Yep, all the soot from Asia, dramatically changing the emissivity of the surface, makes it melt so much faster.
Because nobody seems to realize that changes in the suns intensity changes the heat on our planet. The radiative forcing changes are near linear to the solar changes. This is a significant increase when the natural feedback loop (greenhouse effect) gets a change in input.
The IPCC allows for a 0.12 watt/square meter increase by direct solar increase, and do not account anywhere, for the indirect additions the sun causes in extra latent heat, and black body surface changes.
Yep, all the soot from Asia, dramatically changing the emissivity of the surface, makes it melt so much faster.
Its not soot related because the melt is coming from underneath the ice. Its due to ocean heat content.
Quantify them and tell us how much that should add.
I explained it when I presented the diagram I added numbers to.Then do so. I've asked the same of Darrin as well.
The 0.12 W/sq meter of direct energy in the atmosphere is only about 28.5% of the solar energy not reflected. The remaining approximate 7.15% heats the surface of the earth, and this is where the IPCC conveniently losses it. They don't attribute the added energy into more latent heat, convection, and input to what the greenhouse gasses absorb. There is another 0.81 W/sq meter generated by the greenhouse effect by this increased input. Instead, it appears nowhere in the IPCC, and I can only conclude they included these extra values into the greenhouse gas increases that they attribute to increases greenhouse gas concentrations.
Just because we see can measure by proxy, more end result forcing by the greenhouse gasses, it does not mean it was the cause of greenhouse gasses.
If I take two equal pans of water, one from the hot tap, the other from the cold tap, and add equal heat to them, which is hotter when I remove the heat?
See, if I were able to do the cold water pan in 1750, and the hot water pan in modern day, the IPCC may as well say the change in end heat was because of the added CO2 in the atmosphere.
My point is proven by that simple graphic.
They are too complex for me to give the modeling any merit, especially when the simple factors are obviously left out of the modeling.What about the more complex stuff?
Models do what you program them to do. Without being "all knowing," scientists program their models to react to their preconceived notions where the missing knowledge is at.
No I haven't.
I may have to take the time sometime.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-01-2011 at 03:09 PM.
Sorry, this doesn't fly. Satellite measured outgoing longwave radiation and the ground measured downward LW radiation measurements have changed as more GHG are added into the atmosphere and that completely invalidates this argument. Not to mention you're using a broad increase in TSI over hundreds of years when we have accurate measurements from the last 30 years (where its decreased - incidently) where we can look for that type of correlation in a much more precise manner.The 0.12 W/sq meter of direct energy in the atmosphere is only about 28.5% of the solar energy not reflected. The remaining approximate 7.15% heats the surface of the earth, and this is where the IPCC conveniently losses it. They don't attribute the added energy into more latent heat, convection, and input to what the greenhouse gasses absorb. There is another 0.81 W/sq meter generated by the greenhouse effect by this increased input. Instead, it appears nowhere in the IPCC, and I can only conclude they included these extra values into the greenhouse gas increases that they attribute to increases greenhouse gas concentrations.
You guys just don't understand his intent
Not entirely, but NASA/GISS would disagree with if you say it has no increased effect.
We've discussed this also.
Which is more effective in heating the ocean?
The direct solar energy absorption because of the emissivity of the oceans, or the weak ability the change in atmospheric temperature has in changing fluid heat?
Even look at the heat content calculations, of changing a fluid temperature with a gas?
Again, which is more efficient. The direct application of heat (solar) or advection between the atmosphere and sea water with it's high salt concentration?
Look deeper into those studies. You will find they are not definitive, as it is hard to separate where the spectra is originating from.
Aren't they averaged from an accuracy of 5 C?
When the inaccuracy of a measurement is so high because of noise levels, how do you rally compensate enough to get accuracy?
These satellite measurements are accurate when seeing outgoing radiation. However, only clear sky shows somewhat accurate ground reading. there is still greenhouse gasses to account for.
How much of the earth is covered by clouds at any given time, and varying al udes?
LOL...You guys just don't understand his intent
I do...
The intent of the AGW crowd, especially the political body called the IPCC, is to scare people into destroying first would nations.
If the global community really believes this crap, why hasn't China been taken to task? They exceeded our emissions some years back.
Of course the ocean is absorbing more radiation. NO one every says that its heating because of the atmosphere. It is absorbing more radiation that is directed downwards due to GHG. The melt is occuring for many reasons but the dominant factor in this large reduction is oceanic heat content and not soot.
