Fox Repug Propaganda network: climate science

[Wild Cobra]

Darrin, have you ever noticed how Manny doesn't present the same type of quality he asks for?

[Borat Sagyidev]

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

Do you really mean that as something meaningful?

First off, CO2 is part of the air. If you mean Air - CO2, then how does less than a 0.04% CO2 concentration have any substantial impact to the rest of the air?

Maybe you should also look at the emissivity values of N2, O2, O3, CO2, H2O, CH4, and N2O.

Here is something of interest:

EMISIVITY OF CARBON DIOXIDE AND STEAM (WATER VAPOR)

EMISSIVITY, ABSORBENCY AND TOTAL EMITTANCE OF CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2).

I find this quote accurate and interesting:



This is a newer study than anything we have seen from the IPCC:

HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM, The opening abstract:



Now....

I'll bet you can't tell me what this study does to the CO2 argument...

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,

[ElNono]

On a side note,

[DarrinS]

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.

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.







If CO2 was such a damn problem, I would expect the current temperatures to exceed those of previous interglacial periods.

[Wild Cobra]

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.







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.

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.

[ElNono]

We just had a quake here in NJ... 5 mins ago... wow, scary ... never felt the ground shaking before.

[Borat Sagyidev]

We just had a quake here in NJ... 5 mins ago... wow, scary ... 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 guess

[baseline bum]

We just had a quake here in NJ... 5 mins ago... wow, scary ... never felt the ground shaking before.

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.

[Wild Cobra]

Here is an interesting study for those serious:

Phenomenological reconstructions of the solar signature in the Northern Hemisphere surface temperature records since 1600

[Agloco]

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.

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.

I'll give this paper (and some others if you or anyone have suggestions) a good read after my schedule clears.

[boutons_deux]

Amazing, WC has proven again that <anything repeatedly demonstrated by 1000s of scientists' data in dozens of countries over a couple decades> is bull .

[Agloco]

Amazing, WC has proven again that <anything repeatedly demonstrated by 1000s of scientists' data in dozens of countries over a couple decades> is bull .

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.

[boutons_deux]

But we know where WC is going with it, same place he came from.

[Wild Cobra]

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.

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%.

[boutons_deux]

[Wild Cobra]

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.

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:

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:

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).

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.

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.

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)

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).

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.