So, no reply to what I posted above Darrin? How did your out of context bit of information hold up?
We have to have some working definition of pseudoscience.
That you are uncomfortable having one of your more cherished beliefs rightfully lumped in with "moon landing hoax" believers or creationists is not my concern.
I am here to draw parallels, and it is becoming an easier case to make as time goes by.
Duh, we need to start polluting the out of the air with particulate matter again so we can accelerate global dimming (and the destruction of the ozone layer over the polar ice caps).
Probably wouldn't even matter at this point. CO2's concentration is growing so fast now that it would likely overcome the same type of negative forcing those aerosols caused 70 years ago.
I told myself I wasn't going to get involved in this thread and I just couldn't help it
S'all good. If it weren't this thread, it would have been one of WC's...I told myself I wasn't going to get involved in this thread and I just couldn't help it
I rather like the le of this one better.
This is exactly what AGW crowd does. Only those who already agree with them are doing the peer reviewing.
You should stop pulling of of a donkey's ass.
Feel free to prove that soot on ice and snow has a larger forcing effect than CO2 overall.
The main piece of scientific literature regarding soot's climate forcing is the study done by Hansen in 2004.
Here is his abstract:
You can find the study through JSTOR by searching for it by name: Soot Climate Forcing via Snow and Ice AlbedosPlausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ∼2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature. This indirect soot forcing may have contributed to global warming of the past century, including the trend toward early springs in the Northern Hemisphere, thinning Arctic sea ice, and melting land ice and permafrost. If, as we suggest, melting ice and sea level rise define the level of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, then reducing soot emissions, thus restoring snow albedos to pristine high values, would have the double benefit of reducing global warming and raising the global temperature level at which dangerous anthropogenic interference occurs. However, soot contributions to climate change do not alter the conclusion that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been the main cause of recent global warming and will be the predominant climate forcing in the future.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...he-driven-snowWhereas forest fires contribute to the problem—the effect noticeably worsens in years with widespread boreal wildfires—roughly 80 percent of polar soot can be traced to human burning, adding as much as 0.054 watt of energy per square meter of Arctic land, according to the research published this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Now, that article mentions the W/M2 of this particular forcing at 0.054. CO2 Forcing is at about 2 W/M2.
Its not even close.
The IPCC has recently acknowledged that black carbon forcing is about 4 times what it was previously thought to be, after revising the estimate upward two more times since the AR4. I cannot prove that CO2 is less than what they say, but what forcing would you reduce to balance the end results of their equation? Solar forcing is obviously higher than they say also. They correctly assign it a 0.12 (+/- small error) for "direct" forcing. They however never address the indirect forcing that gets amplified in the greenhouse effect. Instead, they allow it to be counted as greenhouse gas forcing. Therefore, we can reduce greenhouse effect forcing by at least another 0.4 watts/sq meter. The calculated numbers using the NASA greenhouse effect model come to an additional 0.81 watts seen in the greenhouse gas effect at a 0.18% solar increase, for a total of a 0.93 increase for the solar variation alone.
I cannot prove that CO2 is less than what they say, but what forcing would you reduce to balance the end results of their equation? Solar forcing is obviously higher than they say also.
Who's pulling what out of what?
You can't prove what you say - admittedly so - yet we're supposed to take it as fact. It seems to be a trend with what you post.
Yes, i have read various works on the topic. Some time ago, I did link an article that showed revised IPCC estimates. This is work that supersedes Hanson's conclusions. That said, I never trust Hanson's research anyway.
Good because I'm talking about Hansen's research. Would you care to elaborate on why you do not trust him?
To go back to my fire analogy, if the Temp of the one fire was 160 instead of 150 but you still had 10 fires burning at 100 degrees the end equation doesn't need to be adjusted very much. Thats the point. Although they've adjusted the soot upwards quite a bit it makes up such a small percentage of the overall forcing that it isn't a huge factor.
So, unless you can prove what you're trying to say maybe you shouldn't accuse me of pulling anything out of any asses.
Here is an article that is a sample of why the IPCC revised black carbon upward from 0.1 w/sq m:
Interactive comment on “Quantifying immediate radiative forcing by black carbon and organic matter with the Specific Forcing Pulse” by T. C. Bond et al.
Part of the article:
B2010,s estimate is based on the NCAR general circulation model (GCM) (version CAM3). They have revised the model and obtained a BC forcing of 0.51 Wm−2 for 2000 BC level (we denote this by BCT for BC total); from which they derive an anthropogenic (since 1750) BC forcing (denoted as BCA for BC anthropogenic) of 0.43 Wm−2 by subtracting an assumed forcing of 0.08 Wm−2 for the pre-industrial forcing. The estimate for BCA includes 0.38 Wm−2 due to atmospheric solar absorption and 0.05 Wm−2 due to increased absorption by the cryosphere (resulting from darkening of snow and ice by BC).
Also, even if Soot were a greater factor, as I pointed out above, it comes from the same processes that generate CO2.
How does this counteract what I've said?
This analogy doesn't apply. the figures are global for the material I go by, not regional.
Hanson has been proven wrong several times and chastised by NASA for using altered data.
Yet, the global numbers you provide do not come close to exceeding CO2 even though BC soot has a higher forcing value than CO2. Why do you think that is, WC? Because my analogy applies.
Links?
BTW, you should attack the paper if you have problems with it and not the scientist. If he's performing bad science it should be readily apparent.
I don't get you. You claim Soot has the highest global forcing yet you readily admit that you can't prove the CO2 forcing levels are wrong.
That is some amazing conformation bias if I've ever seen it. When you are changing parts do you continue to slam a square part into a round hole?
Well, assume we remove both the revised solar forcing from the assumed primary greenhouse gas levels. We have an additional 0.81 watts of solar an an additional 0.33 watts of soot, for a total of 1.24 watts. We have to remove this from some other item that causes forcing. Few people disagree that total forcing by the IPCC estimates are wrong. This estimate is 1.6 watts, with CO2 at 1.66 watts, and 0.98 watts for the other three listed. This is a total of 2.64 watts. Removing 1.24 watts makes this 1.4 watts. This figure is only 53% of the original estimates. 53% of the CO2 would be 0.88 watts. Now I do disagree with this figure, but that is how this math example pans out.
Point is, no matter how you slice it, the IPCC numbers for greenhouse gasses are highly suspect.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