Hmmmm....
We started seeing the ice melting at faster rates once Asia industrialized.
We don't see an equal effect at the southern ice shelves.
The ocean currents take decades to move heat from the warmer and more direct regions to the norther pole, and about 800-1100 years to complete a loop. But then, I forget... You are a "Lag denier."
I agree the GHG idea has merit, but requires assuming CH2, CH4, and N2O have as much radiative forcing as attributed to them.
Again, when you remove the known solar energy changes in the system, using the AR4 which states radiative forcing increased by 1.6 total, 1.66 in CO2... Total GHG of 2.64...
Which way are they ignoring the solar aspect? Do we add the 0.81 for a total of 2.45 which would reduce the sensitivity of GhGs, or do we remove this from the stated greenhouse effect changes, giving GHG's a increase of 1.83?
Yeah. Thats kinda the point. When spectroscopy of outgoing radiation shows reductions in the bands associated with GHG it says something fairly clearly.
No one is ignoring solar content. It isn't enough of an change to induce the change in ocean heat content.
From 1750 to present day it is.
Now you also have to take a hard look at the spectra. The radiation emitted by the ocean is the same a water. Only a very small amount resonates with CO2. With the ocean being 2/3rds the earth, solar changes make a huge difference.
Yes, the satellites see the CO2. But how well do they distinguish the al ude that is prominent?
I have seen the difficulties in spectral analysis before. Without being able to account for all variables but 2 or 3, you cannot make any definitive assessment when they interfere with each other. My experience was with a a piece of equipment that did thin film measurements. We could literally see through the layers of a silicon wafer, and determine the thicknesses. However, it had limitations, just like our satellites do.
You're speaking of another matter. I was referring to this:
Give me a reason why their modeling assumptions are invalid. They speak about the suns effect on cloud formation or lack thereof. This is not directly related to your indirect forcing vs CO2 forcing argument.
Careful here. I'd ask the IPCC exactly why that irradiance is where it is. Until you get one, it's friendly speculation on both sides of the fence.
Does it necessarily mean it wasn't?
They may well have the same temperature afterwards if I make the proper assumptions. Herein lies my argument with your "assumptions". It's not a black and white situation as you make it out to be. You need more information, as I did for your example. Go to the source.
Or, if you set them up with my parameters, they might conclude that there was no corelation between the two.
Name me anything that's "all knowing"......include experimental examples here too. You seem to be stuck on models "as a subs ute for experimentation". At no time will anyone advocate that. They point you in the right direction, they dont provide evidence.
Preconcieved notions?
Since they're so simple, perhaps you should contact various groups and ask them why they're not included.
You seem to have fairly deep convictions about it. One has to wonder why you haven't bothered yet.
Algoco,
Why do you keep posting this link that has absolutely zero specifics about their model?
http://www.physorg.com/news161268877.html
Gotta love it. An actual scientist and meterology student arguing with a factory technician and computer programmer about climate science in a thread written by an accountant on a basketball forum.
God bless the internet.
Well, namely because its the one provided. You see, research involves....well research. Look for a complete version of their work. It does give the journal they published in doesn't it? If I'm not mistaken you also have the month of publication and both authors names.
Do you need another hint?
Last edited by Agloco; 09-01-2011 at 07:44 PM.
Lol
Diversity at its finest Id say.
EDIT: Manny the Meteorologist? That's screaming for a you tube page.
It sounded like you had actually read their paper and had a direct link. My mistake.
I could take a subtle jab at you just as you just attempted to do here. However, I realize that you're not a researcher or someone who has read scientific literature at length, so ill take the high road and explain the process.
You see, journal subscriptions cost money. There's no free access (well mostly). This journal is no exception. Being faculty, I have access to these archives for free.
This is where I lol, as do the rest of the people reading this thread.
So in response to your query, I have indeed read the article. I also know for a fact that neither you or WC have. If you're serious about this, I would be glad to provide you with a PDF of it. Simply give me your email in a PM.
Your bluff has been called. Is there any more bull you care to fling my way?
not quite yet and it may very sell end up being Manny the hydrologist/Geography Information Scientist/Climatologist. GIS and remote sensing are really catching my fancy. Mainly in their applications in meteorology and climate/environmental sciences though.
Sorry you took it that way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions