$125,000 to you if you can prove global warming caused by humans!!!

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;842480 wrote: I'm not surprised. They know their science is junk when they do actual fact checking. From all the checking I've done in the last several years, I only see CO2 increases having no important increase. It would become toxic before enough of it can increase the temperature by any notable degree.


Not quite.

Modern estimates of climate sensitivity centre around about 3°C per doubling of CO2. (see wiki, climate sensitivity) Carbon dioxide is toxic at about 5%, or 50,000ppm. (see, wiki CO2 toxicity) Current concentration is about 400ppm (see wiki CO2 in the earth's atmosphere), so toxic levels are about seven doublings of CO2, or about 21°C. About 2°C is considered dangerous.



Anyone see "An Inconvenient Truth?"Yes.

Notice on the title screen, the black soot covered ice that's melting?Not to remember.

Well guess what. That soot traps most of the suns rays rather than reflecting 90% of it harmlessly back in space like the ice would normally do!Fair enough. The point remains that the world's glaciers are melting, and not all of them have more soot now that they did 50 years ago.

[Wild Cobra]

Bored_Wombat;842524 wrote: Not quite.

Modern estimates of climate sensitivity centre around about 3°C per doubling of CO2. (see wiki, climate sensitivity) Carbon dioxide is toxic at about 5%, or 50,000ppm. (see, wiki CO2 toxicity) Current concentration is about 400ppm (see wiki [CO2 in the earth's atmosphere), so toxic levels are about seven doublings of CO2, or about 21°C. About 2°C is considered dangerous.


Well, the IPCC is absolutely wrong here. They also fudge a calculation in at least one point by using linear calculations instead of logarithmic to get their desired results. IPCC is a politically motivated science propaganda source.

CO2 currently accounts for about 6 C of the greenhouse effect. It is nearly maxed out in the IR it can trap unless you dramatically increase the less common carbon and oxygen isotopes. Even the graph that shows a 0.6 C increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm has the doubling to 560 ppm at a 1 C increase. There are too many reliable sources that debunk CO2 having this much of an effect. The effect cannot be more than about 1/4 of what this accepted graph by the alarmists really is. This same chart shows about a 3 C effect at only 25 ppm. Equated to a multiple per doubling would be only about 1.1 C per doubling at best. However, that is still not how the math works.

Attached files

[Bryn Mawr]

Wild Cobra;843217 wrote: Well, the IPCC is absolutely wrong here. They also fudge a calculation in at least one point by using linear calculations instead of logarithmic to get their desired results. IPCC is a politically motivated science propaganda source.

CO2 currently accounts for about 6 C of the greenhouse effect. It is nearly maxed out in the IR it can trap unless you dramatically increase the less common carbon and oxygen isotopes. Even the graph that shows a 0.6 C increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm has the doubling to 560 ppm at a 1 C increase. There are too many reliable sources that debunk CO2 having this much of an effect. The effect cannot be more than about 1/4 of what this accepted graph by the alarmists really is. This same chart shows about a 3 C effect at only 25 ppm. Equated to a multiple per doubling would be only about 1.1 C per doubling at best. However, that is still not how the math works.


Would you care to quote sources for this - personally, without them, the IPCC has more credibility.

[Wild Cobra]

Bryn Mawr;843224 wrote: Would you care to quote sources for this - personally, without them, the IPCC has more credibility.


What is more important to you? Sources I cannot yet link, or understanding what is discussed. It doesn't matter what one source vs. another says. If you are going by majority says such-n-such, then you would be a flat earth believer way back when too. You really need to understand the underlying theories for these debates. The "my father can beat up your father" arguments don't work for science. When I get such requests with no informed scientific arguments, I have to wonder if you understand any of it.

I have a pretty good understanding of the sciences. Anyone who understand some basic science concepts will see the IPCC is lying if they research the same things I have. I have downloaded and gone over the entire IPCC report. Have you? Do you understand the sciences?

