California Sea Levels to rise 5 feet by 2100

[MannyIsGod]

Here's an idea, read the section of the report that references that figure! Or you could post your own math (LOOOOOOL) and show us why they are wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's an idea, read the section of the report that references that figure! Or you could post your own math (LOOOOOOL) and show us why they are wrong.

More than one section references that chart of a similar one. Been over the report. If you know it is there, how about some better direction.

Wrong? technically they are right. If you remember in the past, I have stated they only address "direct solar radiative forcing." This is the part that gets directly absorbed by the atmosphere. They do not include the changes for the larger part that strikes the actual surface, and becomes part of the upward long-wave to fuel the greenhouse effect. Larger upward long-wave, larger downward long-wave.

Now If I missed that, please give me a page number and/or quote from the AR4 or TAR.

[MannyIsGod]

Wait, why on Earth do you think they are only accounting for solar radiation hitting the atmosphere?

[MannyIsGod]

The equations to get rough solar forcing for the entire earth are extremely simple.

DeltaF (change in forcing) = (.7) * DeltaTSI * (.25)

Thats for the entire earth - atmosphere or surface. Radiation that hits the atmosphere can't hit the surface obviously so it doesn't matter where it hits. Radiation not absorbed is covered by the .7 which accounts for the 30% albedo. The .25 accounts for the spherical shape of the earth. The energy flux for half of a sphere (the other half is in the night side) is equal to the surface area of a circle (pir^2) or 1/4 of that of a sphere (4pir^2). Thats why you multiply by 1/4.

[MannyIsGod]

So anyway, based on that formula - if TSI has increased by 2 W/M^2 (which is being SUPER generous) then you will see an increase 2*(.25) * (.7) or (.35) W/M^2. If its lower, around .5 W/M^2 then you see a increase of .5*(.25)*(.7) or .0875 W/M^2. If its about 1 W/M^2 (which is what most studies I have seen place it at) then you it at 1*(.25)*(.7) or .175 W/M^2

Depending on the climate sensitivity, you can then come up with the affect on global temp. Its right in line with the IPCC figures. This is easy math.

[Wild Cobra]

The equations to get rough solar forcing for the entire earth are extremely simple.

DeltaF (change in forcing) = (.7) * DeltaTSI * (.25)

Thats for the entire earth - atmosphere or surface. Radiation that hits the atmosphere can't hit the surface obviously so it doesn't matter where it hits. Radiation not absorbed is covered by the .7 which accounts for the 30% albedo. The .25 accounts for the spherical shape of the earth. The energy flux for half of a sphere (the other half is in the night side) is equal to the surface area of a circle (pir^2) or 1/4 of that of a sphere (4pir^2). Thats why you multiply by 1/4.

So anyway, based on that formula - if TSI has increased by 2 W/M^2 (which is being SUPER generous) then you will see an increase 2*(.25) * (.7) or (.35) W/M^2. If its lower, around .5 W/M^2 then you see a increase of .5*(.25)*(.7) or .0875 W/M^2. If its about 1 W/M^2 (which is what most studies I have seen place it at) then you it at 1*(.25)*(.7) or .175 W/M^2

Depending on the climate sensitivity, you can then come up with the affect on global temp. Its right in line with the IPCC figures. This is easy math.

Yes, they are simple. The 0.12 forcing increase the IPCC gives solar is what a 0.18% increase equates to. The sun has increased about 0.18% since the 1700's. Some solar studies have it slightly lower and some have it slightly more. That's why I use the 0.18%, because is is an acceptable mid-range value to me. Now when you have solar intensities around 1366 watts/sq meter, that becomes significant. That becomes almost 2.49. With the formula you describe above, it's about 0.43 watts/sq meter. Of this 0.43 watts/sq meter, about 0.12 watts/sq meter is directly absorbed by the atmosphere before it hits the ground. The remaining 0.31 watts/sq meter marginally increases the surface temperature, and becomes more long-wave upward, adding source energy to the greenhouse effect. With the positive feedback nature of the greenhouse effect, the indirect increase is larger than the 0.31 watts/sq meter.

