Darrin, have you ever noticed how Manny doesn't present the same type of quality he asks for?
Printable View
Darrin, have you ever noticed how Manny doesn't present the same type of quality he asks for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
As usual, another tunnel visioned post by WC. not only a loose interpretation of conservation laws in a system, but an An analysis method based on approximating the climate system as a linear trend plus an
autoregressive process to connect the dots. We might as well correlate crime to ice cream sales... oh wait, some do.
I have an idea, why don't some of you global warming deniers who love Co2 so much, show us how inconsequential and non-temperature changing it is? Fill up your house, car, bedroom, etc with it and let us know how it goes.
On a side note,
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Borat Sagyidev
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat Sagyidev
Yeah, I saw a demonstration of this using plastic bottles, one filled with CO2, to PROVE this point.
I was like, damn, those plastic bottles are just like the Earth, what with their oceans and clouds and all.
:lmao
If CO2 was such a damn problem, I would expect the current temperatures to exceed those of previous interglacial periods.
Well, the problem is, the first bottle represents Earth, the second represents Venus.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarrinS
CO2 below 1% has very little effect in the atmosphere. As it becomes the majority gas, all the longwave radiation it emits is the same frequencies that it absorbs. This changes the curve from near logarithmic to near linear.
8/27 edit...
corrected a mistake, shortwave to longwave.
We just had a quake here in NJ... 5 mins ago... wow, scary shit... never felt the ground shaking before.
Well, glad to see your internet still works. I can't contact a few friends I have there, phone lines busy/jammed I guessQuote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Wow, 5.9 on the east coast? That's a pretty significant quake. Anything at 4.0-4.5 or so is pretty easily felt.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Here is an interesting study for those serious:
Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600
It's a good paper WC. In fairness, I wanted to acknowledge an error on my part. Reading WC's original post again, it seems I've run off and argued a different point than the one he was attempting to illustrate. You may have indeed been a bit blurry in your description but in my haste I skipped over a few important details. My apologies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I'll give this paper (and some others if you or anyone have suggestions) a good read after my schedule clears.
Amazing, WC has proven again that <anything repeatedly demonstrated by 1000s of scientists' data in dozens of countries over a couple decades> is bullshit.
Nah, he's just splitting hairs over what's presented in the paper he linked above. It's a simple argument, not the one I thought he was attempting to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
But we know where WC is going with it, same place he came from. :lol
So how about it. If we look at this from an "all other factors remain constant" viewpoint, shouldn't that 0.18% increase also increase the feedback, called the greenhouse effect, by about 0.18% as well? The other factors also? After all, once equilibrium is established, the escaping energy also has to increase by 0.18%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agloco
I meant to address this sooner. There has been an ongoing series of exchanges. This is one place to see the other viewpoint, and explanations. Spenser talks about the problems with Dressler's paper as well. Don't know how long it will be on the home page:Quote:
Originally Posted by MannyIsGod
Roy Spenser, PHD, Blog
When it leaves the home page, here is it's link:
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study
Several things of interest. A few:
Quote:
But, I believe I can already demonstrate some of The Bad, for example, showing Dessler is off by about a factor of 10 in one of his central calculations.
Finally, Dessler must be called out on The Ugly things he put in the paper (which he has now agreed to change).
Quote:
Figure 2 in his paper, we believe, helps make our point for us: there is a substantial difference between the satellite measurements and the climate models. He tries to minimize the discrepancy by putting 2-sigma error bounds on the plots and claiming the satellite data are not necessarily inconsistent with the models.
But this is NOT the same as saying the satellite data SUPPORT the models. After all, the IPCC’s best estimate projections of future warming from a doubling of CO2 (3 deg. C) is almost exactly the average of all of the models sensitivities! So, when the satellite observations do depart substantially from the average behavior of the models, this raises an obvious red flag.
Quote:
He gets a ratio of about 20:1 for non-radiatively forced (i.e. non-cloud) temperature changes versus radiatively (mostly cloud) forced variations. If that 20:1 number is indeed good, then we would have to agree this is strong evidence against our view that a significant part of temperature variations are radiatively forced. (It looks like Andy will be revising this downward, although it’s not clear by how much because his paper is ambiguous about how he computed and then combined the radiative terms in the equation, below.)
But the numbers he uses to do this, however, are quite suspect. Dessler uses NONE of the 3 most direct estimates that most researchers would use for the various terms. (A clarification on this appears below). Why? I know we won’t be so crass as to claim in our next peer-reviewed publication (as he did in his, see The Ugly, below) that he picked certain datasets because they best supported his hypothesis.
Quote:
Using the above equation, if I assumed a feedback parameter λ=3 Watts per sq. meter per degree, that 20:1 ratio Dessler gets becomes 2.2:1. If I use a feedback parameter of λ=6, then the ratio becomes 1.7:1. This is basically an order of magnitude difference from his calculation.
Again I ask: why did Dessler choose to NOT use the 3 most obvious and best sources of data to evaluate the terms in the above equation?:
(1) Levitus for observed changes in the ocean mixed layer temperature; (it now appears he will be using a number consistent with the Levitus 0-700 m layer).
(2) CERES Net radiative flux for the total of the 2 radiative terms in the above equation, (this looks like it could be a minor source of difference, except it appears he put all of his Rcld variability in the radiative forcing term, which he claims helps our position, but running the numbers will reveal the opposite is true since his Rcld actually contains both forcing and feedback components which partially offset each other.)
(3): HadSST for sea surface temperature variations. (this will likely be the smallest source of difference)
Quote:
3. THE UGLY
(MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THESE OBJECTIONS WILL BE ADDRESSED IN DESSLER’S UPDATE OF HIS PAPER BEFORE PUBLICATION)
The new paper contains a few statements which the reviewers should not have allowed to be published because they either completely misrepresent our position, or accuse us of cherry picking (which is easy to disprove).
Quote:
Based upon the evidence above, I would say we are indeed going to respond with a journal submission to answer Dessler’s claims. I hope that GRL will offer us as rapid a turnaround as Dessler got in the peer review process. Feel free to take bets on that.