Timothy Ball and Fred Singer are two climatologist that comes to mind. Jeffrey A. Glassman has some good work as well. Read and understand some of their writings. If you don't understand it, then go with consensus and believe the earth was flat.

If the science is so well known that CO2 is such a big contributor, what hasn't anyone yet taken the challenge?

Again, when they research the subject, they find it isn't such an issue.

Search for GATS spectral calculator and see how CO2 theory pans out. Also see how sites that have HITRAN, GEISA or HITEMP databases work out on the greenhouse gas theories.

[Accountable]

True, you can't put in links, but can't you put in an address? If not, what about an address with a space in it somewhere conspicuous?

[Bryn Mawr]

Wild Cobra;843264 wrote: What is more important to you? Sources I cannot yet link, or understanding what is discussed. It doesn't matter what one source vs. another says. If you are going by majority says such-n-such, then you would be a flat earth believer way back when too. You really need to understand the underlying theories for these debates. The "my father can beat up your father" arguments don't work for science. When I get such requests with no informed scientific arguments, I have to wonder if you understand any of it.

I have a pretty good understanding of the sciences. Anyone who understand some basic science concepts will see the IPCC is lying if they research the same things I have. I have downloaded and gone over the entire IPCC report. Have you? Do you understand the sciences?

Timothy Ball and Fred Singer are two climatologist that comes to mind. Jeffrey A. Glassman has some good work as well. Read and understand some of their writings. If you don't understand it, then go with consensus and believe the earth was flat.

If the science is so well known that CO2 is such a big contributor, what hasn't anyone yet taken the challenge?

Again, when they research the subject, they find it isn't such an issue.

Search for GATS spectral calculator and see how CO2 theory pans out. Also see how sites that have HITRAN, GEISA or HITEMP databases work out on the greenhouse gas theories.


Not being able to post a link directly has never stopped anyone pointing out directions to a specific site.

You might have the highest accolades going but without support your word is just that - your word. I have a very good understanding of the science involved - Galbally has a far better understanding as he works in the subject, but you are making unsupported claims that I do not believe can be justified.

You say the recognised research body are lying - provide some evidence. Your word against theirs does not stack up without support for your facts and figures.

This is not "my father's bigger than your father" - science works on peer review and repeatability, not my word against yours.

[YZGI]

Wild Cobra, make 6 quick visits to any of the word game threads, type cat in each one quickly. They may throw those particular threads a little off track but they need a little hysteria in the word game threads at times. Then you will be able to do your linking at will. I promise it will take only a few seconds. Oh, don't worry about the word gamers PM's, they mean well.

[G#Gill]

In my opinion, for what it's worth - Global warming and cooling has ocurred since the planet originally formed, and it is a natural phenomenon which is constantly repeating. However, because of the human race's activity, this natural phenomenon is being accelerated un-naturally, and I think that nobody really knows what will happen because of this 'interference' by the human race.

I believe the human race has not 'caused' global warming, but has accelerated and increased the effects of a natural phenomenon, with possibly irreversible results ! Of course, commercial concerns have jumped on the band wagon in an effort to further their own financial endeavours ! In my opinion

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;843217 wrote: Well, the IPCC is absolutely wrong here.
Which part?

They also fudge a calculation in at least one point by using linear calculations instead of logarithmic to get their desired results.The IPCC don't do calculations in Working Group I, they just report on calculations that have been done in scientific papers over the past 6 years. IPCC is a politically motivated science propaganda source.They're politically influenced because of the government delegations that enter the review process after the second draft (which has been scientifically reviewed.)

But the political influence is very much towards conservatism. The vociferous countries during political review are the USA (the world's biggest oil user), China (the world's biggest coal user), and Saudi Arabia (the world's biggest oil producer), and Russia (who's exports consist substantially of gas to Europe). So in this step the language and findings are very much watered down from the purely scientific.

Not, as you seem to suggest, the opposite.

CO2 currently accounts for about 6 C of the greenhouse effect.Yes. But the effect of increasing in on the climate has more positive feedbacks. Most notably a warmer world has more water in the atmosphere, which is also a powerful greenhouse gas.

It is nearly maxed out in the IR it can trap unless you dramatically increase the less common carbon and oxygen isotopes.No. Have a look for example at the absorption for CO2 near the 15 micron peak. It is saturated from about 13.2 to about 16.8 microns, but the strength of the absorption tails off away from the peak so that increases in concentration at of even 1000 times will continue to block radiation near 11.4 microns or over 20 microns.



Also the atmosphere is not one slab. If radiated heat has full absorption 1/10th of the way up the atmosphere, that warms the ground more that if it takes 80% of the way up the atmosphere before full absorption is achieved. This is because re-emission from the absorbing air can be in any direction, including upwards.

Even the graph that shows a 0.6 C increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm has the doubling to 560 ppm at a 1 C increase.I don't recognise the graph, and it doesn't look very right. Where is it from?

There are too many reliable sources that debunk CO2 having this much of an effect.Name three.

The effect cannot be more than about 1/4 of what this accepted graph by the alarmists really is.Why do you say 1/4?

What is the alarmist view? Over 5°C per doubling?

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;843264 wrote: Timothy Ball and Fred Singer are two climatologist that comes to mind.


Singer is an octogenarian retired electrical engineer and physicist, with many links to Exxonmobil money, and is notable for being one of the scientists picked up by the fossil fuel industry after having worked for the tobacco industry denying the ill effects of tobacco use. Some question his ethics.

Timothy Ball is also retired, for over a decade now, and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organisation, Friends of Science. (sourcewatch)

He is also an expert for HeartlandGlobalWarming.org, which is run by the Heartland institute, which has received $791,500 from ExxonMobil alone since 1998.

Jeffrey A. Glassman has some good work as well.Google Scholar doesn't find any papers by a J Glassman mentioning climate, global warming or greenhouse, written in the last 10 years.

There is a reference to a citation of an article he co-wrote for the Weekly Standard Magazine, and an interview with Dr. Sallie Baliunas for the American Spectator.

Has he published anything on the topic in a peer reviewed medium?



Read and understand some of their writings. If you don't understand it, then go with consensus and believe the earth was flat.Perhaps this metaphor is more apt that you were thinking.

If the science is so well known that CO2 is such a big contributor, what hasn't anyone yet taken the challenge?Because the site is run by known denialists, and they are the sole adjudicators of the prize. They have denied all the science until now. There is no reasonable reason to think that they will stop.

By the same token, if the were genuinely interested in settling the question, why do they exclude research submitted for publication in an academic journal?

[Bored_Wombat]

G#Gill;844489 wrote: In my opinion, for what it's worth - Global warming and cooling has ocurred since the planet originally formed, and it is a natural phenomenon which is constantly repeating. However, because of the human race's activity, this natural phenomenon is being accelerated un-naturally, and I think that nobody really knows what will happen because of this 'interference' by the human race.
It's good to see a moderate opinion. Thanks for your input.

I would say that this is perhaps more moderate than is likely. If you look at the atmospheric CO2 concentration from ice cores, you can see that the current atmosphere is not an acceleration of a natural effect, but the disturbance of the climate into a whole new place. (Assuming you accept the reality of the greenhouse effect)

[Wild Cobra]

Wombat, the graph you show from RealClimate dot org doesn't account for all the truth involved. First of all, this is the most significant range of CO2 for IR absorption in the atmosphere. However, the right side of it is only about 1/4 power because it overlaps H2O which already absorbs about 75% of that region. The total CO2 effect is about 6 C which makes those added bands increase the CO2 by maybe 1.5 C as marked. RealClimate has allot of poor theory. Still, I have played along with their assessments often, showing their poor assumed sciences. I have read most of their work in the past.

Now please do some critical thinking. The area in microns does not properly coincide with the 1x and 4x level of CO2. Shouldn't these be consistent with peak, average, or lowest points? When you do that, a 4X in CO2 makes much less than a 1 C change in warmth considering the 1/4 power to the right side too. The natural equilibrium between the atmosphere and the ocean I doubt will never let us achieve even 2X of where we are now.

Oh... Go to spectralcalc dot com and you can see those at better resolutions.

Also the atmosphere is not one slab. If radiated heat has full absorption 1/10th of the way up the atmosphere, that warms the ground more that if it takes 80% of the way up the atmosphere before full absorption is achieved. This is because re-emission from the absorbing air can be in any direction, including upwards.
Yes, to a point. Remember that re-emitted heat is a far larger IR spectrum than what the CO2 in another location can reabsorb. It heats the adjoining nitrogen and oxygen which then do not emit the same spectra that CO2 absorbs. Then radiated spectra and absorbed spectra are different anyway. Do you have anything showing this interplay, or just listening to the propagandists on this subject?

Google Scholar doesn't find any papers by a J Glassman mentioning climate, global warming or greenhouse, written in the last 10 years.
try rocketscientistsjournal dot com.

[QUOTE]If the science is so well known that CO2 is such a big contributor, what hasn't anyone yet taken the challenge?
Because the site is run by known denialists, and they are the sole adjudicators of the prize. They have denied all the science until now. There is no reasonable reason to think that they will stop.
Jumping to conclusions? You assume they deny science. They have some pretty easy criteria to meet assuming the anthropogenic global warming theory is right. All they ask is that someone show the theory correct to scientific standards.

If the theory is correct, why is that asking too much?

I've done some pretty exhaustive research in the past. A couple files from 7/25/07 on my computer; look firmiliar?:

Attached files

[Wild Cobra]

Bored_Wombat;844506 wrote: It's good to see a moderate opinion. Thanks for your input.

I would say that this is perhaps more moderate than is likely. If you look at the atmospheric CO2 concentration from ice cores, you can see that the current atmosphere is not an acceleration of a natural effect, but the disturbance of the climate into a whole new place. (Assuming you accept the reality of the greenhouse effect)


I forgot to address this. It is a key piece of evidence why the CO2 anthropogenic connection is false. Look at it again. The "hockey stick" shows a dramatic rise of CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. Still, we see what. Only about a 0.6 C increase? How can that be? When the CO2 levels changed from 180 ppm to 280 ppm, we had a 9 C change. Shouldn't that extra 100 ppm give us at least something closer to 9 C? Maybe at least 3 C?

Something I forgot to address in my last post also. When you go to the RealClimate link, it shows the light tube experiment below. Notice that it only looks at the 10 to 22 micron band and they say light. They don't designate a blackbody K temperature. Why not the IR spectra of a blackbody of about 3 to 70 microns? Don't you think it skews the results from a true representation? I would say they do this intentionally to mislead the reader. The proper way to do it would be with a blackbody source of 287 K +/- a bit depending on what latitude you wish to simulate.

Tell me. How can RealClimates work be respected when they show such blatantly poor work? When you include the 3 to 70 range, their percentile effect is about double or half depending on which aspect you look at. It really doesn't effect the final calculations much though.

Now using their work:

66.2% transmission at 1x

62.8% transmission at 2x

58.8% transmission at 4x

This equates to:

33.8% absorption at 1x

37.2% absorption at 2x

41.2% absorption at 4x

With the full spectra:

83.1% transmission at 1x

81.4% transmission at 2x

79.4% transmission at 4x

Equates to:

16.9% absorbtion at 1x

18.6% absorbtion at 2x

20.6% absorbtion at 4x

Now using a 6 C effect at 33.8%:

1x = 6.0 C

2x = 6.6 C

4x = 7.3 C

The results are the same at the proper percentages too. They actually do a diservice to themself by limiting to this smaller band as CO2 also absorbs at the 3-4 micron area too. It has no realavance at the 220 K blackbody source and colder, but is a pretty decent effect at 300 K! At 260 K, it is about 5% of CO2's effect. At 300 K, well more than 10%. Oh but scratch that... As you increase the blackbody temperature, the primary band dramatically decreases. A bit of self regulation here. It peaks at about 150 K for it's greenhouse effect, and is about half that effect at about 300 K. How many people ever reference that truth! Don't believe me, look at black body spectra vs. temperature.

Would you say their assessments pen out with what the alarmists say? a 1.3 C increase and not accounting for the overlap with H2O... Take roughly 5/8 this number since 3/4 of the upper change overlaps with H2O and it is only about a 0.82 C for increasing CO2 by a factor of four.

Now, something to compare the hockey stick against. The CO2 is green, the temperature blue. Don't forget to notice the continual 3-4 C range in temperature in the last 10,000 years. Notice the Hocky Stick appears to not have any influence on the historical temperature? Notice that the temperature fluctuates in that range with no farther influence from CO2 past about 260 ppm?:

Attached files

[Wild Cobra]

Bored_Wombat;844493 wrote:

I don't recognise the graph, and it doesn't look very right. Where is it from?


It is the reverse of the graph in your RealClimate link for CO2 in a gas cell.

Does it look right now?

The zero point on mine starts at 230 watts per meter geenhouse forcing without CO2 and rises past 260 (+30 watts) as CO2 increases. The RealClimate lik shows transmission. This is 100% - transmission (absorption.)

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;845554 wrote: Wombat, the graph you show from RealClimate dot org doesn't account for all the truth involved. First of all, this is the most significant range of CO2 for IR absorption in the atmosphere.
Yes.

However, the right side of it is only about 1/4 power because it overlaps H2O which already absorbs about 75% of that region.However, this is not near saturation, so it is at full "power". Note also that in the upper atmosphere where pressures are low and interactions with other air molecules are rare the absorbance peaks are much more well defined, and gaps appear in between peaks in the absorbance spectrum of water that are filled by peaks in the CO2 absorbance spectrum where at 1 atmosphere they simply overlap.

The total CO2 effect is about 6 CWell, you're not specifically wrong, but you're not right either.

The total natural greenhouse effect is about 33°C. The proportion of this due to CO2 is not well defined, because of the overlap between the absorbence spectrum of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere.

If you take out all the CO2, and leave everything else as it is, including water vapour, you lose about 10% of the radiative forcing at ground level due to the greenhouse effect. Which, taken in isolation of other effects on the climate would be about 3°C or so.

On the other hand if you take out all the other greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, the CO2 that remains would maintain about 25% of the radiative forcing at ground level due to the greenhouse effect. Which, again taken in isolation of the other effects of this on the climate would represent about 8°C or so.

The 6°C that you mention is between these values, so you are ball park, but not precise.

which makes those added bands increase the CO2 by maybe 1.5 C as marked.Well, perhaps. The physics of optics is precise enough (Although the cacluations are non-trivial because of pressure broadening.) We don't have to argue about the effect on radiative forcing of a quadrupling of CO2 in isolation of the other effects on the climate system, because the physics of optics provides enough accuracy to calculate what this will be. And 1.5°C worth seems reasonable.

But I doesn't happen in isolation. A warmer world has more water vapour, and this is in turn a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. A warmer world has less ice, which has a very high albedo, so there is less reflection of the sun's energy back to space in a warmer world.

The precise climate sensitivity has been the subject of much research, because it is so critical to inform policy to reduce greenhouse emissions, but the estimate of error still remains rather broad. 1.5°C to 4°C per doubling is a pretty safe range. But most studies have the greatest likelihood of the climate sensitivity being about 3°C. A very wide range of methodologies have been applied to get to numbers around 3°C. Some look at historical instrumental measurements, some look at temperature proxies and the last ice age, several look at the temperature and CO2 concentration from ice cores across several ice ages, and many are derived from climate models, by bending the parameters as much as possible to find bounds for climate sensitivity that still reasonably reproduce the historical temperature record.

So once the response of the whole climate system is factored into a quadrupling of CO2, the likely increase in temperature would be about 6°C. But it might be 3° or 9°C.

RealClimate has allot of poor theory. Still, I have played along with their assessments often, showing their poor assumed sciences. I have read most of their work in the past.I've found them very good. Both technically satisfying and accessible to a non-specialist. (Such as myself).

Now please do some critical thinking. The area in microns does not properly coincide with the 1x and 4x level of CO2.They're just saying for and increase in the range of a quadrupling of CO2 the measurable increase in absorbance would be in the shaded area. The bit in the middle is already saturated, the bit beyond represents parts of the spectrum where the absorbed proportion would still be 1% or much lower of the transmitted energy.

The natural equilibrium between the atmosphere and the ocean I doubt will never let us achieve even 2X of where we are now.

The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't seem to be slowing down yet. I don't share your confidence that it will suddenly start to plateau.

try rocketscientistsjournal dot com.He's done nothing peer reviewed then. That doesn't tend to inspire confidence in me.

Jumping to conclusions? You assume they deny science. They have some pretty easy criteria to meet assuming the anthropogenic global warming theory is right.No they don't they say "convince me". The science is already clear. If they haven't been convinced already, there's no show of it happening now.

All they ask is that someone show the theory correct to scientific standards.No, they ask someone to show it to their satisfaction. And to protect themselves, the evidence can't already be in the public domain, so no one can know how idiotic their objections are. If they were genuinely interested in settling the issue they would accept papers that have been forwarded for publication elsewhere.

If the theory is correct, why is that asking too much?Because this is throwing away your work so that it would never see the light of day rather that sending it to a journal where you would receive the recognition. Combined with the fact that the bias of the judges is clear from the iconography on the web page. I see no reason why anyone would waste their work and $15 by submitting it here.

I've done some pretty exhaustive research in the past. A couple files from 7/25/07 on my computer; look firmiliar?:No, it doesn't.

[Wild Cobra]

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

However, this is not near saturation, so it is at full "power". Note also that in the upper atmosphere where pressures are low and interactions with other air molecules are rare the absorbance peaks are much more well defined, and gaps appear in between peaks in the absorbance spectrum of water that are filled by peaks in the CO2 absorbance spectrum where at 1 atmosphere they simply overlap.


Yes, the pressure and temperature has some factor to this. As for the interplay between CO2 and H2O, that is tricky, and it is a part of this I don't understand as well as I'd like. Part of whether it amplifies or overlaps the same specific spectra depends on the exact interaction. If the finer resolution traces overlap, then they can only effectively block the full effect of each other. If they are near each other, they can amplify the effect. This gets to be very tricky in making a solid assessment.

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

Well, you're not specifically wrong, but you're not right either.

The total natural greenhouse effect is about 33°C. The proportion of this due to CO2 is not well defined, because of the overlap between the absorbence spectrum of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere.


Agreed, however, I am looking at what appears to be the nominal mix in the atmosphere. If I recall, CO2 can be as high as 26% of the greenhouse effect. I use 32 °C, but I'll go along with 33 °C. 26% of 33 is 8.58 C. Right? Let's say 9 C. Just multiply by 1.5 for simplicity from the 6 C.

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

If you take out all the CO2, and leave everything else as it is, including water vapour, you lose about 10% of the radiative forcing at ground level due to the greenhouse effect. Which, taken in isolation of other effects on the climate would be about 3°C or so.


I don't think that's quite right. CO2 is very well mixed in the atmosphere. Water vapor is only in the lower 10 km of the atmosphere. Above that point, it's levels are insignificant. Still, most of the CO2 forcing is already realized. The final result may be as said, but I don't completely agree. I think the change would still be between that 6 to 9 C range if we could remove all the CO2.

Don't forget that without the major greenhouse gasses above 10 km, just less than half the absobed heat from CO2 trapping here is radiated back into space. In that manner, just the lower 10 km is most relavant.