[MannyIsGod]

There's no "indirect" forcing. If the sun heats the earth and GHG then block outgoing radiation, then the forcing is the GHG. Thats the whole damn point!

[MannyIsGod]

Also, no the sun has not gone up 2.5 W/M^2 since the 1700s.

[MannyIsGod]

And the IPCC says the most likely value is .12 W/M^2 but they give a RANGE of as little as .06 to .3

[MannyIsGod]

it, at a TSI increase of 2.5 W/M^2 you get 2.5 * 1/4 * .7 = a radiative forcing change of .4375

If you go by the climate sensitivity values that have come up from about .6 to 1.2 you get a temp change of .26 to .52 degrees Celsius. Thats not even enough to account for the warming in this century much less since the 1700s.

Furthermore, TSI since 1900 has only gone up about .5 W/M^2 and is not nearly enough to explain the warming in that time. In the past 30 years when we have direct measurement of TSI and we have seen a slight drop yet the highest level of temperature growth.

The sun is pretty easily eliminated as a cause of the warming and its very simple physics.

[Wild Cobra]

Also, no the sun has not gone up 2.5 W/M^2 since the 1700s.

If you say so. Like I said, studies vary. If you choose to cherry pick the low studies, maybe I should cherry pick the high studies, and we can split the difference.

And the IPCC says the most likely value is .12 W/M^2 but they give a RANGE of as little as .06 to .3

No Sherlock.

it, at a TSI increase of 2.5 W/M^2 you get 2.5 * 1/4 * .7 = a radiative forcing change of .4375

No Sherlock.

0.43 - 0.12 is 0.31. I indicated this. Are you using that new fuzzy math?

If you go by the climate sensitivity values that have come up from about .6 to 1.2 you get a temp change of .26 to .52 degrees Celsius. Thats not even enough to account for the warming in this century much less since the 1700s.

Huh?

Now you are going to contradict yourself?

You say that CO2 warming cause an equal feedback of H2O warming, but you aren't going to allow solar warming the H2O feedback?

Besides, I think you have your sensitivity wrong, don't you? You are multiplying them. Shouldn't you be dividing them?

Furthermore, TSI since 1900 has only gone up about .5 W/M^2 and is not nearly enough to explain the warming in that time. In the past 30 years when we have direct measurement of TSI and we have seen a slight drop yet the highest level of temperature growth.

The sun is pretty easily eliminated as a cause of the warming and its very simple physics.

If you say so. I'm saying the two combined increases are about 0.18%. I will also point out that part of our increase from the 70's was clearing the skies of several types of aerosols. The EPA and regulations were created for a reason, and reduced the aerosol dimming that had reduced natural warming from occurring from around 30 to 50 years ago. When we tightened emissions, the skies cleared, and more warming occurred.

Even the IPCC says, from AR4, Chapter 2, page 190:

Maunder Minimum total irradiance was reduced in the range of 0.15% to
0.3% below contemporary solar minima.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but with solar energy of around 1366 watt/square meter, the 0.15% to 0.3% would be a range of 2.05 to 4.1.

LOL...

0.5...

LOL...

Where does that crock of come from?

[Jacob1983]

How can scientists know the temperature of the Earth in the year 1500? Is it just a guess or did some Billy Bobby scientist write the daily temps down on a piece of paper or a rock? I'm not an expert on anything but haven't temperature recordings only been around since 1900?


I hear these Al Gore type scientists say that 2011 or 2012 is the warmest year on record. When I read statements like that, I ask myself "so that means out of all the billions of years that the world has existed, scientists know 100 percent without a doubt that 2011, 2012, or whatever year was the warmest year"?

[Wild Cobra]

How can scientists know the temperature of the Earth in the year 1500? Is it just a guess or did some Billy Bobby scientist write the daily temps down on a piece of paper or a rock? I'm not an expert on anything but haven't temperature recordings only been around since 1900?

There are methods of using "proxies" to determine such things.

Wiki: Climate Proxy

[MannyIsGod]

If you say so. Like I said, studies vary. If you choose to cherry pick the low studies, maybe I should cherry pick the high studies, and we can split the difference.

Except not all studies are made equal. The studies with the highest values cannot be confirmed when compared to modern day TSI measurements. However, I used your numbers and it wasn't enough anyway. So its moot.

No Sherlock.

No Sherlock.

For someone I am having to teach, you really have no right to get pissy and act like you're actually in the know. See the very next comment

0.43 - 0.12 is 0.31. I indicated this. Are you using that new fuzzy math?

You don't get to subtract anything. The entire change in climate forcing on earth due to a 2.5 W/M^2 change in the output of TSI is .43 W/M^2. Thats the amount of energy that goes into the Earth systems (atmosphere, land, oceans).

Huh?

Now you are going to contradict yourself?

You say that CO2 warming cause an equal feedback of H2O warming, but you aren't going to allow solar warming the H2O feedback?

Actually this is a valid point, but you have the accounting wrong. Water Vapor feedback doesn't suddenly become part of the solar heating. Its heating due to water vapor feedback. The problem for you, is that even with a doubling of the temp increase due to H20 feedback you still don't have enough temp increase to account for the change.

Besides, I think you have your sensitivity wrong, don't you? You are multiplying them. Shouldn't you be dividing them?

Um, no? Why would you divide? The climate sensitivity gives you a temperature change per increase in forcing. The units are kelvin per watt per meter squared. Multiply by the forcing which is in watts per meter squared and you're left with the temp increase in kelvin.

If you say so. I'm saying the two combined increases are about 0.18%. I will also point out that part of our increase from the 70's was clearing the skies of several types of aerosols. The EPA and regulations were created for a reason, and reduced the aerosol dimming that had reduced natural warming from occurring from around 30 to 50 years ago. When we tightened emissions, the skies cleared, and more warming occurred.

This is a perfect example of you throwing against the wall. TSI has shown a slight decrease over the past 3 solar cycles. The temp has skyrocketed in that time frame. If TSI is a stronger factor why is this the case?. Aerosols definitely were a factor but once again you're trying to make them stronger simply to suit your needs. Show some math. Its all pretty damn easy as I've shown here.

Even the IPCC says, from AR4, Chapter 2, page 190:

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but with solar energy of around 1366 watt/square meter, the 0.15% to 0.3% would be a range of 2.05 to 4.1.

LOL...

0.5...

LOL...

Where does that crock of come from?

You've had this problem before in the past. Quite frankly, like this is why I find it laughable when you try to say the energy accounting is wrong.

1366 W/M^2 is the output of the sun. Thats not the amount of forcing the sun causes on earth. Its the amount of energy leaving the sun.

The Earth is not a flat plane facing the sun where each section of surface receives an equal dose of energy. Roughly, the surface area of the Earth can be shown by using the area of a sphere, 4pir^2. One half of the earth happens to not get any energy at all at any given time. You know, there's this thing called night. So right away you cut the area in half and you get 2pir^2. However, the energy flux is not at max value unless its hitting a surface at an angle of 90 degrees. This is obviously not the case on a sphere (hence why the equator gets hotter than the poles) so you can either integrate and do the math or understand that the energy flux through half a sphere is the same as the energy flux through its projection which is a circle. The surface area of a circle is PiR^2 or 1/4 of that of a sphere.

So if you have 1366 W/M^2 of energy leaving the sun and hitting the earth, you automatically lose 75% of that because of the shape of the earth.

But then the surface of the earth is not all uniform. Certain things absorb energy more than others. That means that energy is also reflected back into space and its not all absorbed. We reflect about 30% back out to space so you have to then multiply by (.7). I just derived the formula that you said you understood when its clear as day you did not.

So, if you have an increase of 4 W/M^2 (which is not in the likely range but I digress) in TSI that doesn't mean you get 4 W/M^2 of climate forcing. First, divide by 4. You're down to 1 W/M^2. Accounting for albedo, you're down to .7 W/M^2.

Next time you're going to sit there and type LOL LOL LOL make sure you're not a complete moron who needs to be taught some of the most basic in order to understand how to figure out climate forcings. Also, next time you think about telling people in the field their calculations are wrong, you might want to understand how to actually do those calculations yourself.

