Fox Repug Propaganda network: climate science

Fox Wrong Again On The Global Temperature Record

GUTFELD: Can I address something, Bob? You always bring up this streak, the last ten years was about one and a half degrees warmer than the climate of the 70's. So that means - and actually, they also say that it hasn't been this warm since 1910. So that means we're still not back up to the 1910 levels of heat.

We are far above the "1910 levels of heat" as can easily be seen from the global temperature record, which dates back to 1850. This chart shows how the global surface temperature each year differs from the 1961-1990 average:

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/s...crutglobal.jpg


As this chart from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration makes clear, the last decade was the warmest on record:

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/s...OAAdecadal.jpg


http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011081...County+Fair%29

=========

Obviously, Fox is where you right-wingers do your climate research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

Obviously, Fox is where you right-wingers do you climate research.

---

Obviously, you need to gfy.:lmao

Another excellent contribution from TeyshaBlue.

See post #2, bot.

TB's great hits just keep coming.

Look at the vertical scale of your first graph.


Oooh, scary stuff.

Like a growing number of people not named Al Gore, color me unalarmed.

Boutons...

Look up the difference between temperature and heat. When you understand the difference, we can talk.

Attempting to project climatology trends from a chart with only 150 years of "data" is beyond asinine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Attempting to project climatology trends from a chart with only 150 years of "data" is beyond asinine.

---

On top of that, temperature does not measure latent heat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

TB's great hits just keep coming.

---

What are the ordinante units B?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Boutons...

Look up the difference between temperature and heat. When you understand the difference, we can talk.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

On top of that, temperature does not measure latent heat.

---

Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that Boutons' articles don't account for latent heat? If so, you're shooting yourself in the foot WC......think about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

What are the ordinante units B?





Not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that Boutons' articles don't account for latent heat? If so, you're shooting yourself in the foot WC......think about it.

---

Yes, temperature and heat are not equal when state changes are involved. Look at the surface area we have covered over where natural ground moisture cannot cool the surrounding air, because it's capped in concrete, asphalt, etc.

Most temperature measuring sites are surrounded by changing terrain over the years. The albedo and emissivity has changed over the years with these changes.

Heat increases and vaporizes moisture from the ground with less effect on temperature as more ground moisture is available. Only when moisture is no longer being absorbed does the immediate temperature rises linear with heat. Temperatures not only rise quicker in the morning when heat doesn't put as much moisture through state change, but the change in materials like concrete and asphalt increase the surrounding temperatures too. Both are excellent black body radiators compared to plants, and don't utilize incoming energy as stored chemical changes.

Have you read any of the controversy over measuring global temperatures? Nearby all measuring sites have undergone nearby landscape changes over the years, and the remote ones are being removed. Probably for convenience. maybe because they don't provide the increasing results of the agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yes, temperature and heat are not equal when state changes are involved. Look at the surface area we have covered over where natural ground moisture cannot cool the surrounding air, because it's capped in concrete, asphalt, etc.

Most temperature measuring sites are surrounded by changing terrain over the years. The albedo and emissivity has changed over the years with these changes.

Heat increases and vaporizes moisture from the ground with less effect on temperature as more ground moisture is available. Only when moisture is no longer being absorbed does the immediate temperature rises linear with heat. Temperatures not only rise quicker in the morning when heat doesn't put as much moisture through state change, but the change in materials like concrete and asphalt increase the surrounding temperatures too. Both are excellent black body radiators compared to plants, and don't utilize incoming energy as stored chemical changes.

Have you read any of the controversy over measuring global temperatures? Nearby all measuring sites have undergone nearby landscape changes over the years, and the remote ones are being removed. Probably for convenience. maybe because they don't provide the increasing results of the agenda.

---

Ya ya.....state changes store thermal energy as potential (vibrational) vs kinetic (translational, rotational), etcetera, etcetera. I know that potential energy states don't influence temp.

What I was getting at is that there's necessarily more thermal energy in the system if you account for those phase changes than if you don't. I don't know if his article actually did account for it or not. I was just asking.

Honestly though I think the article simply "misspoke" heat vs temp. But you're correct in your assertions here, it has to be spelled out clearly.

I can't say that I'm up to speed on temperature mesauring standards. I know the thermodynamics of the situation though (asphalt as a blackbody, etc.). What you say sounds valid. The location of measurement must be consistent in it's conditions as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Look at the vertical scale of your first graph.


Oooh, scary stuff.

---

At what point does warming get concerning and what are you basing it off of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Attempting to project climatology trends from a chart with only 150 years of "data" is beyond asinine.

---

Based on what? You can project climatology trends with FAR under that but it depends on the context. Using 150 years for climate trends with temperature is fine, TB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

At what point does warming get concerning and what are you basing it off of?

---

When they go beyond noise level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Attempting to project climatology trends from a chart with only 150 years of "data" is beyond asinine.

---

But it looks much scarier that way.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp...oehle_fig3.JPG

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

When they go beyond noise level.

---

Whats the noise level for global temperatures and what are you basing it off of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

But it looks much scarier that way.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp...oehle_fig3.JPG

---

It helps when you use proper data to make your graphs. You can make the graph time line be a million years and it doesn't mean anything if you use bad data.

If you want to argue that its not scary, then you're more than welcome to (AGW theory generally doesn't disagree that current warming is too big of a deal TBH - its future warming which is the issue) but at least use proper data. The anomaly is much higher than your graph shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

but at least use proper data.

---

You want the actual measured temperatures from 2000 years ago?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

The anomaly is much higher than your graph shows.

---

What are you looking at? The measured anomaly is within the margin of error of the reconstructed temps illustrated in the graph.

Looking at the graph again does it stop circa 1950?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

You want the actual measured temperatures from 2000 years ago?



What are you looking at? The measured anomaly is within the margin of error of the reconstructed temps illustrated in the graph.

---

Of course not - I want accurate temperature figures for more recent years.

The mean for your graph there shows a whopping anamoly of 0.1 degrees Celsius. The mean accepted by the scientific community from the 3 main temperature records is 4 to 5 times higher.

Now, if the graph doesn't come as far as 2000 - and it appears as it doesn't - then its more accurate. But then you have to wonder why they stopped it short.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/giss_cru_ncdc.png

In any event, the only point to showing current warming is to show that the sensitivity to C02 and not to show that current warming is "scary".

