Recent Comments
Prev 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Next
Comments 100251 to 100300:
-
RW1 at 16:52 PM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
scaddenp, "However, all forcings induce feedbacks. Feedbacks are not equal however, depending on the nature of the forcing. Thus the signature for a CO2 forcing is different from the signature of a solar forcing. This is the point of several other postings. If this is true, then power from the Sun and power from CO2 cannot both be expressed in W/m^2 as they are. -
LesSS at 16:51 PM on 26 December 2010A new resource - high rez climate graphics
John, a really useful hi-res graphic would be to expand the Wiki graph of the 400,00 year ice-cores which plot: temperature, (Milankovich) solar insolation at 65 degree latitude, CO2 and CH4 levels, and sea-levels - by (1) adding vertical and horizontal grid-lines, and (2) expanding the horizontal axis out four-fold (either by scrolling out sideways, or printing four separate A4 graphs as one per ice-age cycle, preferably in portrait format). The correspondence between temperature and greenhouse gases levels is striking, and provides vivid evidence of the greenhouse effect. However, this is somewhat lost in the current Wiki plot. Is anybody prepared to have a go at it? See Image: Vostok 420ky 4 curves insolation.jpg -
archiesteel at 16:50 PM on 26 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
@fydijkstra: " They have. See Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, Baliunas, Akasofu!" I guess the OP meant models that withstood scrutiny. These guys have all been shown wrong, many times. @KL: "The skeptics are not urging any such radical action." Actually, such radical action on fossil fuels is needed *whether or not* AGW theory is correct (it is, but some politically-minded commentators still want to debate it, I guess). Unless you've been living under a rock, fossil fuels are a strategic and ecological nightmare any way you cut it. The only people still pushing for oil are, well, oil people. I see that contrarians are still hard at work on Christmas. Gotta admire that dedication, even if it is completely misguided. Peace y'all, and merry Christmas if that's your thing. -
RW1 at 16:43 PM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, "New power flux is added which causes an increase to T+delta, "gain" is much higher. That's because "gain" is not a constant as KR explained in 210." Can you explain what you mean here? Again, I'm not sure. -
Camburn at 16:05 PM on 26 December 2010Greenland ice mass loss after the 2010 summer
This is interesting as the ice loss of present does not seem to be much different than the ice loss from the 30's and 40's. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/grnlndice.htm -
scaddenp at 15:01 PM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
And 1W/m2 of forcing from whatever source will induce around 0.3C of surface temperature change without considering feedbacks. However, all forcings induce feedbacks. Feedbacks are not equal however, depending on the nature of the forcing. Thus the signature for a CO2 forcing is different from the signature of a solar forcing. This is the point of several other postings. -
keithpickering at 14:25 PM on 26 December 2010Do high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?
FYI, current astrophysical models put the solar constant increase at around 7% per billion years, which works out to ~40 W/m² since the Ordovician. Meanwhile 4000 ppmv of CO2 would imply about 14 to 18 W/m² without feedbacks. This is again a pretty good indication that CO2 feedbacks are strongly positive, otherwise the entire Ordovician would have been glaciated. -
Eric (skeptic) at 12:49 PM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, yes T is temperature. Each added 1 W/m^2 of power from the sun is equivalent to each added 1 W/m^2 of power from CO2. Feedback doesn't matter in the previous statement. -
RW1 at 12:38 PM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, Again, I'm talking about intrinsic forcing - meaning before any potential gain or feedback (positive or negative). I just want to make sure we agree that each 1 W/m^2 of power from the Sun is equivalent to each 1 W/m^ of power from CO2. -
RW1 at 12:32 PM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, "Not the same, although you didn't define "same". Existing power flux is in equilibrium at T, "gain" = 1.6. New power flux is added which causes an increase to T+delta, "gain" is much higher. That's because "gain" is not a constant as KR explained in 210." I'm not sure what you mean here. I know the gain is not a constant. Is the "T" you're refering to temperature or something else? -
Eric (skeptic) at 11:42 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 asked "2 W/m^2 of power from the Sun (existing or hyothetically added) is the same as 2 W/m^2 from increased CO2?" Not the same, although you didn't define "same". Existing power flux is in equilibrium at T, "gain" = 1.6. New power flux is added which causes an increase to T+delta, "gain" is much higher. That's because "gain" is not a constant as KR explained in 210. If instead you asked "2 W/m^2 of power from the Sun (hypothetically added) is the same as 2 W/m^2 from increased CO2?", the answer is yes. -
