Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Comments 276 to 300 out of 399:

276. RW1 at 07:43 AM on 27 December, 2010
     archiesteel, "I'm just pointing out that your arguments have all been rebutted. No, you're just declaring they have been successfully rebutted. You also keep repeating obvious things I already know, such as the increase from 2xCO2 will be in addition to (or on top of) seasonal and orbital eccentricity cycles, each of which average out and don't contribute to long term warming. Whatever, dude. If you're not going to specifically address anything in a way that facilitates any genuine scientific give and take discussion, I'm not going to respond anymore.
277. archiesteel at 07:53 AM on 27 December, 2010
     @RW1: "No, you're just declaring they have been successfully rebutted." When someone offers a cogent counter-argument and you don't respond, then you have been successfully rebutted. I'm hardly the first one to note this here, either. Therefore, I am simply pointing out something everyone already recognizes. "Whatever, dude. If you're not going to specifically address anything in a way that facilitates any genuine scientific give and take discussion, I'm not going to respond anymore." Go ahead, "dude", it'll make my job of pointing out errors in your arguments a lot easier. :-)
278. Daniel Bailey at 08:00 AM on 27 December, 2010
     Re: RW1 (274, 276 et al) You said:

     archiesteel, "I'm just pointing out that your arguments have all been rebutted. No, you're just declaring they have been successfully rebutted.

     Thanks for clarifying that. Other than being argumentative, do you still have a purpose in continuing this conversation? After all, you point out that your position has been successfully rebutted. This site contains a plethora (lovely word, that) of science-based information substantiated by links to actual peer-reviewed sources for those interested in learning about climate science. Even, for example, on working out climate sensitivity from satellite information (the subject of this post the nature of which this conversation abandoned any pretense at following long ago). Usually I'm the one catching flack for using the appellation "dude". :) The Yooper
279. RW1 at 08:01 AM on 27 December, 2010
     archiesteel, When someone offers a cogent counter-argument and you don't respond, then you have been successfully rebutted. I'm hardly the first one to note this here, either. I know I have missed a few things and haven't responded to everything. Again, I stated that in the middle of the thread somewhere. Please point me to the specific counter-argument presented that I have failed to address and I'll respond to it.
280. scaddenp at 08:01 AM on 27 December, 2010
     "If this is true, then power from the Sun and power from CO2 cannot both be expressed in W/m^2 as they are." Of course they can. The forcing term is global annual average. The energy flux (NOT power - please note that this term is normally used in context of energy transformation) produces the same temperature rise without feedbacks. See the chapter in the IPCC on why you calculate forcings in this way and evidence that it can used for arithmetic. However, for considering feedbacks, the energy flux is different spatially, temporally, and spectrally between solar and GHG (and aerosols and albedo if it comes to that).
281. archiesteel at 08:16 AM on 27 December, 2010
     @RW1: sure, you can start by responding to chris at #222. I'm also curious to see if you will acknowledge you were wrong when you said: "If this is true, then power from the Sun and power from CO2 cannot both be expressed in W/m^2 as they are." scaddenp and I both revealed your misconceptions about what the W/m² figure means. Will you admit you were wrong about this, and thus about the 4 W/m² having to be cut in half to calculate sensitivity? A simple yes or no will suffice.
282. archiesteel at 08:19 AM on 27 December, 2010
     As an off-topic note, it would be nice to be able to vote (or at least register our agreement/disagreement) on comments. Some sort of "real ID" registration would also help weed out sockpuppet accounts (not aiming this at anyone in particular, mind you). Skeptical Science 2.0, anyone? ;-)
283. RW1 at 08:24 AM on 27 December, 2010
     scaddenp, "Of course they can. The forcing term is global annual average. The energy flux (NOT power - please note that this term is normally used in context of energy transformation) produces the same temperature rise without feedbacks." This is what I'm referring to - the intrinsic response only. And what triggers the feedbacks? The intrinsic temperature rise - which you just said was the same for solar power and power from CO2. "However, for considering feedbacks, the energy flux is different spatially, temporally, and spectrally between solar and GHG (and aerosols and albedo if it comes to that)." Why? A watt is a watt - a joule is a joule, is it not? Explain to me how the surface, whose temperature is directly tied to the total power flux via Stefan-Boltzman, is going to 'know' the difference from increased power from Sun or CO2? Even further, even if it were to somehow 'know' the difference, for what physical reason would it respond differently to the same amount of heat increase? (*Please understand that this is not the same question as additional power from CO2 on top of all the current solar power. I think many in this thread are confusing the two, and from that, deriving that I somehow don't understand this distinction.)