I'll give you an imperfect analogy. If you stood 200 yards down from an accelerating vehicle and the speed at the 10 yard mark was only 5 mph you wouldn't say its only going 5mph so there's no need to worry because the point is that its accelerating and its going to be going much faster by the time it actually reaches you.

Like I said, imperfect but I think it gets the point across.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

In any event, the only point to showing current warming is to show that the sensitivity to C02 and not to show that current warming is "scary".

---

What do you think of the period from 1940 to early 1970's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannFred

I'll give you an imperfect analogy. If you stood 200 yards down from an accelerating vehicle and the speed at the 10 yard mark was only 5 mph you wouldn't say its only going 5mph so there's no need to worry because the point is that its accelerating and its going to be going much faster by the time it actually reaches you.

---

Yes. Quite imperfect.

A better analogy might be a vehicle that is a mile away from you and has been alternating between moving toward you and moving away from you for the past 4½ billion years. But in the last century, it has moved a few feet closer to you.

We've discussed the period before Darrin. Several times. Either you have some of the weirdest Alzheimers I've ever seen or you selectively refuse to remember it.

Agloco, I'd like your opinion on something. You seem to be one of the few people in this sports forum that understands science.

Some time back, I made a simple addition to an early NASA/GISS drawing that illustrates the Greenhouse Effect in a simplistic way. I took the average 0.18% increase in solar radiation from the Maunder Minima to our recent timeframe using the data from the Lean 2004 study. Other studies have larger changes, others less. I picked this particular study because the data is available to the public, and is about midway between others. My 0.18% calculated came from putting the data in Excel, and using a 11 year rolling average. I went from there and changed added what the radiative power would have been and added them to the graph.

I'm going to use the term watts. When I do, know I am simplifying and what I am indicating is watts per square meter.

The IPCC AR4 report uses 0.12 watts for solar radiative forcing changes since 1750. They actually call it direct forcing in one place, but don't dwell much on it. My 0.18% does show a change of 0.12 watts of direct forcing. However, the total change in solar heat is more. There is also an increase of 0.3 watts that makes it to the ground, as the driving heat for the greenhouse effect. When done, I calculate a total increase of radiative forcing of 0.93 watts. Not just 0.12 watts.

Two or three points since the AR4, the IPCC has admitted radiative forcing increases are greater than previously thought. Their revised number is in the neighborhood 0f 0.4 watts, from 0.1 watts. These combined are 1.11 greater that the values assessed in the AR4. The way temperature vs. radiative forcing is understood, this means they have to reduce some other factor. They give CO2 an increased forcing of 1.66 watts. This fits what I understand of CO2 forcing, reducing it to about 0.55 watts.

If you agree or not with my entire rational of the above, do you at least agree the forcing for solar changes are greater than stated by the IPCC? If you see any problems with my simple rational, please explain. The way I see it, they are taking the feedback from the increased solar irradiance, and assigning it to greenhouse gasses, where it doesn't belong.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...iedfor1750.jpg

I think I left the excel file on a different computer, I can find the Lean 2004 data again and do the work again if necessary. This is from a different study, but my graph with the 0.18% increase looks very similar:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...0solardata.jpg

Trying to find solar forcing the way you did is like trying to find an accurate temperature using a stick of butter's hardness.

http://pinchmysalt.com/wp-content/up...-Version-2.jpg

Here's what you need to do, WC. Use your new forcing figures, calculate them for the past century (as opposed to one figure for a broad span of 250 years) and then using what you come up with and your theorized forcing values for CO2 compare your results to the actual temp record.

What do you come up with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Here's what you need to do, WC. Use your new forcing figures, calculate them for the past century (as opposed to one figure for a broad span of 250 years) and then using what you come up with and your theorized forcing values for CO2 compare your results to the actual temp record.

What do you come up with?

---

I don't need your comments from the peanut gallery. It is accepted in the scientific community that there are pretty significant solar changes since 1750 and that is the starting point the IPCC uses.

Bug off if you have nothing useful to interject.

Asking you to compare your figures to the actual temperature record is not useful? :lol I guess your understanding of science doesn't require it work with reality. My bad. Carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Based on what? You can project climatology trends with FAR under that but it depends on the context. Using 150 years for climate trends with temperature is fine, TB.

---

I'll accept your position on this, Manny and rescind my statement with the sole caveat that within the context of aeons of climate change, 150 years appeared, to me, to be statstically insignificant.:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I'll accept your position on this, Manny and rescind my statement with the sole caveat that within the context of aeons of climate change, 150 years appeared, to me, to be statstically insignificant.:toast

---

There are climate variations and discernible patterns that occur over the course of hundreds of years, thousands of years, or weeks. The most widely discussed climate variation is ENSO (El Nino/La Nina) and that occurs on a timescale of less than a year.

150 years is definitely a long enough period to discuss the global temperature changes. I'd say you can discuss it after 2 or so decades and have it be useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Asking you to compare your figures to the actual temperature record is not useful? :lol I guess your understanding of science doesn't require it work with reality. My bad. Carry on.

---

Are you an idiot. I am comparing this to the same accepted temperatures of 1750 the IPCC is using. I am not attempting to quantify CO2 forcing, but showing proof that how the IPCC quantifies it is in error.

can you follow, or do you wish to continue to respond foolishly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

150 years is definitely a long enough period to discuss the global temperature changes. I'd say you can discuss it after 2 or so decades and have it be useful.

---

Except nobody seems to properly eliminate the error in global temperature changes due to urban islands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Except nobody seems to properly eliminate the error in global temperature changes due to urban islands.

---

Yeah - those urban heat islands are really throwing off satellite measurements and yeah its so hard to remove city weather sites from the temperature record and recalculate.

Guess what happens when you do that? It doesn't bode well for your assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Are you an idiot. I am comparing this to the same accepted temperatures of 1750 the IPCC is using. I am not attempting to quantify CO2 forcing, but showing proof that how the IPCC quantifies it is in error.

can you follow, or do you wish to continue to respond foolishly?

---

No, I cannot follow your poor logic. IF you're trying to prove a measurement of something is wrong, then you ARE trying to quantify it. The temp has risen a certain amount. If you're attributing more of that heating to a specific source and not another you most certainly ARE trying to quantify those factors. We have a very good 30 year measurement of solar energy and a good temperature record for that time as well.

Reconstruct it using your figures. Do your figures match empirical data or not? Its very simple.

Really - I just want to know how you can say the sun is more of a factor when its output is not changing at best or decreasing at worst. You realize what happens if you assign solar forcing a greater role in increasing temperature while its declining? You pretty much say that CO2 forcing is stronger than anticipated if that is your point.

