything
is not an answer, it's a cop-out. I allowed you the opportunity to show me my errors and you said I need an education. The fact is if you go down that road, you paint yourself in a corner. I asked the question knowing the answer-sorry.

Nobody expects or claims that it should give correct behavior for near-zero CO2 levels.

You are kidding me! 400ppm is near-zero levels! 400/1000000. 0.00004. That was the point of this conversation, if it is not working near zero, it ain't working.

I don't see anything other than tap-dancing and possibly deliberate ignoring of the germane points in your last posts. So...

Mikey, see how desperately they need a rescue?

Mar 05, 2015
DLK, the transistor analogy BETTER be a good analogy
Why?
, and only a moron would assume infinite juice.
but your "model" does just that
Basically everything
is not an answer, it's a cop-out. I allowed you the opportunity to show me my errors and you said I need an education. The fact is if you go down that road, you paint yourself in a corner.
I gave you my opinion. You can continue to scream and smear poo on yourself if you like. I tried to help.
Nobody expects or claims that it should give correct behavior for near-zero CO2 levels.

You are kidding me! 400ppm is near-zero levels! 400/1000000. 0.00004. That was the point of this conversation, if it is not working near zero, it ain't working.
You really are an unconscionable troll, aren't you? Otherwise it would have been obvious that I mean near-zero *IN PPM* .. after all, we were talking in the context of 280 *PPM* being the reference value. SHEESH! (also 400 ppm=0.0004, not 0.00004)

Mar 05, 2015
Absolutely unconscionable! In that I expect answers, not evasions. You keep bringing up stale and incorrect arguments, which I waived away like spiderwebs, focus on nits, like me punching an extra zero, and you can't even justify your points self-consistently.

Mikey, you see, you should have handled it yourself.

Mar 05, 2015
DLK said: "The most intense part of the 15 micron absorbance band saturates very quickly at low concentrations, so the increased absorbance at higher concentrations comes only from the lower intensity sidebands.[q/]

Can we take a few minutes out of the political discussions and run this comment to ground? I have heard it before but it does not fall out of my calculations. For instance, what does "saturates very quickly" mean for Beer's law?

Likewise, the only sideband I would be concerned about is where water vapor starts coming in around 17,000 nm.

Do you have a cite where this is clearly worded and worked out? I just want to see how they are using vocabulary.

Mar 05, 2015
Absolutely unconscionable! In that I expect answers,
you got them, you just didn't like them
not evasions.
Where was I evasive? Other than declining to teach you the basics from the ground up via posts in a forum with a 1000 char limit.
You keep bringing up stale and incorrect arguments,
Such as?
which I waived away like spiderwebs
Please point to where you have refuted any of the points or arguments I raised
focus on nits, like me punching an extra zero,
I have only done this because you have made so many basic errors that I can no longer tell what you do and do not know.
and you can't even justify your points self-consistently.
More vague claims of some deficiency on the part of other .. please provide specific examples where you think my justifications were not self-consistent?

In the meantime, what about all of the points I made that you just ignored, like WV being unable to drive heating of the atmosphere due to its short residence time?

Mar 05, 2015
DLK said: "The most intense part of the 15 micron absorbance band saturates very quickly at low concentrations, so the increased absorbance at higher concentrations comes only from the lower intensity sidebands.


Can we take a few minutes out of the political discussions and run this comment to ground? I have heard it before but it does not fall out of my calculations. For instance, what does "saturates very quickly" mean for Beer's law?
Beer's law is only valid in the limit of fairly low absorbance. As the absorbance increases above about one OD, the deviations from linearity start to become greater. This is because the linearity of Beer's law arises from the assumption that each photon passing through the sample will interact with AT MOST a single absorbing molecule. Once that assumption starts to fail, then logarithmic nature of absorbance [A=-log(I/I0) where I/I0 is the ratio of meas. intensity to some ref. value I0] starts to become apparent.

[ctd]

Mar 05, 2015
Look, there are lots of high quality resources online (or even in books) that can help you understand the basics. Read up, come back, ask questions. The good thing about science is that the correct answers will still be correct when you get back ;)
Of course, one must be willing to set aside your bias and predeterminations and actually learn about the science. Waving your hands or stomping your feet because you don't want things to be a certain way, does not mean that things are not that way.