284. michael sweet at 08:41 AM on 27 December, 2010
     RW1, The extra power from the sun will be distributed the same as the sun's power: highest at the equator, during the summer and only increasing during the day. The power from CO2 will be distributed differently: all seasons, at night as well as day and at all latitudes. Since the forcing is distributed differently, the effect is different. This difference has been measured. The night warms more than the day, the winter has warmed more than the summer and nights have increased more than days. All this information has been discussed on this site in the last month. Most of this is discussed in the Scientific Guide to Global Warming linked on the top of this page. Give it a good read and you will know more of the background information.
285. RW1 at 09:19 AM on 27 December, 2010
     michael, "The extra power from the sun will be distributed the same as the sun's power: highest at the equator, during the summer and only increasing during the day. The power from CO2 will be distributed differently: all seasons, at night as well as day and at all latitudes. Since the forcing is distributed differently, the effect is different. This difference has been measured. The night warms more than the day, the winter has warmed more than the summer and nights have increased more than days. All this information has been discussed on this site in the last month. Most of this is discussed in the Scientific Guide to Global Warming linked on the top of this page. Give it a good read and you will know more of the background information." The solar forcing numbers I've used are global averages, which automatically include all of things you mention. The effect is proportionally the same, because the only source of energy in the climate system is from the Sun (plus a tiny bit of heat energy emitted from the interior of the earth). Beyond that, everything is about heat fluxes and the rate at which incoming power is delayed from leaving the planet due to the presence of GHGs and clouds in the atmosphere.
286. muoncounter at 09:28 AM on 27 December, 2010
     #279: "the specific counter-argument presented that I have failed to address" Its hard to say if anyone is interested in the continuing lecture series this thread has become. The questions and counter-arguments started at comment #7, but they were evaded a number of times. I would ask that you refrain from suggesting to interested parties that they shouldn't participate in what you've clearly come to think of as 'your' thread. Unless you're paying the rent here, you have no say over who comes and goes. I suppose all I am really mildly curious about is whether the 'doubling of CO2' paper linked below the comment box here is your work as that came out with a higher sensitivity -- 1 deg C per doubling -- than you currently claim.
287. RW1 at 09:41 AM on 27 December, 2010
     muoncounter, "Its hard to say if anyone is interested in the continuing lecture series this thread has become. The questions and counter-arguments started at comment #7, but they were evaded a number of times." Please point to something specific you don't feel I addressed and I will respond to it (I'm serious). "I would ask that you refrain from suggesting to interested parties that they shouldn't participate in what you've clearly come to think of as 'your' thread. Unless you're paying the rent here, you have no say over who comes and goes." That's not really what I meant, but I get your point. Fair enough. "I suppose all I am really mildly curious about is whether the 'doubling of CO2' paper linked below the comment box here is your work as that came out with a higher sensitivity -- 1 deg C per doubling -- than you currently claim. No. I've never even heard of the paper or the author.
288. Eric (skeptic) at 09:46 AM on 27 December, 2010
     RW1, in #263 you asked for an explanation of why "gain" from the website you linked to isn't constant. KR provided an explanation in #210, that temperature increases to compensate for decreasing emissivity due to GHGs. He pointed out that with no GHG, "gain" is 1.0 Q1: Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Your answer in #213 was "I know the gain isn't a constant, but an average. It fluctuates somewhat, but the range of fluctuation doesn't go anywhere near 8 (or 4) that is necessary to amplify 2xCO2 to 3 degrees C." As KR pointed out, "gain" increases with increasing GHG concentration, it does not just fluctuate in some non-specific way. Q2: Do you agree that "gain" increases with GHG concentration?
289. Eric (skeptic) at 09:52 AM on 27 December, 2010
     (continued), Do you agree that the reason "gain" increases is because e decreases with increased CO2? Do you understand then that for "gain" as you've defined it, that 1 W/m^2 of solar forcing increase is not the same as 1 W/m^2 of equivalent CO2 forcing increase?