Just make your theories jive with reality. Pretty basic stuff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Yeah - those urban heat islands are really throwing off satellite measurements and yeah its so hard to remove city weather sites from the temperature record and recalculate.

Guess what happens when you do that? It doesn't bode well for your assertion.

---

My point is the temperature is greater in the urban areas. These record temperatures people see are probably cause by the urban island effect more than global warming.

I never said Global Warming was not real. You know that. I am saying that most of what is being propagated is wrong when it comes to correlations to CO2.

Stop being a Chump. He keeps changing the goalpost. You say 150 years, so I explain the thermometers problems, then you switch to satellite...

Stop being a Chump asshole.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Reconstruct it using your figures. Do your figures match empirical data or not? Its very simple.

---

Do you seriously think this short time-frame accounts for a slow oscillating system?

Short time spans are useless. Too many other variables.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Really - I just want to know how you can say the sun is more of a factor when its output is not changing at best or decreasing at worst. You realize what happens if you assign solar forcing a greater role in increasing temperature while its declining? You pretty much say that CO2 forcing is stronger than anticipated if that is your point.

Just make your theories jive with reality. Pretty basic stuff.

---

Can you say "lag?"

Can you show lag before then? Whats your basis for lag other than you need it to fit? Where does this lag show up otherwise?

Can you say reality?

Hell, can you point me to ANYTHING that shows that temp lags changes in solar output? That is a hell of a new theory you just came up with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Can you show lag before then? Whats your basis for lag other than you need it to fit? Where does this lag show up otherwise?

Can you say reality?

---

I'm not going to. We have discussed this in the past.

The oceans absorb most the solar energy they see and are the largest part of the earth. This becomes latent heat.

I have also pointed out the difference between heat and temperature,. Did you follow that, or just again, saying the popular line as you were taught at your University of Indoctrination?

I brought this up asking a professionals viewpoint. Not your sorry ass' agenda.

Well then - it shouldn't be hard for you to provide some proof of this lag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Well then - it shouldn't be hard for you to provide some proof of this lag.

---

Please review our past discussions. Until then, bye.

Its pretty easy really - if the temp increases while the TSI decreases is due to the oceans releasing heat then obviously the oceans should be cooling.

Are they?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Please review our past discussions. Until then, bye.

---

:lol

Are the oceans cooling?

BTW, I'm not stopping Agloco from responding. He can still read your post and comment as he sees fit. In the meantime, I like poking holes in your ever changing theory and watching you flop around more than a fish out of water.


Its the sun thats causing more warming!

Oh - its not really warming - the temperature record is unreliable due to Urban Heat Islands!!!!

Oh, its not urban heat islands its the oceans releasing heat that is causing the warming!


:lol

So yeah - let me know when those oceans start cooling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

BTW, I'm not stopping Agloco from responding.

---

Yes, I know. Maybe he isn't comfortable using his scientific knowledge in this topic. Can't blame him, especially if he agrees with me and then has to contend with the likes of you.

All these things you poke fun at have explanation. Again, review our previous discussions instead of acting like a 6 year old.

:lmao So now he's not responding because he agrees with you.

You're endless entertainment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

:lmao So now he's not responding because he agrees with you.

You're endless entertainment.

---

There you go spinning again.

Maybe you should look the definition of "if" up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Yes, I know. Maybe he isn't comfortable using his scientific knowledge in this topic. Can't blame him, especially if he agrees with me and then has to contend with the likes of you.

All these things you poke fun at have explanation. Again, review our previous discussions instead of acting like a 6 year old.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

:lmao So now he's not responding because he agrees with you.

You're endless entertainment.

---

To be clear, I'm not responding because I don't have a lot of time right now. If WC's observations and calculations have merit, I won't hesitate to say so.

I'll respond when I get a good block of time.

When you look at it, keep in mind, the solar energy varies in the area of 1366 watts/square meter in space. By the time you account for the day/night cycle and disk area to coverage of the half sphere at a time, the energy is 1/4, or about 342 watts/square meter. Then you have the albedo of the earth leaving the number about 235 watt which is used here. If you disagree with anything, find another greenhouse effect model you like and number you agree with, and see how much of a radiative forcing change you get at a given change in solar radiation.

Trade Parker while he still has some value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Obviously, you need to gfy.:lmao

---

:lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Agloco, I'd like your opinion on something. You seem to be one of the few people in this sports forum that understands science.

Some time back, I made a simple addition to an early NASA/GISS drawing that illustrates the Greenhouse Effect in a simplistic way. I took the average 0.18% increase in solar radiation from the Maunder Minima to our recent timeframe using the data from the Lean 2004 study. Other studies have larger changes, others less. I picked this particular study because the data is available to the public, and is about midway between others. My 0.18% calculated came from putting the data in Excel, and using a 11 year rolling average. I went from there and changed added what the radiative power would have been and added them to the graph.

I'm going to use the term watts. When I do, know I am simplifying and what I am indicating is watts per square meter.

The IPCC AR4 report uses 0.12 watts for solar radiative forcing changes since 1750. They actually call it direct forcing in one place, but don't dwell much on it. My 0.18% does show a change of 0.12 watts of direct forcing. However, the total change in solar heat is more. There is also an increase of 0.3 watts that makes it to the ground, as the driving heat for the greenhouse effect. When done, I calculate a total increase of radiative forcing of 0.93 watts. Not just 0.12 watts.

Two or three points since the AR4, the IPCC has admitted radiative forcing increases are greater than previously thought. Their revised number is in the neighborhood 0f 0.4 watts, from 0.1 watts. These combined are 1.11 greater that the values assessed in the AR4. The way temperature vs. radiative forcing is understood, this means they have to reduce some other factor. They give CO2 an increased forcing of 1.66 watts. This fits what I understand of CO2 forcing, reducing it to about 0.55 watts.

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...iedfor1750.jpg

I think I left the excel file on a different computer, I can find the Lean 2004 data again and do the work again if necessary. This is from a different study, but my graph with the 0.18% increase looks very similar:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...0solardata.jpg

---

You'd need to look at a Keeling curve or some other accepted CO2 tracking method to confirm your suspicions. You can check if the forcing figures are accurate by doing two CO2 forcing calculations:

One with your figures, one with theirs using CO2 concentration as the only "greenhouse variable". It's a log relationship, so the connection may not be immediately obvious. Choose your reference concentration wisely :lol

Mind you, there are other entities that aren't transparent to radiation also. Have you confirmed that any of those haven't been adjusted as part of the greenhouse figures? I dont know what the convention is so I am asking if this is a usual assumption.