[MannyIsGod]

How can scientists know the temperature of the Earth in the year 1500? Is it just a guess or did some Billy Bobby scientist write the daily temps down on a piece of paper or a rock? I'm not an expert on anything but haven't temperature recordings only been around since 1900?


I hear these Al Gore type scientists say that 2011 or 2012 is the warmest year on record. When I read statements like that, I ask myself "so that means out of all the billions of years that the world has existed, scientists know 100 percent without a doubt that 2011, 2012, or whatever year was the warmest year"?

You obviously have a hard time understanding many things. For instance, when someone says XXXX was the hottest year on record why would you then say you can't prove that its the hottest year ever? Do we have a recorded temperature for every year that has ever existed?

If simple English is this tough, is there much hope for you to understand the actual science?

[Wild Cobra]

Except not all studies are made equal. The studies with the highest values cannot be confirmed when compared to modern day TSI measurements. However, I used your numbers and it wasn't enough anyway. So its moot.

You used my numbers wrong.

For someone I am having to teach, you really have no right to get pissy and act like you're actually in the know. See the very next comment

You're not teaching me anything here. You are not understanding my point. instead of asking for clarification, you are scoffing me.

You don't get to subtract anything. The entire change in climate forcing on earth due to a 2.5 W/M^2 change in the output of TSI is .43 W/M^2. Thats the amount of energy that goes into the Earth systems (atmosphere, land, oceans).

We can agree with the 0.43, but not as the "entire" amount. The 0.43 is how much the sun adds with a 0.18% increase.

Actually this is a valid point, but you have the accounting wrong. Water Vapor feedback doesn't suddenly become part of the solar heating. Its heating due to water vapor feedback. The problem for you, is that even with a doubling of the temp increase due to H20 feedback you still don't have enough temp increase to account for the change.

Not true. Did you not understand what I said? The 0.31 that directly heats the surface and becomes increased upward long-wave also becomes a larger source energy for the greenhouse effect, increasing "ALL" values for the greenhouse gasses. You may not want to give solar the credit for this, but it is this solar increase that adds to the forcing levels of all the greenhouse gasses. That's why I call thin "indirect" solar increases. When you add the positive feedback of CO2, CH4, H2O, etc; we get far more than this added 0.31 as a forcing value.

I understand that "forcing" and "feedback" are distinguished from one another, but in reality, they are all feedback energy. Without the upward IR and direct IR feeding the system, the greenhouse effect wouldn't exist. The greenhouse radiative forcing increases and decreases with the suns energy.

Um, no? Why would you divide? The climate sensitivity gives you a temperature change per increase in forcing. The units are kelvin per watt per meter squared. Multiply by the forcing which is in watts per meter squared and you're left with the temp increase in kelvin.

OK, I can't keep up. The AGW community revises these numbers so much, it's confusing.

This is a perfect example of you throwing against the wall. TSI has shown a slight decrease over the past 3 solar cycles. The temp has skyrocketed in that time frame. If TSI is a stronger factor why is this the case?. Aerosols definitely were a factor but once again you're trying to make them stronger simply to suit your needs. Show some math. Its all pretty damn easy as I've shown here.

I'm not throwing , but showing what is there that explains some, if not all the temperature change you mention. Also, just because I mention them, doesn't mean that's the exclusive reason. We have the lag in the ocean system as well.

You've had this problem before in the past. Quite frankly, like this is why I find it laughable when you try to say the energy accounting is wrong.

It's all watts/sq meter. Are you saying that they are not the same thing?

1366 W/M^2 is the output of the sun. Thats not the amount of forcing the sun causes on earth. Its the amount of energy leaving the sun.

Duh...

How in do you think I don't know that?

The Earth is not a flat plane facing the sun where each section of surface receives an equal dose of energy. Roughly, the surface area of the Earth can be shown by using the area of a sphere, 4pir^2. One half of the earth happens to not get any energy at all at any given time. You know, there's this thing called night. So right away you cut the area in half and you get 2pir^2. However, the energy flux is not at max value unless its hitting a surface at an angle of 90 degrees. This is obviously not the case on a sphere (hence why the equator gets hotter than the poles) so you can either integrate and do the math or understand that the energy flux through half a sphere is the same as the energy flux through its projection which is a circle. The surface area of a circle is PiR^2 or 1/4 of that of a sphere.