290. RW1 at 10:21 AM on 27 December, 2010
     Eric, "RW1, in #263 you asked for an explanation of why "gain" from the website you linked to isn't constant. KR provided an explanation in #210, that temperature increases to compensate for decreasing emissivity due to GHGs. He pointed out that with no GHG, "gain" is 1.0 Q1: Do you agree or disagree with that statement?" Yes, but only if there were no clouds too. In other words for the gain to be 1, there would need to be no GHGs and no clouds in the atmosphere. "Your answer in #213 was "I know the gain isn't a constant, but an average. It fluctuates somewhat, but the range of fluctuation doesn't go anywhere near 8 (or 4) that is necessary to amplify 2xCO2 to 3 degrees C." As KR pointed out, "gain" increases with increasing GHG concentration, it does not just fluctuate in some non-specific way. Q2: Do you agree that "gain" increases with GHG concentration?" No, not at its current operating point. The gain is simply the current ratio of surface power to post albedo solar power. Now, the surface power itself would increase with higher GHG concentration, but that's because the radiative forcing from the GHGs would also increase the power flux at the surface. This is why I asked if you agreed that power from the Sun was the same as power from CO2, and whether or not both are "forcing" the surface.
291. RW1 at 10:26 AM on 27 December, 2010
     Eric, "(continued), Do you agree that the reason "gain" increases is because e decreases with increased CO2? Do you understand then that for "gain" as you've defined it, that 1 W/m^2 of solar forcing increase is not the same as 1 W/m^2 of equivalent CO2 forcing increase?" What is "e"?
292. Eric (skeptic) at 10:28 AM on 27 December, 2010
     When you say "not at its current operating point", that means the gain is dependent on operating point which means it increases as GHG gas concentrations increase.
293. Eric (skeptic) at 10:29 AM on 27 December, 2010
     e is emissivity (see formula in 210)
294. Eric (skeptic) at 10:53 AM on 27 December, 2010
     RW1 asked if I agreed that power from the Sun was the same as power from CO2, and whether or not both are "forcing" the surface. You've asked that over and over, please stop asking. The answer is no, those are unscientific terms. Here's a (somewhat) more scientific question: Does the (total or increase in) power from the sun have the same "gain" (as defined in the link in 150) as the (total or increase in) power from CO2? Answer: No, the paper is wrong. Explanation: reread 210, and ask questions about 210 if you don't understand it.
295. RW1 at 10:58 AM on 27 December, 2010
     Eric, Look at this way: At a temperature of about 288K, the surface power is about 390 W/m^2. If about 238 W/m^2 is from the Sun, then the remaining 152 W/m^2 has to come from GHGs and clouds in the atmosphere, right? So an increase in 2 W/m^2 (or 4 W/m^2) from additional CO2 (a GHG) would increase the surface power to 392 W/m^2 (or 394) because an additional 2 W/m^2 (or 4) would come from the atmosphere. The original gain is 1.638 (390/238). The new gain as a result of increased CO is 1.647 (392/238), so yes higher GHG absorption does increase the overall gain a little but not very much - only by about 0.5-1%. Also, if the solar power increases 2 W/m^2, the surface power also increases to 392 W/m^2 (this time 240 from the Sun; 152 from the atmosphere). The new gain is 1.633 (392/240) - only about 0.3% less than the original gain. So yes, there is a very small increase in the gain from increased GHG concentration, but it is no where near 8 or 4 and is still extremely close to about 1.6. More importantly, do you see how this shows that power from the Sun and power from CO2 is the same as far as the surface power flux is concerned? Whether the additional power is from the Sun or CO2, the net effect at the surface is proportionally the same.
296. RW1 at 11:02 AM on 27 December, 2010
     Eric, In my first example from Post 295, that's 238 from the Sun and 154 W/m^2 from the atmosphere (+2 W/m^2 from the atmosphere).