Basically this will boil down to: Do you buy the solar forcing change graphs, or the CO2 concentration graphs. You'll necessarily need to trust one or the other to do this.

Another thing: Is that "climate sensitivity" factor a constant? From my admittedly hasty read, I gather it isn't necessarily so....

Quote:

---

If you agree or not with my entire rational of the above, do you at least agree the forcing for solar changes are greater than stated by the IPCC?

---

I await your calculations.

No, CO2's forcing isn't a constant. There are diminishing returns as eventually you get saturation. The first doubling will have more of an effect than the second doubling, etc.

Other factors - such as aerosols - are certainly taken into account when considering the entire system.

As for awaiting WC's calculations, I do too! I asked him for them earlier and I was told I was adding nothing to the conversation. Hopefully as the request comes from you we'll see them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

No, CO2's forcing isn't a constant. There are diminishing returns as eventually you get saturation. The first doubling will have more of an effect than the second doubling, etc.

Other factors - such as aerosols - are certainly taken into account when considering the entire system.

As for awaiting WC's calculations, I do too! I asked him for them earlier and I was told I was adding nothing to the conversation. Hopefully as the request comes from you we'll see them.

---

Yeah.....there's a climate factor there though if you want to convert to temps. That's the one I was wondering about. It's called a "climate sensitivity factor" denoted by lambda in the equations.

Sorry! I misread


Dt = lambda * Df (I have no idea how to make the lambda symbol)

Dt = change in temp and Df is the direct forcing from the sun.

Lambda incorporates more than simply CO2 but since many of those are variable at certain levels it certainly is not a constant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

But it looks much scarier that way.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp...oehle_fig3.JPG

URL for graph = loehle_fig3.JPG

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yahoo answers commentary, verified by my google search

Dr Loehle isn't actually a climatologist, or even anything closely related, he is in fact a computer consultant and programmer. To be fair, he does have a degree in ecology.

---

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...2174440AAyM0RC

Zippity-do-dahing to the source data:


http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/
and
http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/A...C_E&E_2008.pdf

Quote:

---

With the corrected dating, the number of series for which data is available
drops from 11 to 8 in 1935, so that subsequent values of the reconstruction would be
based on less than half the total number of series, and hence would have greatly
decreased accuracy. Accordingly, the corrected estimates only run from 16 AD to 1935
AD, rather than to 1980 as in Loehle (2007)

---

So basically the happy fun graph doesn't incorporate any data from the last 80 years.?

... and this is supposed to be convincing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Sorry! I misread


Dt = lambda * Df (I have no idea how to make the lambda symbol)

Dt = change in temp and Df is the direct forcing from the sun.

Lambda incorporates more than simply CO2 but since many of those are variable at certain levels it certainly is not a constant.

---

Yeah I gathered that, but I read that section quite quickly so I wasn't sure. If it's not that's yet another confounding varable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Sorry! I misread


Dt = lambda * Df (I have no idea how to make the lambda symbol)

Dt = change in temp and Df is the direct forcing from the sun.

Lambda incorporates more than simply CO2 but since many of those are variable at certain levels it certainly is not a constant.

---

Λ

λ

Not sure if you wanted upper or lower case. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Λ

λ

Not sure if you wanted upper or lower case. :toast

---

Lower :lol

You can do estimates from CO2 and solar energy as you suggested, though. Many of the other variables - such as volcanic gasses in the stratosphere (whats up Pinitubo) are short lived and rare. You obviously won't get exact figures but using a range of sensitivities given for CO2 and solar output you can get some good estimates of the climate sensitivity of both factors.

If the scientific community was somehow pulling these numbers out of their collective ass it wouldn't be hard at all too show considering the data we have which is available to all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

No, CO2's forcing isn't a constant. There are diminishing returns as eventually you get saturation. The first doubling will have more of an effect than the second doubling, etc.

Other factors - such as aerosols - are certainly taken into account when considering the entire system.

As for awaiting WC's calculations, I do too! I asked him for them earlier and I was told I was adding nothing to the conversation. Hopefully as the request comes from you we'll see them.

---

I seem to remember reading that the ultimate top-off point was something like 1300 ppm CO2

http://co2now.org/images/stories/wid..._600_graph.gif

That means there is a good way to go.

It was about 290 in 1900 or so, I think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Lower :lol

---

Also if you feel like wading through the 48+ pages:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637

At some point actual science is addressed. Darrin even posted some moderately scientific points/studies to his credit.

Some of it is kinda funny.

I went so far as to actually contact the author of one of the other scientific papers that WC and I were discussing, and get some feedback. That was cool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

You'd need to look at a Keeling curve or some other accepted CO2 tracking method to confirm your suspicions. You can check if the forcing figures are accurate by doing two CO2 forcing calculations:

---

For what I have laid out, I am not attempting to quantify CO2. I am only showing that solar forcing is more than just the direct solar forcing. I do not accept the levels the prominent experts claim CO2 adds in radiative forcing. Not only are the high numbers used, but there is a wide range of numbers out there. A range of 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect by CO2 is a pretty big range. Most certainly shows lack of certainty. The IPCC and other alarmists use the high percentage. I think it's only about 10% to 12%. Hell, it may be even lower than the 9%. The 26% is simply insane.

Now if I go by what the IPCC says, I get this from excel:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...GCO2slope2.jpg

I reconstructed that using two reference points supplied by the IPCC AR4, and it shows about a 33 watt/square meter radiative forcing of CO2 total at the 2004 timeframe.

Again, an increase in solar radiation increases the direct and indirect heat. It's not just the 0.12 watts of direct solar heat, but with the added IR emanating from the surface.

I have looked at the Keeling curve before. Here is one image I added to in the past:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...aLoaslopes.jpg

If you notice, two trends, one up and one down, that show Co2 changes with warming and cooling. If CO2 drove temperature, then why does CO2 change with the summer/winter temperature changes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

One with your figures, one with theirs using CO2 concentration as the only "greenhouse variable". It's a log relationship, so the connection may not be immediately obvious. Choose your reference concentration wisely :lol

---

Huh? I never included CO2, but see my above graph.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Mind you, there are other entities that aren't transparent to radiation also. Have you confirmed that any of those haven't been adjusted as part of the greenhouse figures? I dont know what the convention is so I am asking if this is a usual assumption.