Rob Honeycutt at 11:41 AM on 26 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
fydijkstra @ 42... "'Is it safe to double atmospheric CO2 over a 200 year period?' We don't know. Possibly not..." Possibly not? A very, very small possibility. Virtually all the evidence coming out, and that has come out over the past 30 years, suggests that it is not safe. A very small amount of evidence suggests that it might not be a problem. Personally, in a situation like this, my inclination is to err on the side of caution. "With the present state of technology there is no way to avoid doubling CO2 in the next century." We certainly won't avoid it with the attitude that we can't avoid it. Technology is not the problem. The technology is there. It's ready. The only thing lacking is sufficient will. -
RW1 at 11:33 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, I mean at least as far as intrinsic forcing is concerned. -
RW1 at 11:21 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, BTW, I'm not trying to entrap you with that last question. I'm just attempting to establing that a W/m^2 of power is a W/m^2 of power, independent of where it originates from. -
dhogaza at 10:50 AM on 26 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
"Why have the skeptics never developed their own climate models and performed their own model experiments? They have. See Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, Baliunas, Akasofu!" Cool. Where are their models? Can you show us the code to the GCM that, say, Soon and Baliunas wrote? Lindzen? Where's the source code to his GCM? Spencer? Same question. Oh, can't find the source ... OK, how about some model output from the GCMs these various people have written ... I'll settle for that. -
RW1 at 10:32 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, At last, I think you now understand what the gain is representing, and you're asking the right question - it is the basis of the argument I've put forth. Before I answer the question, do we also agree that additional forcing from CO2 is the same as solar forcing? In other words, 2 W/m^2 of power from the Sun (existing or hyothetically added) is the same as 2 W/m^2 from increased CO2? -
muoncounter at 09:14 AM on 26 December 2010CO2 is not increasing
#14: "we will get there... " You missed the part about 'and that rate is increasing'?So the bets are in as to when 560 ppm will happen. In the words of that great American philosopher, Dirty Harry: "You gotta ask yourself one question, do I feel lucky?"
-
Eric (skeptic) at 09:13 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Ok, so the sun "forces" the climate. After albedo that "forcing" is 238 W/m^2. The "response" is 390 W/m^2. Therefore the "gain" is 1.6 Now add a permanent (hypothetical) 1 W/m^2 to the sun (forcing change by the consensus definition). What is the "response"? 391.6? Thus the temperature response is about 0.3 degrees higher according to your "gain" formula. Now, please show the evidence that a permanent 1W increase in effective solar forcing will only increase earth by only 0.3 degrees. -
RW1 at 08:33 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, The graph clearly shows the solar power fluctuting by about 20 W/m^2 from perihelion in January to aphelion in July: http://www.palisad.com/co2/eb/g/flux.png -
RW1 at 08:25 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric, "Regardless, as I showed in 208 the "gain" term in the paper in #150 does not use the aphelion to perihelion cycle." It's included in the solar input (Psun), which varies according to perihelion/aphelion. 'Psun' is the total power from the Sun and varies - it's not a constant. "The cyclical solar change is not considered in calculating gain." This isn't correct. It's automatically considered because the post albedo power is the incoming solar power minus the albedo and each varies. The gain is based on the aggregate measure of the two, which includes the increased and decreased solar power at perihelion/aphelion, as well as the changes in the albedo. "To put it another way, the gain is not being used to calculate earth's response to the solar change that you and I call forcing." Yes it is. That is in fact precisely what the gain is calculating, albeit albedo adjusted. -
NETDR at 08:24 AM on 26 December 2010CO2 is not increasing
15 dhogaza Yes I do claim it will be slow and not a problem. The maximum warming with ADO PDO and a monster El Nino and sunspots the largest in recorded history only made the 1978 to 1998 warming rate 1.2 ° C per century. I am underwhelmed. Mother nature did everything she could to help your puny CO2 and that is the best it can do ? No wonder when the ADO and PDO go negative the rate of warming goes flat or negative !Moderator Response: You are incorrect that solar activity since 1978 contributed to warming. See "It's the Sun" and especially "Climate Time Lag." -
RW1 at 07:59 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
