Reply With Quote
that's putatively a measurable amount of CO2 forcing. far from nothing.
From Nature:
This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation
that's putatively a measurable amount of CO2 forcing. far from nothing.
backs up Fuzzy more than it does you.
your theory is solar forcing and soot with zero AGW, right?
seems you're the one doing selective reading and torturing the data until it says what you want
Except the downward radiative forcing from the greenhouse effect is greater than 330 W/m^2 already. The 0.31/m^2 is already small. The 0.2 is even smaller.
Changing the argument when you can't win the current one, huh?
How does it read to you?
about the opposite of what you're saying
please point me to the part of the quote that speaks of IPCC CO2 forcing numbers being what you claim them to be.
you don't have a clue what trend they are talking about in that quote but we will definitely have to go back to Bert.
A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.
It doesn't. The numbers from the IPCC are found in their assessment reports.
Increases in radiative forcing trend, and the CO2 accounts for about 10% of the trend increase.
Prove me wrong.
having a reliable measurement for CO2 forcing-- if it is that -- is a big deal to the AGW crowd.
Yes, except that these measurements are only 65% of what they were using in past assessments.
Fuzzy...
The paper does mention the AR5 level of 1.82 W/m^2:
They reference from the AR5:Radiative transfer models calculate that the increase in CO2 since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcing at the tropopause of 1.82 ± 0.19 W m−2
Myhre, G. et al. Anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) 661 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013)
The footnotes to the quote that WC edited out pointed to:
Prata, F. The climatological record of clear-sky longwave radiation at the Earth's surface: evidence for water vapour feedback? Int. J. Remote Sens. 29, 5247–5263 (2008)
Wang, K. & Liang, S. Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008. J. Geophys. Res. 114, D19101 (2009)
Wild, M., Grieser, J. & Schär, C. Combined surface solar brightening and increasing greenhouse effect support recent intensification of the global land-based hydrological cycle. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L17706 (2008)
They are talking about the trend in total brightening and that has not a thing to do with IPCC.
So you think that is what they use in their models?since 1750 corresponds to a global annual-mean radiative forcingyou are one dumb mother er conflating a 260 year mean with 10% error with individual samples from a recent study.
This is approximately ten per cent of the trend in downwelling longwave radiation5, 6, 7. These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance.
IOW because it is 10% of the total brightening we conclude that AGW is proven empirically. Somehow dumbass twists that into supporting his position.
I assumed board skeptics were ignoring the article until WC posted it -- it was trending on social media last week.
It's astonishing -- and incidentally hilarious --- that WC thinks the article tends to refute AGW.
LOL...
You guys are the idiots thinking anyone is saying AGW isn't real.
It is real!
The article shows it isn't as much as previously claimed.
So, WC ... how many peer reviewed articles were formally published on climate change in the last 5 years?
Then out of the over 1000 articles what makes you think this one is significant?
is it as much as the effect of windmills? Do tell.
LINK?
I don't really take your word at anything, sorry.
So, assuming you missed the question, why is action taken to limit CO2 emissions bad? Or is it certain actions you don't approve of?
It is the first to use a more definitive method. They actually measured the change in the spectra levels that are emitted by CO2 over a 10 year period. No other study to date has done what they did.
Well, sorry, I didn't read your link. Probably because it came from you. Your 'bolded' text in it:
"These results confirm theoretical predictions of the atmospheric greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic emissions, and provide empirical evidence of how rising CO2 levels, mediated by temporal variations due to photosynthesis and respiration, are affecting the surface energy balance."
Nobody disputes this, and the lower levels I point out are not in conflict with this statement. After I actually looked at this study, from a posting on a forum, by a person why has the integrity which you lack... I read it.
You mean this wording of mine that gives you a hard-on:
"it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."
I read a few studies that estimated the increased warming from the changing turbulence downstream of windmills, and how it perturbs the existing moisture in plants and soil. I believe I linked in in what ever post you snagged my words from, which are now hard to search for since it's in your signature...
Anyway, the study that attempted to quantify the warming created by this effect claimed it was 1/6h of the warning assigned to CO2. My claim is simply that I don't believe CO2 radiative forcing changes to be as much as claimed by consensus. Now I did pose it as a question...
If they did accurately catch the effects of CO2, which at this time, I will not say they didn't... then the answer to my question is NO!
Keep in mind, there is another peer reviewed study that claims CO2 forcing for a doubling is only 0.43 W/m^2.
Wow...
sidebar...
I normally work a 11 PM to 7:30 AM graveyard shift. I worked 2 hrs overtime until 9:30 today, got home and poured myself a stiff one. The glass is empty, I'm going to fill it again, but I already feel it... rather well... In later posts today, is I seem a bit... off... I probably am...
I should be coherent for the next half hour, but my posts may change in character a bit...
OK...
Back to the 0.43...
If this study happens to be correct, then this is less than 1/8th the 3.71 for doubling posed by the IPCC.
Now... If that study saying windmills caused 1/6th the accepted value for CO2 warming, then windmills cause more warming than than the CO2 they replaced from the fuel burnt to produce the same electricity...
I know, it's not likely to be the case, but... what if...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
