Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Next
Comments 100751 to 100800:
-
Alexandre at 02:05 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Does anyone here know why is it so that sattellite measurements of the lower tropospheric temps are so much more sensitive to ENSO than surface temps? -
Daniel Bailey at 01:48 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Re: BlueRock (31) Short answer: Convention. Habit. Longer answer: The first global datasets used 1950-1980 as their reference period. It is also the reference period most familiar to the majority of people as most were alive for at least a portion of that period (at the time the convention was adopted). And that's how the first anomaly temperature graphs were shown. Since then we've added the capability to extend global datasets into the deep paleo record via proxies and other means. So the use of a baseline reference period in the middle of the graph was retained, even though the specific reference period might have been different due to a different dataset being used. Graphs can be constructed any which way. But we tend to retain the familiar forms so as to retain context over time, to make the changes more pertinent to us. Good question. The Yooper -
BlueRock at 01:37 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Could someone tell me why all (??) temp. anomaly graphs show negative values on the y-axis? Why not just start at zero for 1890? -
muoncounter at 00:54 AM on 24 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#17: "circling the wagons around a particular paradigm" Perhaps you've missed an important point. Perhaps AGW is the new paradigm, one that must replace the 'we can do anything we want and never pay for it' attitude that, left unregulated, led to acid rain, ozone holes, super-fund sites, medical waste in the ocean, etc, etc, etc. Then your 'skepticism' becomes the act of circling the wagons around the old paradigm. A notable example: "failures of the current paradigm to take into account observed phenomena". AGW skeptics cannot explain the observed phenomena without resorting to more convoluted, self-contradictory (and eventually irrational) arguments. There are dozens of examples of defense of the old paradigm in the pages of SkS: It's warming, it's cooling, it's not us, it can't be measured, yada, yada, yada. -
SoundOff at 00:38 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Trying to ascertain a trend for a short period (e.g. a decade) is largely a futile effort for two reasons, at least: 1 - ENSO episodes happen at irregular intervals of 2–7 years and they endure for nine months to two years. Opposite phases are not usually equal in intensity or length so it's not a true cycle, it’s more like frequent positive and negative volcanoes erupting. And ENSO episodes don’t follow in a “one El Niño then one La Nina” pattern, which further complicates any trend. The ENSO pattern for 1950 to present is something like this LELELELELEELELEEELELEELELLEEELEL (depending on how boundaries are defined). A short trend can be especially distorted by a single large episode, for example, the hot 1997-98 or cold 2007-08 episodes. ENSO episodes can cause global temperatures to vary by more than the GHG warming rate expected over an entire decade, that's a huge rate swing within a single episode. Several cycles must be measured to ensure the signal is not being influenced by these factors. One full ENSO cycle is long and asymmetric and would occupy most of any short period, distorting the trend into nonsense. 2 – A short period is likely to be fully within the wavelength of the 11-year solar oscillation, which causes global temperatures to vary by more than half the GHG warming rate expected for a decade and the effect of this cycle is continuous for years at a time in one direction. Any short trend is just picking up some part of the solar cycle oscillation and can’t be projected into the future. Therefore, we have 2 short term climate factors equalling up to 150% of the GHG warming rate over a decade. That’s why GHG warming rates must be measured over decades, no matter what skeptics claim. We have no idea what we are measuring with shorter periods. -
Paul D at 00:29 AM on 24 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Thanks Hugo. I really nice piece of writing. -
snowhare at 00:12 AM on 24 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
> #9 pdt: Maybe this is covered somewhere, but why 133 months? Because the solar cycle is roughly 11 years long on average (minimum-to-peak) (11 years -> 132 months) and because an odd number of months means that there are an equal number of months before and after the date for the moving average (132 months -> 133 months) thus keeping the average centered on the date. It helps make the temperature signal clearer by tending to average out the 11 year periodic solar variation as noise from the long term signal. -