In the absence of power from the Sun, the climate would change; therefore, by definition, power from the Sun is forcing the climate. Whether a particular forcing is constant or variable, doesn't make it any less of (or something other than) a forcing. -
Eric (skeptic) at 07:56 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, my and your use of the term "forcing" is different from the others following us. Their definition excludes cyclical forcing like the solar aphelion to perihelion change. Regardless, as I showed in 208 the "gain" term in the paper in #150 does not use the aphelion to perihelion cycle. The gain is simply the solar power that makes it into the earth/atmosphere divided by the surface flux determine from surface temperature. The cyclical solar change is not considered in calculating gain. To put it another way, the gain is not being used to calculate earth's response to the solar change that you and I call forcing. Thus, even using our definition, the gain is not applicable to CO2 forcing or any other forcing other than the average annual solar input. -
fydijkstra at 07:52 AM on 26 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
'Is it safe to double atmospheric CO2 over a 200 year period?' We don't know. Possibly not. Is it safe to live on this planet with 6.5 billion people, who all want to have their houses heated and their food and electricity supplied? Possibly not. But do we have a choice? Possibly not! Is it safe that many millions of people live in the Ganges delta without proper protection against floods? Not at all! Is it safe that many people live in aereas threatened by earth quakes without properly constructed houses? No! Small uncertainties in the rate of future warming are irrelevant to the risk assessment. What about big uncertainties? How big is the risk of future warming? Is there a real risk of more than 50 centimeters sea level rise? Why should a civilized society not be able to cope with such a sea level rise? Why have the skeptics never developed their own climate models and performed their own model experiments? They have. See Lindzen, Spencer, Soon, Baliunas, Akasofu! Why have the skeptics never compiled their own record of surface temperature? They have! See Loehle and others. It is easy to ask questions to climate skeptics and pretend, that they have no answer wihtout presenting their arguments. It is easy to point to risks whithout showing a way to avoid them. With the present state of technology there is no way to avoid doubling CO2 in the next century. We can better be prepared to cope with the effects of that doubling - if we are able to predict those effects! -
dhogaza at 07:51 AM on 26 December 2010CO2 is not increasing
"The rate may be exponential but if the exponent is very small the increase in warming is itself slow and probably not a problem" The final equilibrium temperature depends on the accumulated amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the rate of increase. If the accumulation is fast, then equilibrium will be reached more quickly, of course. We'll be reaching a doubling of CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels this century, and at that point will be committed to about a 3C global rise in temps, with the average temperature over land in the NH being much higher than that (say, double). You claim this is "slow and probably not a problem". Many, many experts say otherwise. I'll listen to the experts rather than someone who tries to wave away exponential increases in the rate of accumulation of CO2 as being "nearly linear". -
Matthew at 07:37 AM on 26 December 2010CO2 is not increasing
muoncounter(12#) 170 PPM to get to 560 ppm, so we increase around 2 PPM per year. S0 170/2=85 years give or take. We will get there near 2095-2096. -
NETDR at 07:22 AM on 26 December 2010CO2 is not increasing
Tom Dayton It is no digression. The warming of CO2 is proportional to the log of the amount of CO2. By taking the log of the CO2 we see how fast the warming can take place all other things being equal. The rate may be exponential but if the exponent is very small the increase in warming is itself slow and probably not a problem. This seems to be the case. Taking the log of an exponential function shows us the exponent. The increase in value of this log is an indication of the rate of warming Now go back and read my previous post #10 again. -
muoncounter at 07:09 AM on 26 December 2010CO2 is not increasing
#10: "The slope should tell us how log it would take to have a doubling of effect." Yes, linear trends can be used to extrapolate forever. How's that working for you in the stock market? Bet you won't get a linear fit to these data:. We add more than 2ppm/year and that rate is increasing. Go to the MLO site and look at the annual rate of change. Then go look at an Arctic site like BRW, where the annual rate change is even larger. Look at how the fossil fuel consumption rates are rising worldwide and project forward. Look at how the oceans/biosphere aren't taking as much CO2 out of the atmosphere as they once were. Then tell us when we'll be at 560 ppm. But why do you even care about atmospheric CO2? Is that 'rampy-siney thing' not working for ya?