We've all tried to tell Water Pfftt that. He doesn't understand because he will not try to understand. If it goes against what he has decided is truth, he ignores it.

Mar 05, 2015
DLK, please just read the above conversation over again, you will see where you focus on the inane and ignore the germane. The feedback q, should've been an easy one, unfortunately one that forces you to agree your premise is wrong. Didn't you notice how you avoided that? I did.

We're done though, I am curious how you answer thermy's q's. Which is most certainly going to put you in a similar situation. I notice you fail to comprehend Beer's law right out. It's an approximation from the reality of iterations.

Maggie, you ever figure out what a mole is, or how to use it in an equation, or for that matter, a sentence. You can criticize me not at all.

Mar 05, 2015
@thermo

Since absorbance is a log function, you get diminishing returns from higher concentrations .. at 1 OD, 90% of the light is already being absorbed. So anything you do above that can reduce the intensity by at most 10% of the original value. That is what it means for a line to go into saturation .. very high absorbance and no light is getting through at all. Obviously further increasing the concentration of the absorbing molecule beyond that will have no effect.

So, the central line of the 15 micron band saturates quickly, because it's very intense, however there are many many lines outside that region for which Beer's law still applies. Therefore they show increased absorbance with increasing concentration.

I did a quick search and the following website gives a pretty good description:
http://www.realcl...y-steps/
http://www.realcl...part-ii/

Mar 05, 2015
@thermo

DLK said Since absorbance is a log function, you get diminishing returns from higher concentrations .. at 1 OD, 90% of the light is already being absorbed. So anything you do above that can reduce the intensity by at most 10% of the original value. That is what it means for a line to go into saturation .. very high absorbance and no light is getting through at all. Obviously further increasing the concentration of the absorbing molecule beyond that will have no effect.

So, the central line of the 15 micron band saturates quickly, because it's very intense, however there are many many lines outside that region for which Beer's law still applies. Therefore they show increased absorbance with increasing concentration.


I did a quick search and the following website gives a pretty good description:
http://www.realcl...y-steps/


I'm going to adderss the idea of saturation first. continued

Mar 05, 2015
"They found that CO2 -attributed radiative forcing dipped in the spring as flourishing photosynthetic activity pulled more of the greenhouse gas from the air."

Funny how those of us with opposing opinions on the AGW matter can see the same pieces of information differently. Another article discussed how trees were leafing out earlier. Most here either gloated or panicked. I instantly thought this was Nature's convenient response to increased heat and available CO2. A longer season of photosynthesis and carbon fixation equals increased atmospheric CO2 "sinked" per square foot of forested land. Seems like good news to me.


Mar 05, 2015
Continued:

In my view, the idea that a main band is filled up seems a bet far fetched. Try to figure the number of co2 molecules there are in the column. Then decide how quickly they are being illuminated, excited, and relaxed.

Then let's ask what a main band is.

Then let's ask if the atmosphere is a single thing or made up of many layers (the way I would simulate it).

Can you give me a link to a site that shows saturation taking over and killing CO2 bands near where the earth radiate? Most technical sites show this wrong due to layering and atmospheric lapse rates for water vapor.

My view is that saturation has no meaning for us to lose IR T the TOA. Instead, a saturated section of atmosphere will continue to emit in all directions and will both absorb and emit photons coming in its direction. The articles you sent were good ones. I'll get back to the Side-bands next.

Mar 05, 2015
Maggie, you ever figure out what a mole is, or how to use it in an equation, or for that matter, a sentence. You can criticize me not at all.
A mole is a unit of measure made up of the number of pure carbon atoms are in 12 grams, or 6.02x10^23 units. There can be a mole of anything, including ignorant comments.

Even had I not known it at the time I asked you to explain why you were trying to use it in the exercise you and Thermal were supposed to be partnering in, before you got in a huff over nothing and then tried to change the scope, then claim a victory before it was even half done, then evade any attempt to have you explain why you thought any of the variables being used were incorrect, then claim that it was all unfair, then again try to claim you were victorious before the exercise was complete, then withdraw and change your handle and try to pretend you were someone else, I would have taken the time to learn it since then.