---

I am fully aware of this. Please understand, I have done a great deal of reading on the topic. Different gasses in the atmosphere have different sets of frequencies they respond to.

I am using an accepted greenhouse gas model. I did not make this one up. I added numbers to show the effect of a solar change. The greenhouse effect number is total effect of all atmospheric gasses. The Here is the original:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Effect.svg.png

It is created from the data in an article titled Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. This article has another representation of the greenhouse effect, figure 7.

Please also notice that in the Abstract of the article gives a CO2 value of 32 watts/square meter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Basically this will boil down to: Do you buy the solar forcing change graphs, or the CO2 concentration graphs. You'll necessarily need to trust one or the other to do this.

---

Trust one or the other? That would be because one or the other is wrong, and how do you really determine which? I have decided that because both solar and black carbon forcing are far greater than stated by the alarmists, that the forcing CO2 is said to have is incorrectly high. For my conclusion to be incorrect, then even the lowest accepted solar increases since then maunder Minima would have to be wrong.

I know this much as a certainty. The sun provides the earth with more than 99.99% of our heat. The heat collected by the earth surface is radiated back in mostly infrared radiation. The upward when lag is considered is equal to the downward energy. That said, the sun is the source for the energy that produces the greenhouse effect. As this source energy increases, the greenhouse energy returned with the greenhouse effect with no greenhouse gas level change will increase, as the greenhouse effect is a feedback of the original solar energy.

Bottom line is that the change atmospheric radiative force is proportional to the incoming solar changes. With no solar energy (heat source), there would be no greenhouse effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Another thing: Is that "climate sensitivity" factor a constant? From my admittedly hasty read, I gather it isn't necessarily so....

---

All these variables keep changing. Climate sensitivity of course will also change with the atmospheric changes. Again, temperature and heat are two different things. Watts is a measurement of energy directly proportional to heat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

I await your calculations.

---

For what? A simple 0.18% increase in solar power will equate to a 0.18% increase in atmospheric radiative forcing? All atmospheric forcing is a feedback of the incoming solar power, therefore, it will be at least nearly proportional to the incoming heat. I'm speaking long term, not short term also.

I wonder if I miss judged you. Let me ask in a simpler way. Do you agree that atmospheric heat will be proportional to solar heat with all other factors equal, or not?

aw crap, here come the graphs... :sleep





j/k

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Also if you feel like wading through the 48+ pages:

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=163637

At some point actual science is addressed. Darrin even posted some moderately scientific points/studies to his credit.

Some of it is kinda funny.

I went so far as to actually contact the author of one of the other scientific papers that WC and I were discussing, and get some feedback. That was cool.

---

:tu

I'll take a look later this evening.

http://shirtoid.com/wp-content/uploa...-man-graph.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

:tu

I'll take a look later this evening.

---

Save yourself some trouble - its mostly garbage.

Oh boy - it seems WC misjudged Agloco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

Yeah.....there's a climate factor there though if you want to convert to temps. That's the one I was wondering about. It's called a "climate sensitivity factor" denoted by lambda in the equations.

---

Interesting paper

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-...i-GRL-2009.pdf

What makes it interesting, Darrin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

For what I have laid out, I am not attempting to quantify CO2. I am only showing that solar forcing is more than just the direct solar forcing. I do not accept the levels the prominent experts claim CO2 adds in radiative forcing. Not only are the high numbers used, but there is a wide range of numbers out there. A range of 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect by CO2 is a pretty big range. Most certainly shows lack of certainty. The IPCC and other alarmists use the high percentage. I think it's only about 10% to 12%. Hell, it may be even lower than the 9%. The 26% is simply insane.

---

Based on what, WC? Other than your own conformation bias, what makes qualified to say what the ranges should be? Where is your work? Show your calculations.

Quote:

---

Now if I go by what the IPCC says, I get this from excel:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...GCO2slope2.jpg

I reconstructed that using two reference points supplied by the IPCC AR4, and it shows about a 33 watt/square meter radiative forcing of CO2 total at the 2004 timeframe.

Again, an increase in solar radiation increases the direct and indirect heat. It's not just the 0.12 watts of direct solar heat, but with the added IR emanating from the surface.

---

Where does that added IR come from? You don't get to add the energy twice. Obviously the increased radiative forcing from the sun will cause heating at the surface but you don't somehow get to add that twice.

If I give you 100 dollars and you turn around and spend 50 of that you don't get to say that you got another 50 dollars as change for a total of 150 dollars. That should be incredibly obvious.

Quote:

---

I have looked at the Keeling curve before. Here is one image I added to in the past:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...aLoaslopes.jpg

If you notice, two trends, one up and one down, that show Co2 changes with warming and cooling. If CO2 drove temperature, then why does CO2 change with the summer/winter temperature changes?

---

It goes up and down each year for a very obvious reason. In a few months tell me how many of those green things that tend to use CO2 are still growing at the rate they are now. Given as most of the land - and therefore plant life - lies in the northern hemisphere it should be obvious why there is a seasonal variability.

The Earth does not have a summer/winter cycle as you're trying to say it does, however. When those CO2 figures drop in the summer of the northern hemisphere, half of the globe is experiencing winter.

Quote:

---

Huh? I never included CO2, but see my above graph.

---

He's asking you to do two calculations. One with your figures and one with their CO2 figures and try to see which one replicates the warming. Its the exact same thing I asked you for before because when you come up with a hypothesis it is required that you test it somehow. Seeing as you're arguing over variables in an equation you can easily plug in the other factors of that equation using data from the past and see how your results and the results of scientists who claim CO2 forcing is higher line up with reality.

The point is that these forcings are EXTREMELY testable. What do you come up with?

Once again - show your work.

Quote:

---

I am fully aware of this. Please understand, I have done a great deal of reading on the topic. Different gasses in the atmosphere have different sets of frequencies they respond to.

I am using an accepted greenhouse gas model. I did not make this one up. I added numbers to show the effect of a solar change. The greenhouse effect number is total effect of all atmospheric gasses. The Here is the original:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...Effect.svg.png

It is created from the data in an article titled Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. This article has another representation of the greenhouse effect, figure 7.

Please also notice that in the Abstract of the article gives a CO2 value of 32 watts/square meter.

Trust one or the other? That would be because one or the other is wrong, and how do you really determine which? I have decided that because both solar and black carbon forcing are far greater than stated by the alarmists, that the forcing CO2 is said to have is incorrectly high. For my conclusion to be incorrect, then even the lowest accepted solar increases since then maunder Minima would have to be wrong.