-
Bibliovermis at 07:03 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
The energy from the Sun is not a forcing agent, while a change in the rate of energy flow is. Do you understand the distinction? -
muoncounter at 06:48 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#225: "roughly 0.6 C sensitivity is at least as consistent with a 0.8 C rise so far," Incorrect, as shown here. That was 190 comments ago; continuing to deny/ignore the problems inherent in your hypothesis does little other than bloat this thread. As you can see from the patient explanations given above, 'forcing' has with it an inherent rate of change. Your calculated 0.6C per doubling of CO2 will neither match the current temperature change nor the rate of change of temperature change. If a model cannot match behavior that is already observed, it's time for a different model. But of course, the ready comeback will be 'it could be due to something else.' What then is the value of a model that requires an unknown or undocumented 'something else' to explain observed behavior? -
Tom Dayton at 06:39 AM on 26 December 2010CO2 is not increasing
NETDR, this thread is about the rate of increase in CO2. You had claimed on another thread that CO2 is increasing nearly linearly. I pointed you to a very thorough analysis by a professional time series statistician, showing unequivocally that the increase is exponential. You completely ignored that, instead meandering off into something about doubling the effect of CO2 and something about temperature. -
Daniel Bailey at 05:13 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, it is you who does not understand the terminology, specifically what is (and what isn't) a forcing. The temperature of the Earth (or the climate, if you will) is merely the sum of all inputs, some positive and some negative. Energy from the sun is one such input. If inputs are stable and there is no change, then the system is in dynamic equilibrium. Changes in inputs, positive or negative, are characterized as "forcings". Therefore forcings represent a change in the dynamic equilibrium of the Earth's energy system/climate. Constant inputs, by definition, have no forcings attached to them. It really is that simple. The Yooper -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Rw1, Words have meanings. If you can't understand the definition of something as basic as "forcing", then how can you possibly claim any understanding of the complexities of climate science? One more time: the definition of climate forcing is something that is changing the climate. The sun has the potential to act as a forcing, but that is not the same as saying it is a forcing at present. -
RW1 at 05:08 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Bibliovermis, The sudden cessation of solar activity definitely qualifies as a change. This, by definition, makes the power from the Sun a forcing of the climate system. -
RW1 at 05:05 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
My, my - things are much worse that I thought. If we cannot agree that power from the Sun is forcing the climate system, then we are at an impasse. No wonder no one understands anything I've put forth. :( -
Bibliovermis at 05:04 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Change is forcing. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
climate forcing -
caerbannog at 04:38 AM on 26 December 2010Is it safe to double atmospheric Carbon Dioxide over a 200 year period?
Ken Lambert said, Skeptics pointing out weaknesses and inconsistencies in AGW theory does not oblige them to offer a better fit theory to the observations. But skeptics *do* have the obligation to *understand* the theory that they are criticizing. Your posts here clearly indicate that you don't, starting with your failure to understand something as basic as the time-scale difference between gaseous diffusion into surface water vs. that of deep ocean mixing. -
RW1 at 04:32 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
How does that not make it a forcing? I didn't say a change in forcing - just a forcing. I think you're confusing the two. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Rw1, No we are saying you are misunderstanding the definition of forcing. If all you are trying to say is that the sun contributes energy to the climate, then ok yes it does, but that does not make it a "forcing". -
Bibliovermis at 04:24 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
What part of change do you not understand? The sudden cessation of solar activity definitely qualifies as a change. -
RW1 at 04:21 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Daniel, e, and Bibliorvermis, So you are saying the power from the Sun coming in contact with the Earth is having zero effect on the climate system - meaning if the power from the Sun suddenly stopped, the climate would remain exactly as is? -
JonSaenz at 04:19 AM on 26 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Dear Hugo. I find that the assertion in your 12 slide (the anthropogenic origin of atmospheric CO2 excess) would benefit of a mention of the Suess effect. The evolution of the isotope ratios rejects other hypotheses with more certainty than the coincidence in the increase of concentrations with anthropogenic emissions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suess_effect See also Figure 2.3 in IPCC-AR4 http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-3.html#2-3-1 This is just a suggestion for future versions. Thanks for your work. jon -
Bibliovermis at 04:11 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Changes in irradiance are the forcing agent; solar activity, orbital parameters, etc. A constant provides no forcing. Yes, that value is always changing. The long-term trend (at least greater than the ~11 year solar cycle) is what is important. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, A "forcing" is by definition something that changes the climate, so no, we do not agree that the sun is currently forcing the climate. -
Daniel Bailey at 04:08 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Re: rw1 (234) If energy from the sun is not changing, then there is no solar forcing, by definition. The Yooper -
RW1 at 03:47 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Bibliovermis (RE: 233), I'm not talking about any changes at this point. I'm just trying to first establish that energy emitted from the Sun that travels through space and comes into contacct with the Earth is "forcing" the climate. Is that clearer? -
Bibliovermis at 03:34 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
~Changes~ in solar irradiance are a forcing. If you are making the claim that the Sun is currently providing a positive forcing, please continue at argument #1 linked from the top of the left column. -
RW1 at 03:10 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Question #1: Do we all agree that power from the Sun is "forcing" the climate? -
RW1 at 03:08 AM on 26 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
I think the best approach is to take it step by step one question at a time.
Prev 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Next