You never did answer the questions.

Mar 05, 2015
Can you give me a link to a site that shows saturation taking over and killing CO2 bands near where the earth radiate?
No, because that's not what happens .. I also don't think I implied that it did. The reason saturation came up was because I was trying to give WP a simple explanation of why the radiative forcing equation has a log form. Its significance in a climate model is more involved.
My view is that saturation has no meaning for us to lose IR T the TOA. Instead, a saturated section of atmosphere will continue to emit in all directions and will both absorb and emit photons coming in its direction.
That's correct .. what that effectively means is that the atmospheric layer where radiation at that saturated wavelength is emitted back to space is high up in the stratosphere.
The articles you sent were good ones.
Might want to check out this one too .. I thought it was very clear:
http://clivebest..../?p=4697

Mar 05, 2015
Well thermy, ya gotta admit, these sites DLK "stumbled over" are much more sincere than your skeptigarbage. At least they don't skip over the science that inconveniences them at critical junctures.

I'll have a-lot more respect for you if you join the climate.org. At least I won't have to constantly repeat why your non-sense is wrong. DLK sites are much more chewy. And he is already getting 5/5 from you skeptigoons.

You never need to simplify things for me DLK, I've been in very difficult sciences for years. I've even been a leader in counter-WMD and predictive sciences.

But maybe someday you'll be able to explain feedback, water vapor and other aboves in a way that will win me over. I mean, you say you're right, all you have to do is undo the arguments I presented.

I won't hold me breath.

Mar 05, 2015
DLK did you READ Clive Best's description? It is sloppy defined!
No references, or alluded to refs as if fait accompli, his reference doesn't even say what he claims it does. It's a pretty little article, but not awful useful.

And you pick up that model from him?

Mar 05, 2015
THERE IS NO INTERPRETATION
@ALCHE
when you take minutia and then use it to make a claim that is falsified by OBSERVATION, EXPERIMENTATION and validated studies as well as validated physics, then it is considered your "INTERPRETATION" of the laws of physics, not extrapolation of any physics

IOW - it is not a representation of facts, it is a distortion of reality as well as proven physics and observed demonstrated facts

this is clearly demonstrated in your "assumption" of properties and then "interpreting" the results when there is observed factual data supplied by studies that refutes your claims
Indeed, not "you," either, just thermo
so you don't want me to keep proving you wrong by supplying evidence against you?
why?
hurting your credibility?

don't care what you say
as long as you blatantly lie, i will keep pointing that out

so... where are the studies that debunk the studies i linked?
where are the retractions? changes? alterations?

Mar 05, 2015
zz5555:

It's very easy to see that you get most of your information from a website (SkS) which is, trust me on this, completely laughable in every respect. I have many colleagues, far more educated than I am, and they ask me, "Do you really think there are people dumb enough to believe in the stuff written in SkS?" I say to them, "Believe it or not, many people think it's a real site, doing real science." One of my friends, with a doctorate in cloud physics, said to me. "A person with a reasonable high school education, should see that it's nonsense"

Something to consider, when you have a website, that has 181 different things (Myths) as they call them, it should make anyone say, "Hmmm?" Then they have to go and claim they have debunked all of them? Come on my friend you have to be smarter than this. In #48 SkS makes the claim, (Like it's all fact because they say so) that, for about the last 100 years, mankind has driven the temperature, no natural causes!

Mar 06, 2015
More proof the website is fake. I joined, and I followed all the rules for commenting, stayed on topic, talked about the science, no bad words and so on. When I make my points, and I hit the heart of the matter, within several days, my account is deleted. I opened another account, made other points, followed the rules, and my account again was deleted. Now why is that?

My last account was deleted when I said, "With roughly 500 things that affect the earth's temperature, why would anyone believe that by changing one of those factors, (C02) by a mere 3.5%, why would anyone believe that that is the only thing that drives the earth's temperature? The other 499 things don't count? They now have no influence? It's just C02? Can anyone see any logic in this?"