Alexandre at 23:23 PM on 23 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Hugo, Very nice work. That's something I've been trying to assemble for some time, and could only achieve some fragments. It will definetly be a resource I'll use for reference. It's a set of equations the interested layperson with a minimum background (say an engineer) can understand and verify. This kind of informed person can be a valuable means to spread knowledge and hence influence public opinion. Thanks. -
anticlimate at 22:41 PM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
"300 hundred" intended to be "300" originally :) sorry -
anticlimate at 22:39 PM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
#11 (Phila): I have to admit, I haven't read Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". The Grist article you linked claims that Kuhn is often misrepresented, but does not elaborate. Or is the misrepresentation the fact, that climate skeptics (/-denialists whatever) don't have their own sound theory to counter the current one? Or is there anything else? #17 (meerkat): If you really look for a new paradigm what about one which modifies the current economics consensus that financial self interests are the strongest incentives which can be usefully exploited? I mean, the spectacular scientific development of the last 300 hundred years was driven by the scientists' quest for fame and recognition. And the scientific organizations during this time (and today) remind me more of guilds than modern corporations. -
XPLAlN at 22:16 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Norman, I was driving back down south for Christmas and halfway along I drove over a mountain pass. From this I have concluded that driving south is all downhill. -
meerkat at 21:54 PM on 23 December 2010Conspiracy theories
Hopefully can cover most of the points raised. Kuhn's question about scientific practice, which he never resolved, was what value should be placed on what he called normal science. One answer he gave was that the historical value of normal science was to throw up empirical anomalies that eventually require a new theoretical framework, incommensurate with the previous one, with stronger capacity to explain and predict. By circling the wagons around a particular paradigm - "there is nothing to debate" - it becomes more difficult to achieve scientific progress. I can understand why this is happening in climate research, which is why the debate is fascinating. I am currently researching a paper provisionally called AGW skepticism - citizen science, tea party tantrums, or both? I should have moderated my language about the end of the world and panic. I'm sure no one on this list thinks that. I admire the approach taken on Skeptical Science and I apologise for my unbuttoned wording. I have been much affected by the stupidity of the 10:10 blow up film, and have been re-visiting the theory of moral panics for said paper. One area where I would continue to disagree with commentators is on the role of interests, which are as present in science as in any other area of human activity. Finally, the Wittgenstein quote is "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.". It's about the limits of language, and is too perfect to mess with. -
macwithoutfries at 20:00 PM on 23 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Good job mr. Franzen! And I believe that your detailed calculations (properly peer-reviewed) should also find a place somewhere in the argument from http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-advanced.htm -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - 40 W/m^2 passes straight through the atmosphere in the 'IR window'. 30 W/m^2 is thermally emitted by clouds. Your statement "30 W/m^2 is passing through cloudy sky unabsorbed" (emphasis added) indicates to me that you do not understand Trenberth's diagrams. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - Yes, I do notice that 161 is the incoming energy from the sun. Once it arrives, however, we're in the thermal IR realm, not the visible light realm, and the visible light albedo is no longer relevant to IR. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - Let's see. Surface incoming: 161 solar, 333 backradiation. 494 total. Surface outgoing: 17 thermals, 80 latent heat, 396 IR. 493 total. Difference: 1 W/m^2 imbalance, leading to global warming. This adds up to me. This is extremely clear.Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Fixed text. -
Daniel Bailey at 17:11 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Hey, at least it wasn't SG's CO2 snow... Not-Even-Wrong comes to mind, though. "1998"...to think I was heading to bed when I re-freshed...just...one...more...time. Be seeing that in my sleep, now. Norman, in case you're still reading this, you really should read this to get a better sense on why 1998 is such a climate faux paux. The Yooper -
muoncounter at 16:43 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#25: 15 yard penalty on the kicking team: Cherrypicking? Or would it be a 5 minute major in the NHL because it was blatant cherrypicking? Red card in the other football. I don't know the rules in the games our down-under friends play, but someone should cry 'Foul!' -
Daniel Bailey at 16:36 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Re: muoncounter (24) In actuality, Norman's use of 1998 as his start year is such a blatant-cherry pick it constitutes use of the two-headed coin to determine field position for the extra period... ...so much so that there's no need to bother discussing the issue of statistical significance or weather vs climate (the 30-years thingy). In your parlance from 21, Norman squibbed the kick... The Yooper -
muoncounter at 16:36 PM on 23 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
And very sound advice in your concluding paragraph! -
muoncounter at 16:29 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#22: "mythbusted" I don't want to be repetitive, so I ask you to please re-read #21. Or else its double overtime for sure. Your graph shows a similar 'cooling phase' between 1986-1989 and '93-94 (although that was Pinatubo-related). If we are to put any stock in these tiny wobbles within an obvious overall up-trend, then why did these two 'cooling phases' not 'bust' the myth already? Do you notice that after each one, the up-trend just kept on going? And why don't you declare the 'myth' unbusted by the distinct 'warming trend' from 2004-2006? Especially after you just said that "a decade is not long enough"!!! If you choose to believe 2-3 year blips over a 30 year trend, that's your right to have an opinion. But as they say, 'everybody gets an opinion, but they don't get their own facts.' Myth busted? Jamie and Adam wouldn't agree: "Greenhouse gases increase the amount of heat absorbed by air -- confirmed." -
Daniel Bailey at 16:25 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Re: Norman (22) Really, Norman, you missed your calling in life! You make the cardinal mistake of climate cherry-picking: picking one of the warmest years in the instrumental record as your starting point. That is cherry-picking of the highest order! Try moving your start point back to 1997 & see what happens. Or forward to 1999. We'll wait. ( - taps foot, whistles - ) Told you so. The Yooper -
RW1 at 16:23 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: 191), KR: "Your 1.6 'gain factor' makes no sense to me whatsoever. If you feel that there is a 'gain factor' that makes one type of energy forcing different than another, please explain it clearly. And why. I can't figure it out from your postings so far. Visible light albedo directly affects solar forcing (79 W/m^2 reflected from clouds, 23 W/m^2 reflected from surface, 78 absorbed by atmosphere, 161 absorbed by surface), and is irrelevant to all other aspects of the energy balance which involve IR rather than visible light (emissivity/absorptivity in IR ~95% for the surface, not 0.875 or cloud 0.5). What counts is the energy transferred into the system, not the ratio of what gets reflected." Forget about the gain for a minute. Do you notice that 161 + 78 = 239W/m^2 and not the 396 W/m^2 power at the surface? Using Trenberth's diagram and numbers, tell me where the 396 W/m^2 of power at the surface is coming from? Do you see what I mean about the diagram being very ambiguous and hard to follow? This can't be derived from information provided in the diagram. Do you also notice that 239 W/m^2 (161 + 78) is the albedo adjusted energy coming in from the Sun? -
Norman at 16:11 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#21 muoncounter, Thanks for explaining how the graph works. I did a trend line from 1998 to 2010 and it is actually negative so mythbusted. The satellite data does show a recent cooling trend. If this works here is the link to the graph I plotted. From 1998 to 2010 the temp trend is negative...cooling phase.Response: I know this is a somewhat futile exercise as we're talking about a short period with a very noisy signal (satellite measurements of the lower atmosphere show strong variability from year to year). Nevertheless, I couldn't help noticing you had plotted the linear trend from 1998 to the start of 2010 (the purple line below):
But why exclude all the temperature data throughout 2010? The 2010 temperatures are shown above - the green line. When we plot the linear trend from 1998 through to the end of 2010 (well, to very late 2010, we're not quite there yet), we get a positive trend (the red line).
It bears mentioning that neither trend are statistically significant. It's a very noisy signal and we're looking at a short period. The lesson here is the danger of drawing solid conclusions from short periods. You assume a cooling phase when you plot the trend to December 2009. But you find a warming trend if you extend it to November 2010. You need to look at longer periods to get a result that is statistically significant. -
muoncounter at 16:06 PM on 23 December 2010Extreme weather isn't caused by global warming
More news of the weird in Texas; 80+F yesterday and today (and its winter). Perry Issues Disaster Proclamation Over Wildfires The proclamation covers 244 of the state's 254 counties. Perry says lack of precipitation has dried grass and other vegetation across the state. He says the "significant fire danger" is expected to continue. And the reason 244/254 counties are in drought conditions is ... fill in the blank or see comment #5. -
Norman at 16:00 PM on 23 December 2010The Physical Chemistry of Carbon Dioxide Absorption
Hugo Franzen Your mathematical work is very detailed. Thanks. -
muoncounter at 15:56 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#19: "to just plot 1998 to 2010" When the graph page opens, to the right of the graph are series 1-4. If you click under 'processing steps', you can choose how you'd like to slice and dice the data. Be aware that most of the datasets are monthly averages, so that a mean of 132 samples represents 11 years. "I agree there is an upward trend from 1979 to present... " The kick is up... "but in the decade of the 2000's... " Ohh. Wide to the right. Guess we go into overtime, folks. If, as you say in the immediate parenthetical, "a decade is not long enough to represent a climate change", what do you expect that looking at only the most recent decade will tell you? -
Ron Crouch at 15:49 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
The graphic looks very similar to the one in Hansen et al 2010 page 23 where 60 month and 132 month running averages are expressed using two different data sets. -
RW1 at 15:47 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: 191), KR: "Please point out which Trenberth numbers you disagree with, and why. With some evidence - measurements, physics, etc. I think the burden of proof is on you for whatever disagreement you have. I have no idea which 70 W/m^2 you are referring to - there's 40 in the "IR window" from the surface (no GHG absorption) and 30 from clouds, but otherwise." Again, the diagram is confusing. In his diagram he is denoting that 40 W/m^2 is the amount passing through the clear sky unabsorbed and 30 W/m^2 is passing through cloudy sky unabsorbed for a total atmospheric window of 70 W/m^2. -
Norman at 15:36 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
#16 muoncounter In your link, how do you get the graph to just plot 1998 to 2010? I will agree there is an upward trend from 1979 to present (and a decade is not long enough to represent a climate change) but in the decade of the 2000's I still do not see a warming signal. -
RW1 at 15:20 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
muoncounter (RE: 192), I used Trenberth's number of 70 W/m^2 for the transparent portion of the atmosphere and got 52.5% up and 47.5% down for the absorbed portion of the atmosphere. That's pretty close to 50/50. That it's over 50% going up with his 70 W/m^2 suggests the actual transparency number is higher (more like a little over 80 W/m^2 for 50/50 up/down). If you missed it, here it is again: At a temperature of 288K, the surface emits 390 W/m^2. With a gain of 1.6 at the surface, the amount of power absorbed by the atmosphere and sent back toward the surface is 152 W/m^2 (238 W/m^2 from the Sun + 152 W/m^2 from atmosphere = 390 W/m^2 at the surface). To calculate the amount of power absorbed by the atmosphere and directed up out to space, we need to know how much of the surface power passes through the transparent window of the atmosphere totally unabsorbed. If we use Trenberth's 70 W/m^2, we get a total of 320 W/m^2 absorbed by the atmosphere (390 - 70 = 320 W/m^2). 320 W/m^2 total absorbed - 152 W/m^2 directed downward back toward the surface = 168 W/m^2 upward out to space, which using Trenberth's numbers at least, is actually about 52.5% up and 47.5% down. 168 W/m^2 + 70 W/m^2 going up = 238 W/m^2 leaving and 238 W/m^2 arriving. Do you see how that for power in = power out, half of what the atmosphere absorbs has to be directed out to space? -
muoncounter at 15:00 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#189: "I already showed that for power in = power out, almost exactly half ..." No, you didn't show it, you decreed it. Refer to comment #7 for the first time someone said 'not'. We are going in circles over this. You've made your point to the best of your ability. As others have made theirs. Perhaps you could contact Dr. Trenberth directly and demonstrate to him exactly how he is incorrect. -
Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 - First, I'm glad you're responding. You did not to the last 2-3 posts I made on this thread. - Please point out which Trenberth numbers you disagree with, and why. With some evidence - measurements, physics, etc. I think the burden of proof is on you for whatever disagreement you have. I have no idea which 70 W/m^2 you are referring to - there's 40 in the "IR window" from the surface (no GHG absorption) and 30 from clouds, but otherwise... - Your 1.6 'gain factor' makes no sense to me whatsoever. If you feel that there is a 'gain factor' that makes one type of energy forcing different than another, please explain it clearly. And why. I can't figure it out from your postings so far. Visible light albedo directly affects solar forcing (79 W/m^2 reflected from clouds, 23 W/m^2 reflected from surface, 78 absorbed by atmosphere, 161 absorbed by surface), and is irrelevant to all other aspects of the energy balance which involve IR rather than visible light (emissivity/absorptivity in IR ~95% for the surface, not 0.875 or cloud 0.5). What counts is the energy transferred into the system, not the ratio of what gets reflected. - 3.7 W/m^2 change in top of atmosphere (TOA) forcing per doubling of CO2. Yes, in a single layer model (not realistic) that's 7.4 watts absorbed in surface layers. If you want details, follow the multiple links to MODTRAN models folks have pointed you towards - which you have apparently not followed. If you won't, and haven't done the work, well then, don't argue with it. - You have repeatedly asserted that cyclic variations (orbital distances, seasons) somehow affect the global energy balance differently than CO2 forcings. You are incorrect - they all affect the global energy in the same fashion. It's just that long term trends in averages will change global climate, whereas balanced cycles will not. - muoncounter - Thanks, a sinusoid does average to 0.707 peak to peak values. I'm not sure that it's a pure sinusoid; given that perihelion orbital velocities are higher than aphelion, but that sounds about right. It's certainly not the peak-to-peak values RW1 asserts. - If you know that lower atmosphere absorption is ~twice what gets blocked at TOA, why are you claiming that the 3.7 gets halved?!? That's halving twice! -
RW1 at 14:41 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: 182), Disregard the "I know" at the end of post 189 - it was leftover from 188. -
RW1 at 14:39 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: 182), Eric: "The 7.4 would thus be an "effective absorption" but the physical reality is that the atmosphere absorbs and reradiates with decreasing absorption coefficients at every level as you go up. It can estimated with some granularity in the simulations, but certainly not with a granularity of one (layer)." OK, show me the power in = power out radiative budget calculations that prove this. I already showed that for power in = power out, almost exactly half the the power absorbed by the atmosphere (for GHGs and clouds) is radiated up out to space and the other half is radiated down. I know. -
RW1 at 14:34 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Tom Dayton (RE: 186), Tom: "Each layer (really, each molecule) radiates half up and half down. The entire atmosphere is not a single layer that radiates half up and half down. There are many layers (molecules stacked on top of each other). Worse, the different layers have different characteristics." I know. -
RW1 at 14:27 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Eric (RE: 182), Eric: "the 1.6 gain is simply comparing two power fluxes in different locations." No, the gain of 1.6 is a global average calculation. It is simply the global average emitted surface power divided by the global average albedo adjusted solar power. -
Tom Dayton at 14:27 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, I think Eric (skeptic) has hit dead-on one of the problems with your approach, though other commentators I think have mentioned it: "but certainly not with a granularity of one (layer)." Each layer (really, each molecule) radiates half up and half down. The entire atmosphere is not a single layer that radiates half up and half down. There are many layers (molecules stacked on top of each other). Worse, the different layers have different characteristics. David Archer's book "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" devotes its Chapter 3 to such a simple layer model, but only as an introduction to the concepts. Even that single-layer model shows heating of the surface. One of the "Projects" at the end of that chapter is to have the student extend that one-layer model to two layers (page 27), which still is far simpler than the real models that climatologists use. I think that chapter is your best way of understanding this topic. -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:24 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, I can't answer all your specific questions tonight, but I would note that the comparison between the paper you linked in #150 and the Collins paper I linked in #175 is quite dramatic. The author in your link has no representation of atmosphere except the flux-derived "gain" and the borrowed 3.7 number. It appears to be a case partly of misinterpretation and partly oversimplification, but I obviously need to figure out exactly what is wrong. -
RW1 at 14:19 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Evaporation and convection in the Trenberth numbers count; very much so. The Trenberth 2009 energy budget is essentially a 3-layer layout: 3-way exchanges between outer space, the surface of the Earth (water and soil), and the atmosphere. All numbers are important. You've indicated that you feel Trenberth was just presenting ad hoc numbers, as I indicated in this post, you're going to have to demonstrate your objections to specific numbers in those budgets to be taken seriously." No, I think some of Trenberth's numbers were determined ad hoc, but the diagram is confusing. Also, I did point out that his 70 W/m^2 for the transparent part of the atmosphere was likely too low. It's probably more like 80 W/m^2, because that yields 50/50 up/down for the portion of the atmosphere that is absorbed and re-radiated. What would like to know specifically? -