No Sherlock.

So if you have 1366 W/M^2 of energy leaving the sun and hitting the earth, you automatically lose 75% of that because of the shape of the earth.

But then the surface of the earth is not all uniform. Certain things absorb energy more than others. That means that energy is also reflected back into space and its not all absorbed. We reflect about 30% back out to space so you have to then multiply by (.7). I just derived the formula that you said you understood when its clear as day you did not.

So, if you have an increase of 4 W/M^2 (which is not in the likely range but I digress) in TSI that doesn't mean you get 4 W/M^2 of climate forcing. First, divide by 4. You're down to 1 W/M^2. Accounting for albedo, you're down to .7 W/M^2.

No Sherlock, hence the 1366/4 x 0.7 = 239.5.

Hence, the (2.05 to 4.1)/4 x 0.7 = (0.359 to 0.718).

Looks like to me the 0.43 is in that range.

Next time you're going to sit there and type LOL LOL LOL make sure you're not a complete moron who needs to be taught some of the most basic in order to understand how to figure out climate forcings. Also, next time you think about telling people in the field their calculations are wrong, you might want to understand how to actually do those calculations yourself.

LOL...

LOL...

LOL...

If you say so...

LOL...

Buy a clue Manny.

You ain't teaching me . I already know these things you think I don't.

Please stop talking down to me, you only look like a fool doing so.

[MannyIsGod]

Lol you ask a question then when I answer it you say no . That's rich coming from you,Mr indirect solar.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Where does that crock of come from?

Is that the question?

[SnakeBoy]

Most of the sea level rise to date is due to thermal expansion so it makes sense it would have started when temps increased. the IPCC has never claimed that the entirety of recent warming (no matter how much idiots like WC claim this) has been due to anthropogenic reasons. They very much say that much of the warming is due to solar heating.

Doesn't make sense to me when combined with your assertions on the other thread.

Much of the warming is natural. Warming oceans cause co2 levels to rise. The co2 increase is 100% manmade??????

Care to explain?

[MannyIsGod]

Doesn't make sense to me when combined with your assertions on the other thread.

Much of the warming is natural. Warming oceans cause co2 levels to rise. The co2 increase is 100% manmade??????

Care to explain?

I did in the other thread. Do you remember why I told you the CO2 wasn't coming form the oceans and then rattled off several pieces of supporting evidence? Where exactly is the inconsistency?

[SnakeBoy]

Do you remember

I didn't...nevermind.

[Jacob1983]

When someone tells me that so and so year was the warmest year ever, I'm going to think myself "so they know the temperatures for every year that has ever existed on planet Earth".

And if the Earth is getting warming like Al Gore and other celebrity scientists say then what's the in' point? Can the warmth be stopped or are we just ed? Should we just sit back and enjoy the ride?

[MannyIsGod]

When I read your posts, I'm going to think to myself "that mfer is pretty damn stupid".

[Wild Cobra]

Fixed:

When I look in a mirror, I think to myself "that mfer is pretty damn stupid".

Can't help it. I re read this thread and simply cannot understand your refusal to understand simple truths.

Again.

IPCC says, from AR4, Chapter 2, page 190:

Maunder Minimum total irradiance was reduced in the range of 0.15% to
0.3% below contemporary solar minima.

And the IPCC says the most likely value is .12 W/M^2 but they give a RANGE of as little as .06 to .3

Lets see now. If we use 1366 for contemporary values, that means the TSI increased by 2.05 to 4.1. (2.05 to 4.1)/4 x 0.7 = (0.359 to 0.718).

Why does the IPCC claim a range of 0.06 to 0.3?

Do you realize their hypocrisy? Do you see why I say the 0.12 is what is directly absorbed in the atmosphere, and why I subtract it from the 0.43 to get the 0.31 indirectly absorbed?

They say direct, which is technically correct, because of that I can subtract the direct to get indirect.

I'm pretty sick of you laughing at me for the stupidity that's yours. How about trying to ask for clarification instead of your ignorant responses.

[Jacob1983]

This is gonna happen in 2100. We will all be dead so who gives a ? Just sayin'.