A day later, my account is deleted! If I went into that website and started throwing around a bunch of numbers for the earth's energy budget, they will not delete me. But I hit the heart of the matter, and I am gone!

Mar 06, 2015
More proof the website is fake.
@crazy
um... all your anecdotal posts do is show that the web site is heavily moderated and refuses to acknowledged pseudoscience unsubstantiated by scientific studies
that is not fake: that is moderation
in fact, all of your posted claims refer to moderation

if you have peers with a PhD in cloud physics that refuses to acknowledge the science in the studies posted about climate science, then i wonder about the veracity of all your claims
mostly because there are PhD's that regularly posts here (one will even comment about climate science now and again) and they tend to support the known science in the studies

if you are posting valid scientific studies that support your conclusions over there
why aren't you doing that here?

or are you simply posting conjecture based upon your interpretation of the evidence like ALCHE?

(like your claim about CO2 - did you not read the studies i linked about CO2 and WV?)

Mar 06, 2015
As a scientist, we had to prove things by using observations, then we can find an equation that fits the observations. An equation has been found for C02 that matches observations, is it right? We don't know, but it does fit the observations with better than a 99% correlation. The equation that fits, "C02 tracks the integral of the earth's temperature" It could still be wrong, but so far it's the only one that fits. Why do climate models use a equation that does not fit with observations? It keeps the funding coming!

You say you debunk my arguments, about clouds, and about unprecedented warming? The crap that I read on clouds at SkS was the opposite of what I was taught in cloud physics.

Here is a good example of how SkS manipulates data, let's look at 144, why do they use 1975-2005, It's already 2015, why didn't they at least use, like I did 1980-2010? Because it shows that warming is the same or even less than before. That's why they don't.

Mar 06, 2015
Stumpy:

"if you have peers with a PhD in cloud physics that refuses to acknowledge the science in the studies posted about climate science,"

When did I say that? Never

"web site is heavily moderated and refuses to acknowledged pseudoscience"

Actually that is the only thing they acknowledge is pseudoscience. I would even use there own graphs to prove them wrong! LOL then they delete me. On a reasonable site, opinions are not deleted, you let the readers read them and make up their own minds. Liberals silence those that don't agree.

Go look at that sites opinion on the Keystone Pipeline. They said basically, if we build the pipeline it will increase climate change? Tell me how that works?


Mar 06, 2015


Here is a good example of how SkS manipulates data, let's look at 144, why do they use 1975-2005, It's already 2015, why didn't they at least use, like I did 1980-2010? Because it shows that warming is the same or even less than before. That's why they don't.

No, it is merely an "exercise" to prove the stupidity of Monckton's logic using HIS logic. So QED. It is stupid
This is on the article....
"In fact, the rate of warming from 1975-2001, at 0.16 °C per decade, was the fastest rate to be sustained for more than a decade in the 160-year record, but exactly the same rate occurred from 1860-1880 and again from 1910-1940, when we could not possibly have had anything to do with it." (Christopher Monckton)

So that's why they use 1975-2005.
Not what you say it is, and with no need to link to established science
Just showing stupid as stupid.

Mar 06, 2015
zz5555:

It's very easy to see that you get most of your information from a website (SkS) which is, trust me on this, completely laughable in every respect.

Ah, the old "SkS is wrong, but I'm not going to give any evidence of it" ploy. I don't get my info from SkS, I get them from papers. However, SkS summarizes the papers better than I can for people that don't understand science well, and you've indicated that you're one of those people.

In #48 SkS makes the claim, (Like it's all fact because they say so) that, for about the last 100 years, mankind has driven the temperature, no natural causes!

And, yet, they don't make this claim. In fact, they quite explicitly state that there were natural causes (http://www.skepti...tury.htm - see point 2). Claiming things that are explicitly untrue doesn't help your cause at all.

Cont.

Mar 06, 2015
I do think your use of the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is interesting, though. Some, unnamed and with unknown qualifications, PhD cloud scientists think SkS is a joke, but can't give any evidence of it. Interesting.