---

Once again, show your work.

Quote:

---

I know this much as a certainty. The sun provides the earth with more than 99.99% of our heat. The heat collected by the earth surface is radiated back in mostly infrared radiation. The upward when lag is considered is equal to the downward energy. That said, the sun is the source for the energy that produces the greenhouse effect. As this source energy increases, the greenhouse energy returned with the greenhouse effect with no greenhouse gas level change will increase, as the greenhouse effect is a feedback of the original solar energy.

Bottom line is that the change atmospheric radiative force is proportional to the incoming solar changes. With no solar energy (heat source), there would be no greenhouse effect.

All these variables keep changing. Climate sensitivity of course will also change with the atmospheric changes. Again, temperature and heat are two different things. Watts is a measurement of energy directly proportional to heat.

For what? A simple 0.18% increase in solar power will equate to a 0.18% increase in atmospheric radiative forcing? All atmospheric forcing is a feedback of the incoming solar power, therefore, it will be at least nearly proportional to the incoming heat. I'm speaking long term, not short term also.

I wonder if I miss judged you. Let me ask in a simpler way. Do you agree that atmospheric heat will be proportional to solar heat with all other factors equal, or not?

---

Show your work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Interesting paper

http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-...i-GRL-2009.pdf

---

I was going to just wait for you to respond as to why you found it interesting but the fact is that you likely won't respond so I'll just move on and tell you why although its interesting its also flawed.

The synopsis of that study is that it looks at outgoing radiation during periods of increased temps in the tropics. What they found was that when the temps rose in the areas between 20 degrees lat N and 20 degrees lat S there was an increase in outgoing radiation that indicated a low climate sensitivity.

However, the paper has a few really poor premises. First, the tropics are not the globe. Heat is transported around the world. These periods they studied were basically the positive side of the ENSO cycle or the El Nino phase. As you know, the entire globe's average temp rises during an El Nino year so you can't assume that while the tropics are losing a good deal of energy back out to space the entire globe is.

When you account for the entire globe, all of a sudden the results are completely different.

Two papers that addressed this:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL042911.shtml
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL043051.shtml

More importantly though (and its so fitting the paper you linked is on Spencer's site considering the recent discussion regarding Spencer's bad model), the results obtained by Lindzen are the results of the data they put in. What I mean by this is that by manipulating the start and end dates of the data you put in, you can get pretty much any result you want to get.

Its like this, if in an analysis of my checking account I try to figure out how much money I have by ONLY looking at days where I make deposits then I'm not going to get an accurate picture. If I exclude days where I made deposits then I'm going to get a completely different picture as well.

This selective analysis is quite bogus and when your results don't stack up with all the data then it has no merit.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...GL042314.shtml

Interesting indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

What makes it interesting, Darrin?

---

Apparently, climate models use a sensitivity value that is too high.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Apparently, climate models use a sensitivity value that is too high.

---

So you found it interesting only because the conclusion agreed with what you think? I'm quite shocked by this. I wonder what you'll think of the papers that show why the conclusions reached in that paper are incorrect.

I think this covers the subject of Fox news pretty well. I can't take credit for thinking
this up.

Megyn Kelly
Martha Maccallum
Harris Faulkner
Courtney Friel
Uma Pemmeraju
Jane Skinner
Kimberly Guillfoyle
Did I mention Courtney Friel
(Oops, repeat. Hope you don't mind)
Lis Wiehl
Rebecca Gomez
Gretchen Carlson

Courtney Friel (Darn repeated again. Sorry)
Laurie Dhue
Julie Banderas, Ainsley Earhart , Dominica Davis

And there are probably some missing.

Why Republican Men Are So Much Happier!
ANY QUESTIONS?

And why men love Fox news.........along with the commentary.

Have a great day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

So you found it interesting only because the conclusion agreed with what you think? I'm quite shocked by this. I wonder what you'll think of the papers that show why the conclusions reached in that paper are incorrect.

---

Ok, here's another one.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

Ok, here's another one.

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCapacity.pdf

---

:lmao

http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/resea...n_schwartz.pdf

That was a critique of Schwartz's work. He reevaluated, and published this:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/pubs/BNL-80226-2008-JA.pdf

Which then brings him in line - albeit on the low side - with IPCC projections.

Quote:

---

1.1. Synopsis
[1] Reanalysis of the autocorrelation of global mean
surface temperature prompted by the several comments,
taking into account a subannual autocorrelation of about
0.4 year and bias in the autocorrelation resulting from the
short duration of the time series has resulted in an upward
revision of the climate system time constant determined by
Schwartz [2007] by roughly 70%, to 8.5 ± 2.5 years (all
uncertainties are 1-sigma estimates). This results in a like
upward revision of the climate sensitivity determined in that
paper, to 0.51 ± 0.26 K/(W m
2), corresponding to an
equilibrium temperature increase for doubled CO2 of 1.9 ±
1.0 K, somewhat lower than the central estimate of the
sensitivity given in the 2007 assessment report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but consistent
within the uncertainties of both estimates. The conclusion
that global mean surface temperature is in near equilibrium
with the applied forcing continues to hold. Forcing over the
twentieth century other than that due to greenhouse gases,
ascribed mainly to tropospheric aerosols, is estimated as

1.1 ± 0.7 W m
2.

---

Nice Darrin, use a paper that the scientist himself corrected after he was shown where he was incorrect to prove a point. This really disproves your conformation bias and instead shows how honestly interested you are in the science.

I won't apologize for making you think WC. I tend to do that to people and it pisses them off sometimes. Let's go through this step by step again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

For what I have laid out, I am not attempting to quantify CO2. I am only showing that solar forcing is more than just the direct solar forcing. I do not accept the levels the prominent experts claim CO2 adds in radiative forcing. Not only are the high numbers used, but there is a wide range of numbers out there. A range of 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect by CO2 is a pretty big range. Most certainly shows lack of certainty. The IPCC and other alarmists use the high percentage. I think it's only about 10% to 12%. Hell, it may be even lower than the 9%. The 26% is simply insane.