297. co2isnotevil at 11:11 AM on 27 December, 2010
     The first objection to Lindzen and Choi seems to be that the full coverage, gridded data covering over 1/3 planets surface is insufficient. This criticism is somewhat ironic when all of the temperature reconstructions that show large warming start with very sparse surface measurements. These sparse measurements cover less than 1% of the total surface are and are extrapolated to 100% coverage using homogenization techniques. Similar homogenization techniques were applied to extrapolate the L&C results to cover the whole planet. Extrapolating from the equator to the poles is far more deterministic than extrapolating from the airport at a coastal city to the mountains 100's of miles away. I would suggest that you come up with a more solid 'what the science says' response to this question. If you really want to follow this logic, then everything about 'consensus' climate science is wrong for the same reason. Secondly, it mentions several studies that claim positive feedback. This is the result of confusion between feedback and gain. Consensus climate science assumes unit open loop gain. You can thank Hansen for starting this major FUBAR and Schlesinger for obfuscating the error behind the meaningless units of degrees K per W/m^2, which for all intents and purposes is already quantified by Stefan-Boltzmann! I should point out that from Bode, gain or in this case, sensitivity, must be dimensionless ratios of output power to intput power and only when gain is dimensionless does the very idea of quantifying feedback as positive or negative even make sense. Since the surface is warmer than it would be otherwise. The closed loop gain is clearly greater than one. Assuming unit open loop gain, a matching result can only occur when there's about 12% positive feedback. If instead of assuming unit open loop gain, we use a value of about 1.2, 12% negative feedback is required. It turns out that the 1.2 open loop gain is not arbitrary and is measurable. In this case, the system gain is the ratio between emitted surface power and total incident power and is about 1.12, compared to the surface gain of about 1.6. Albedo can't just be subtracted out when determining the system response since albedo variability is part of the control mechanism.
298. co2isnotevil at 11:47 AM on 27 December, 2010
     Regarding Trentbert's mistakes, he makes several. First, he underestimates the size of the transparent window at about 18%. From line by line simulations for surface to space and surface to cloud to space radiation, weighted by cloud cover, the net transparency is closer to 22%. He completely fails to recognize that of the remaining 78%, half is radiated into space and only half back to the surface. This makes the net transmittance 22% plus half of 78% which is 61%. This means that for each W/m^2 of power that leaves the surface, 61% is radiated into space and 39% is returned to the surface. We can check this by recognizing that the gain from the surface/clouds to space is the reciprocal of the net transmittance, where 1.0/0.61 = 1.6, meaning that it takes 1.6 W/m^2 of radiated surface power for 1 W/m^2 to leave the planet. At an albedo of 0.3 and a solar constant of 341.5 W/m^2, the total power entering the system is 239 W/m^2, corresponding to 255K (from SB). The surface, at an average temperature of 287K, radiates abou 385 W/m^2, where 385/239 = 1.6. BTW, the root of all climate science evil is considering the obvious gain characteristics of atmospheric absorption as feedback, rather than as a component of the open loop gain. When properly treated as gain, the required system feedback is negative. Another mistake is lumping in non radiative components, for example, latent heat and thermals with radiative components. The evaporation/precipitation cycle transfers heat from the equator to the poles and as such is more like an oceanic or atmospheric circulation current, where power goes in as latent heat and comes out as wind, rain and weather. To make the math work out, he lumps in the return path for power arising from evaporated water and thermals as 'back radiation', giving a very misleading picture of the radiation budget. A far better view can be found here. http://www.palisad.com/co2/div2/div2.html Only radiative components are counted in the planets energy balance because energy can only enter and exit the planet's climate system as EM radiation. Everything else only redistributes energy within the system.
299. Eric (skeptic) at 11:56 AM on 27 December, 2010
     RW1: "So an increase in 2 W/m^2 (or 4 W/m^2) from additional CO2 (a GHG) would increase the surface power to 392 W/m^2 (or 394) because an additional 2 W/m^2 (or 4) would come from the atmosphere." The 4W is TOA, so the surface power increase increases from feedback and is greater than 4W.
300. RW1 at 12:12 PM on 27 December, 2010
     Eric, "The 4W is TOA, so the surface power increase increases from feedback and is greater than 4W." The numbers I presented are the just intrinsic responses. After gain and potential feedback, they would be greater - but probably a little less than intrinsic + gain, because the feedback operating on the gain as a whole is appears to be negative (i.e. as the radiative forcing and surface power increases, the gain decreases and vice versa).

Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.