You state:
As a scientist, we had to prove things by using observations, then we can find an equation that fits the observations.

and you also say:
With roughly 500 things that affect the earth's temperature, why would anyone believe that by changing one of those factors, (C02) by a mere 3.5%, why would anyone believe that that is the only thing that drives the earth's temperature? The other 499 things don't count?

So obviously you've made the observations to show that CO2 isn't dominating the climate drivers. So what have your observations shown you is the driver (and, remember, simple observations show that water vapor can't drive the climate (http://www.skepti...iate.htm ).

Cont.

Mar 06, 2015
Yes, I know, I linked to the hated SkS website. Instead of hating it, maybe show how it's in error. Anyway, the observations show that increasing CO2 levels by a "mere 3.5%" causes a very large change in the energy coming into the climate. So, as I'm sure you'll agree, observations show that CO2 is incredibly important - especially since the CO2 can cause the water vapor feedback.
They now have no influence? It's just C02?

And, of course, no one (even the hated, evil SkS website) has ever claimed that it's just CO2. As you know, SkS has also talked about how volcanoes helped cool the earth in the mid 20th century. SkS has also looked at waste heat (http://www.skepti...ming.htm ) which has a small effect - much smaller than CO2. The main climate drivers are all discussed at SkS (and in the literature), but the observations (there's that word again) show CO2 is the main driver.

Cont.

Mar 06, 2015
In fact, other drivers I've seen discussed include: aerosols (volcanic and anthropogenic), land use change (albedo change), black soot, sun, orbital changes, etc. Claiming that SkS has ever said that it's "just CO2", is to lie. And claiming that a 3.5% increase in CO2 levels won't cause large changes in the climate (and doing that without any data or evidence) flies in the face of all observations and will get you banned from SkS (and rightly so).

I've got to get ready for work now, but I'll continue this when I get home tonight.

Mar 06, 2015
@ruguyscrazy
I warned zz5555 when he first joined the site that Skeptigarbage was a poor sight. Yet he went ahead and joined the Skeptigoons anyway.
One thing about the 'goons is they are not able to say anything contradictory to 'garbage's website. Period.
At least one of them is likely John Cook himself, as a few of the comments I posted here were twisted and plopped on the skeptigarbage site. He didn't even credit me!
They've begun "copy and pasting" their annoying dialog as well. Which seems to be OK with the moderators of phys.org, whom I admit, have a tough job.

I like the bit about using their own data to disprove it, I've noticed that 'garbage starts out really well, then when it gets to the good bit omits the relevant data. Skips right over it.

Mar 06, 2015
let's look at 144
@crazy
back up: first lets establish what 144 means
is it this link: http://skepticals...data.htm
because it is the argument #144: http://skepticals...dnum.php
so you are NOT being clear or linking evidence, only making a CLAIM so far...
It's already 2015, why didn't they at least use, like I did 1980-2010?
until i see exactly what you are referencing i cannot comment, but i would suggest you look for references first, and find out what the time line was WRT the studies referenced
When did I say that? Never
ok... how about this?
One of my friends, with a doctorate in cloud physics, said to me. "A person with a reasonable high school education, should see that it's nonsense"
when a doc says that WRT a study, then it means there is a problem
or were you talking about SkS commentary? you didn't specify nor do you make it clear what the issue is
2Bcont'd

Mar 06, 2015
cont'd
WRT to my above comment "make it clear what the issue is"... i specifically reference the STUDIES... now, i might use SkS now and again, but the pages i use tend to be clear commentary and descriptions of the SCIENCE in the study, not some random violations of physics that a phd would immediately denigrate without cause or searching the references...
Actually that is the only thing they acknowledge is pseudoscience
and this is called PERSONAL CONJECTURE without evidence
plus, they way it is presented is more of a petty lashing out because you got moderated off the site for posting unsubstantiated conjecture

again, the ALCHE argument of "but i post physical properties" doesn't work if you don't comprehend how they integrate into a complex system which has mitigating factors (like with CO2) that causes it to exacerbate OTHER things, like WV...
that's why the study that specifically addresses this issue is correct
Not unverified or unverifiable claims