---

Ok.....you're attempting to show that solar forcing is more than just direct solar forcing. In the next breath you state:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

For what I have laid out, I am not attempting to quantify CO2. I am only showing that solar forcing is more than just the direct solar forcing. I do not accept the levels the prominent experts claim CO2 adds in radiative forcing. Not only are the high numbers used, but there is a wide range of numbers out there. A range of 9% to 26% of the greenhouse effect by CO2 is a pretty big range. Most certainly shows lack of certainty. The IPCC and other alarmists use the high percentage. I think it's only about 10% to 12%. Hell, it may be even lower than the 9%. The 26% is simply insane.

---

Now you've added another variable. You did this, not me. If you don't buy their models, it's necessary to either A) do some research and locate another or B) develop one of your own.

Why do I say this? I'll use your own verbiage to illustrate why:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra's original supposition

If you agree or not with my entire rational of the above, do you at least agree the forcing for solar changes are greater than stated by the IPCC?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra's understanding of the situation

The way temperature vs. radiative forcing is understood, this means they have to reduce some other factor.They give CO2 an increased forcing of 1.66 watts. This fits what I understand of CO2 forcing, reducing it to about 0.55 watts.

---

So we have A) You not buying into the current CO2 models and B) You professing knowledge that said change must be due to some error in the calculation of solar changes vs assigning it to greenhouse gases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra's attempt to think critically

Trust one or the other? That would be because one or the other is wrong, and how do you really determine which? I have decided that because both solar and black carbon forcing are far greater than stated by the alarmists, that the forcing CO2 is said to have is incorrectly high. For my conclusion to be incorrect, then even the lowest accepted solar increases since then maunder Minima would have to be wrong.

---

You're correct here. Even the smallest increases would need to be incorrect. How do we go about verifying such a thing though? Seems to me that dealing with the "problem" of CO2 concentration is an easier approach, and more appropriate I might add. We don't go around changing data to suit our needs. I did the thinking for you to this point.

Then I made the mistake:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco, the misjudged physicist

You'd need to look at a Keeling curve or some other accepted CO2 tracking method to confirm your suspicions. You can check if the forcing figures are accurate by doing two CO2 forcing calculations:

One with your figures, one with theirs using CO2 concentration as the only "greenhouse variable". It's a log relationship, so the connection may not be immediately obvious. Choose your reference concentration wisely :lol

---

I asked you to perform a thought experiment (sorry). No a difficult one, just one in which deal with one variable (CO2) and see what gives with with respect to "solar changes". I asked you to, in effect create your own CO2 curve and verify that it doesn't match the one IPCC created using their data. If you can do that, you can say that there's "another factor in play".....irradiance unaccounted for. At that point, we'll most likely begin asking you to provide justification for your conclusion (the new CO2 levels). I get the distinct feeling that this is a path you don't feel like going down, hence your resistance.

Even if your justification panned out, IMO that still wouldn't be sufficient evidence to assign it solely to "solar changes" (remember my question about climate variables and other greenhouse gases?)

Bravo, you gave the IPCC curve:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra's fancy graph

Now if I go by what the IPCC says, I get this from excel:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...GCO2slope2.jpg

---

But we have yet to see yours. You know, the one where you input your data and let us see where your CO2 concentration(s) lie(s).

If you did that, it would be a start to demonstrating that there's an incongruency in the numbers (providing the equations you used and calculations would help immensely here also). You will have also created a tool (your own CO2 graph) with which to go about demonstrating that other factors may or may not be out of bounds as well.

Finally:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra's judgement on Agloco

I wonder if I miss judged you. Let me ask in a simpler way. Do you agree that atmospheric heat will be proportional to solar heat with all other factors equal, or not?

---

Apparently it wouldn't be the first error you committed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra dumbing things down for Agloco

I wonder if I miss judged you. Let me ask in a simpler way. Do you agree that atmospheric heat will be proportional to solar heat with all other factors equal, or not?

---

I think this is self evident. Unfortunately, this isn't the entire/most accurate representation of the reality of the situation. Proportionality is a given, the part you're missing is that the proportion is subject to change......possibly quite significantly due to other confounding variables. That's the entire thrust of the conversation above.

Eliminate those variables one by one until you've shown that solar changes are the only (or predominant) mechanism by which climate change is effected........which leads us back to this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra's resistance to providing any more of his own calculations

For what I have laid out, I am not attempting to quantify CO2.

---

It's part of the demonstration unfortunately.

Agloco, I brought the simplified greenhouse effect chart with the changes up before. You seem unwilling like others to acknowledge that I have demonstrated that the feedback of the solar radiation has more power than the AGW crowd is willing to acknowledge.

Looking it over again, I acknowledge I asked it poorly. With the way the greenhouse effect traps heat, it becomes more heat than the sun provides. What I was showing is that the 0,18% increase in heat is an increase of 0.12 watts of direct atmospheric heating and an increase of 0.30 watts to the surface. Because the feedback amplifies until the outgoing radiation equals the incoming radiation, these numbers stay very close to proportional.

Do you agree or not that "IF" the change I assume, of a 0.18% increase, that the total increase in atmospheric radiative forcing also increases by 0.18%?

When you say "In the next breath you state," you go on to something I stated in response to your questions, and this doesn't need to go that deep. I was considering all greenhouse gasses as the simple greenhouse effect diagram shows. Not knowing how much you know on the topic, I separated the CO2 for you, but have no desire to attempt to treat all greenhouse gasses individually. I don't have time to respond to so many tangents in this topic. But when you say "You will have also created a tool (your own CO2 graph)." I have tried very hard to use the AGW crowds own material. If you compare may graph to this:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...ing/ppmCO2.jpg

This is one some prominent Climatologist made, and Al Gore used I in his "Inconvenient Truth." Now the graph I made, using the IPCC formula listed in their material, is slightly higher in CO2 that this 2nd chart. This 2nd one shows 230 as the start for CO2, implying this is the separate number for CO2, and the other combined are 230. The CO2 levels appear to be about 27.5 watts (257.5-230) at just over 280 ppm, and 31 watts (261-230) at double the CO2. They are not exact, but they are close. At one time, I played with the variables in the forcing calculation to match that graph. I took a few minutes and found the excel file I generated that graph from. My 280 ppm level for CO2 calculates to 31.011 watts. The 379 ppm is 32.671, and a doubling to 560 is 34.814. the chart Al Gore used sows about a 3.5 watt increase for doubling and the IPCC shows a 3.803 watt increase.

I don't know why I'm taking this time. I though I could keep this simple.

Quote:

---

If you don't buy their models, it's necessary to either A) do some research and locate another or B) develop one of your own.