muoncounter at 14:14 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
#181: "~50-60% of the peak-peak values" Surely you are aware that the rms average of a pure sinusoid is .707 of the peak. Some asymmetry may produce an rms average that is somewhat less. The objections to your calculations have been made clear. It is useless to continue insisting that they have not and to pick one point for each posting and ask for details. You need to review this entire thread from post #2 on, as a whole, without asking for line-by-line explanations. We are far off the topic of this thread; IMHO its time to move on. -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:12 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1 and KR, the 1.6 gain is simply comparing two power fluxes in different locations. By comparing incoming and outgoing solar, for example, the albedo is determined linearly. The 1.6 would appear to also be linear, but it is not. For example if we only had a very small quantity of unreflected solar forcing (say 10 W/m^2), the surface would have no water vapor and no gaseous CO2 and the gain would pretty much be zero. -
RW1 at 14:09 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Your peak-to-peak insolation numbers are meaningless without averaging them over the season; they should be ~50-60% of the peak-peak values (off the top of my head) for seasonal averages." What do you mean by "50-60% of the peak-peak values"? -
RW1 at 14:07 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Your raw number calculations for insolation do not include sun angle; that will change those raw numbers considerably." Please explain and give specifics. I'm using global average numbers for insolation. I'm well aware that the angle of the sun varies dramatically dependent on latitude. -
Eric (skeptic) at 14:06 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
RW1, I don't think you are going to find a calculation of 7.4 W/m^2 absorbed, because like 3.7 radiative equivalent, it is not a physical quantity. The 3.7 is an effective forcing that can be used for comparison purposes with other forcings. The 7.4 would thus be an "effective absorption" but the physical reality is that the atmosphere absorbs and reradiates with decreasing absorption coefficients at every level as you go up. It can estimated with some granularity in the simulations, but certainly not with a granularity of one (layer). -
RW1 at 14:03 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Your 1.6 gain makes absolutely no sense to me, nor to any number of other posters. You appear to be dividing apples by oranges." In what way, specifically? How am I dividing apples by oranges? What are you referring to exactly? -
RW1 at 14:01 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "Seasonal changes are cyclic, which means they average out to a trend of zero (0°C) over time. Seasonal variability is quite large - but the trend over time (30 years for statistical significance) is non-zero, indicating global warming." I totally know all of this. How are you interpreting what I've said as being in conflict with this? -
RW1 at 13:59 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
KR (RE: Post 174), KR: "The 3.7 W/m^2 forcing for a doubling of CO2 leads to a 1.2°C warming without considering feedbacks. That means 3.7 W/m^2 less IR radiation leaves the atmosphere. That number is the result of a considerable amount of computation, more than I can fit on the back of an envelope, working from basic physics to find how much energy is retained by GHG's." I want to see the details and computations, or at least point me to a source that lays them out. The "basic physics" dictate it should be half up and half down. For a 3.7 W/m^2 net toward the surface, that means a total of 7.4 W/m^2 has to be the amount additional infrared power absorbed and re-radiated from a doubling of CO2. BTW, I'm well aware that the calculation of 3.7 W/m^2 involves the things you're mentioning and it not a simple straightforward calculation. -
Tom Dayton at 13:54 PM on 23 December 2010Comparing all the temperature records
Norman wrote "I do not see the upward trend in the satellite data. Using a 133 month moving average shows a trend but the actual data do not." The 133 month moving average is "actual data." The whole point of computing a moving average is to make more visible the trend that is in the actual data. It's not magic. It's not cheating. It's not artificial. It's not non-actual. -
Eric (skeptic) at 13:38 PM on 23 December 2010Lindzen and Choi find low climate sensitivity
Hi RW1, sorry I haven't answered your 172 post yet. I am looking at the paper you linked that said "According to HITRAN based simulations, the atmosphere captures 3.6 W/m² of additional power when the CO2 is increased from 280ppm to 560ppm. Of this, the atmosphere radiates half of this up and half down." and looking at the Collins paper http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cms/wcollins/papers/rtmip.pdf and others linked from Judith Curry's site http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/05/confidence-in-radiative-transfer-models/ So far I have not found a complete derivation of such a quantity as "captured additional power" for the atmosphere but a changes in LW forcing at various levels in the atmosphere. Hopefully I can reconcile those and determine whether the "divide by 2" idea is valid or not.
Prev 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Next