Mar 06, 2015
I would even use there own graphs to prove them wrong!
@crazy
another ALCHE argument
just because you THINK you understand a graph, doesn't mean you DO understand it
i would start by suggesting you visit here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
then get into a specific program that deals with physics and climate science
On a reasonable site, opinions are not deleted, you let the readers read them and make up their own minds
on an open forum, yes
NOT on a SCIENCE SITE
even PO has rules against posting pseudoscience (https://sciencex....omments/ ), and you see them enacted when Zephir gets banned for posting his DAW/AW

although they are admittedly incredibly lax WRT other pseudoscience, from creationists and eu to stinky pheromones, likely due to sheer volume as well as lack of experience or knowledge on the part of the MOD

so you are WRONG... when you go to a science site
you are normally required to be able to substantiate claims with SCIENCE


Mar 06, 2015
At least one of them is likely John Cook himself, as a few of the comments I posted here were twisted and plopped on the skeptigarbage site
@ruALCHEcrazy
some of the PO members are also SkS members, so what?
plus, there are people who submit items to the site to get feedback from actual scientists (but you wouldn't know anything about that)
He didn't even credit me!
a troll is a troll is a troll, and this is doubly true with you and all your sock puppets... who should he credit? ALCHE? your FB moniker? you have so many SOCKS... it is hard to nail down which troll is whom, even when it is painfully obvious (like the list for zephir)
omits the relevant data
coming from someone who has YET to be able to substantiate ANY claims with ANY relevant reputable studies which prove her point, this is laughable

again, you've made claims
based upon your INTERPRETATIONS
which are REFUTED by studies that have observed & measured data
but somehow think YOU are right?
D-K

Mar 06, 2015
But maybe someday you'll be able to explain feedback, water vapor and other aboves in a way that will win me over. I mean, you say you're right, all you have to do is undo the arguments I presented.
You have never, not once, not a single time, ever, provided quantitative evidence in support of your claims.

You have never, not once, ever, provided any quantitative evidence that the science regarding CO2 driven climate change is incorrect or inaccurate in any way.

Never. Not once. Not one single time. One uses those words a lot when discussing your misunderstandings of the science surrounding global climate change.

Mar 06, 2015
let's look at 144
@crazy
back up: first lets establish what 144 means
is it this link: http://skepticals...data.htm
so you are NOT being clear or linking evidence, only making a CLAIM so far...
It's already 2015, why didn't they at least use, like I did 1980-2010?
until i see exactly what you are referencing i cannot comment, but i would suggest you look for references first, and find out what the time line was WRT the studies referenced
When did I say that? Never
ok... how about this?
One of my friends, with a doctorate in cloud physics, said to me. "A person with a reasonable high school education, should see that it's nonsense"
when a doc says that WRT a study, then it means there is a problem
or were you talking about SkS commentary? you didn't specify nor do you make it clear what the issue is
2Bcont'd

Capt:
He means myth #144. Access via top left of SkS homepage.

PS: I addressed it further down..

Mar 06, 2015
As a scientist, we had to prove things by using observations, then we can find an equation that fits the observations.

You keep saying this and, yet, you never show any observations. Let's look at your claimed observations. You claimed clouds overwhelm the contribution by CO2. But you show no data indicating that. Meanwhile, measured data of clouds disagree with your claim. It was, of course, a spurious claim anyway since clouds can only serve as feedback and not drive climate. The warming (or cooling) caused by the change in clouds is due to whatever warms or cools the earth. So talking about clouds is silly anyway. You've already seen this data, so I won't repeat it. You claimed that it "was the opposite of what I was taught in cloud physics", but you can't seem to show what's wrong with it.

Cont.


Mar 06, 2015
When you were showed that clouds can't drive the climate, you claimed that it was the PDO that caused the warming from 1910-1940 and, since clouds are more important than CO2, I presume you are claiming that the PDO is responsible for the current warming. But that doesn't match observations either. There was more energy from the sun from 1910-1940, which makes it the driver of the earlier warming - observations show that the sun can't be responsible for the current warming. And the PDO is an internal cycle, so it just moves heat around on the earth, it doesn't create any. But many, many observations show that the whole earth is warming, and continues to warm. So the PDO is ruled out for the current warming.

Cont.