---

My stating I don't accept the levels is because solar forcing and BC forcing are both so much higher than used by the experts. This means something has to be adjusted. Their model is wrong. Either we have to increase one or more of the cooling variables, or decrease one or more of the the warming variables.

Quote:

---

You're correct here. Even the smallest increases would need to be incorrect. How do we go about verifying such a thing though? Seems to me that dealing with the "problem" of CO2 concentration is an easier approach, and more appropriate I might add. We don't go around changing data to suit our needs. I did the thinking for you to this point.

---

Thing is, it's the CO2 that is very hard to quantify. Heat and watts are 100% interchangeable. When you consider conservation of mass and energy, it is the solar aspect we can easily quantify, and the remaining changes can then be attributed to other factors. I fail to see how you think CO2 is simpler. Please elaborate.

As for the formulas, out of TAR (Third Assessment Report):

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x...ulasedited.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wild cobra

with the way the greenhouse effect traps heat, it becomes more heat than the sun provides.

---

lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololol
lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Based on what, WC? Other than your own conformation bias, what makes qualified to say what the ranges should be? Where is your work? Show your calculations.

---

I am not saying the range is 9-26%. that is what Climatologists say. I am using their numbers. As for showing the effect of solar forcing is greater than the direct forcing, it's flat out obvious. The indirect solar energy is why drives the surface IR that fuels the greenhouse effect, When you add more fuel, you get more feedback and even more heat.

calculations are not necessary to understand a concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Where does that added IR come from? You don't get to add the energy twice. Obviously the increased radiative forcing from the sun will cause heating at the surface but you don't somehow get to add that twice.

---

To ask, means you don't understand the greenhouse effect. Having more heat value than supplied by the sun is already an accepted part of these sciences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

If I give you 100 dollars and you turn around and spend 50 of that you don't get to say that you got another 50 dollars as change for a total of 150 dollars. That should be incredibly obvious.

---

No, but if I put $100 a week in the bank, and don't take $100 a week out until four weeks later, then I have $400 sitting in the bank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

It goes up and down each year for a very obvious reason. In a few months tell me how many of those green things that tend to use CO2 are still growing at the rate they are now. Given as most of the land - and therefore plant life - lies in the northern hemisphere it should be obvious why there is a seasonal variability.

---

Well, plants frow faster in the summer and would consume more CO2 then. However, it is the summer that the CO2 values increase, and the winter when they decrease.

I've explained the solubility of CO2 in water before. The colder the water, the more CO2 it hold to be in equilibrium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

The Earth does not have a summer/winter cycle as you're trying to say it does, however. When those CO2 figures drop in the summer of the northern hemisphere, half of the globe is experiencing winter.

---

Hint:

That chart is taken from a science station at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Does that explain it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

He's asking you to do two calculations. One with your figures and one with their CO2 figures and try to see which one replicates the warming. Its the exact same thing I asked you for before because when you come up with a hypothesis it is required that you test it somehow. Seeing as you're arguing over variables in an equation you can easily plug in the other factors of that equation using data from the past and see how your results and the results of scientists who claim CO2 forcing is higher line up with reality.

---

There is no need to do such a thing. A am asking for agreement or disagreement as to the individual solar effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololollloolololololololololololololo lolololololololololoololololollloololololololololo lololololololololololololololoololololollloolololo lolololololololololololololololololololoololololol lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololollloololololololololololololololololololo lololololoololololol
lloolololololololololololololololololololololololo ololololol

---

OMG...

You really don't understand, do you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

To ask, means you don't understand the greenhouse effect. Having more heat value than supplied by the sun is already an accepted part of these sciences.

---

Holy shit.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

Thermodynamics is rolling over in his grave right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Thermodynamics is rolling over in his grave right now.

---

Explain then, how, when we only have an average 235 watt/square meter of incoming solar heat, why the energy value of the atmosphere is higher?

You understand the sciences so well that you don't know the difference between forcing and energy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

You understand the sciences so well that you don't know the difference between forcing and energy.

---

Radiative forcing is generally used to express the net energy difference in the atmosphere. It doesn't have to be the net number though. Either way, watts are watts. Watts is a measurement of energy.

:lmao

No - they are not.

Fuzzy is going to have a field day with this.

I soooooooooooooooooooooooo get now what you're saying and I never would have had you not talked about things in this way. The sad thing is you were making such a huge fundamental error that I didn't even consider it.

No, WC. The energy does not somehow grow on its way through the atmosphere and no AGW does not argue that in any way shape or form. The watts as measured in the diagram you mention are not all direct energy and are very different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I soooooooooooooooooooooooo get now what you're saying and I never would have had you not talked about things in this way. The sad thing is you were making such a huge fundamental error that I didn't even consider it.

No, WC. The energy does not somehow grow on its way through the atmosphere and no AGW does not argue that in any way shape or form. The watts as measured in the diagram you mention are not all direct energy and are very different.

---

Bingo...

As I was saying, it isn't all direct energy!

Now think about my words again. I think you're starting to understand.

Oh I understand I gave you way too much credit which in itself is mind blowing because I don't give you much. The watts are NOT a measurement of energy but the measurement of how much energy it would take to cause equivlant heating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Oh I understand I gave you way too much credit which in itself is mind blowing because I don't give you much. The watts are NOT a measurement of energy but the measurement of how much energy it would take to cause equivlant heating.

---

Watts and heat are directly proportional. Watts and temperature doesn't have to be, and isn't in the case of climate science. That's why Climate Sensitivity comes in play between heat (watts) and temperature. It changes as the latent heat, and atmospheric mix changes.

Why do you nitpick this when all I am doing is using the same references the Climate scientists use?

Calling me wrong is the same as calling them wrong.

No reputable scientist would say anything like what you said above. No, the amount of energy or heat in the Earth's system is NOT more than the Sun puts out. Such foolishness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Radiative forcing is generally used to express the net energy difference in the atmosphere. It doesn't have to be the net number though. Either way, watts are watts. Watts is a measurement of energy.

---

I'll respond to your longer post later WC, I'm time limited at the moment. Here I just wanted to say that a watt is a measurement of energy conversion (power)......not simply energy. It may seem like a nit-pick, but it's an important distinction and I'll tie this into my response later.

It seems to me that you want to keep using watts, energy and irradiance interchangeably. There are subtle yet important differences between them.

PS - You'd better hope Fuzzy doesn't get ahold of this thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agloco

PS - You'd better hope Fuzzy doesn't get ahold of this thread.

---

Why is that?