I'm open to take that into consideration, It just doesn't seem right. I don't think the effect of amplifying the absorption is as great as people think. Again, I am weak in this part though.

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

On the other hand if you take out all the other greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, the CO2 that remains would maintain about 25% of the radiative forcing at ground level due to the greenhouse effect. Which, again taken in isolation of the other effects of this on the climate would represent about 8°C or so.

The 6°C that you mention is between these values, so you are ball park, but not precise.


The problem I have with that assessment is that CO2 only covers about 26% greenhouse effect value when the earth is at 200 K (-73.15 C.) The peak of radiation at 200 K is 14.89µm. At an average 15 C (288.15 K,) the peak is at 10.01 µm. The 15µm band sees a power of only 60% to 70% of the peak now, or about 16% to 18%. If I take this global average of 15 C at 18% of the 33 C greenhouse effect, I get 5.9 C. When we get to a warm day, 300 K (80.33 F) then the peak IR radiation is at 9.95µm. Since water is saturated between 4 to 8 microns, it becomes more and more of the equation as temperature increases. CO2 becomes less. Only about 13% at this point. Find a normally hot place on earth, and you get down to the 9% CO2 minimum.

I always understood this change in blackbody radiation to be why CO2 has a 9% to 26% effect. Not the factors you are attributing it to. Yes, they play a small factor. Just not as much as how the percentage changes with temperature.

Now keep in mind how little CO2 has an effect on colder temperatures due to power levels and how the percentage decreases with increased temperature. 200 K has a total irradiance of 90.7 W/m2, close to where CO2 peaks in percentage. At the average 15 C global, the power is up to 390.9 W/m2. More than a factor of four, but CO2 is losing ground to H2O. The warm approximate 80 F (300 K) has 459.3 W/m2. At this warmth, water vapor is running the show. It is in saturation from 5 to 8 microns and the non saturated areas or from 3 to 10 microns. Far more than 30% of the greenhouse effect in just this band alone. That's just a warm day. What about 100 F and above! Now we see the peak H2O levels. I forget how high they get though.

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

Well, perhaps. The physics of optics is precise enough (Although the cacluations are non-trivial because of pressure broadening.) We don't have to argue about the effect on radiative forcing of a quadrupling of CO2 in isolation of the other effects on the climate system, because the physics of optics provides enough accuracy to calculate what this will be. And 1.5°C worth seems reasonable.


Good. I don't believe it's that high, but I can live with that for assuming what can happen.

I was furious about the 3 C per doubling. That may be a correct assumption when CO2 has no part in saturation, but you cannot get over 100% for any given wave number.

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

But I doesn't happen in isolation. A warmer world has more water vapour, and this is in turn a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. A warmer world has less ice, which has a very high albedo, so there is less reflection of the sun's energy back to space in a warmer world.


This is true. However, the clouds seem to regulate this effect to a small range.

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

The precise climate sensitivity has been the subject of much research, because it is so critical to inform policy to reduce greenhouse emissions, but the estimate of error still remains rather broad. 1.5°C to 4°C per doubling is a pretty safe range. But most studies have the greatest likelihood of the climate sensitivity being about 3°C. A very wide range of methodologies have been applied to get to numbers around 3°C. Some look at historical instrumental measurements, some look at temperature proxies and the last ice age, several look at the temperature and CO2 concentration from ice cores across several ice ages, and many are derived from climate models, by bending the parameters as much as possible to find bounds for climate sensitivity that still reasonably reproduce the historical temperature record.


This is where I have a problem. Like I said, the 3 C per doubling looks right, but only before any part is saturated. The IPCC is a politically influence body. They take numers that are real, and apply them in manners that are incorrect. This is one example. There is no way that doubling our CO2 can increase our temperature by 3 C. Consider the (high value) assumed 0.7 C over the change from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. A simple way to look at is that we have 1.36 times in CO2, and 0.7 C rise. Another 1.36 x would be 516 ppm for another 0.7 C increase. That's only 1.4 C and assuming that it is the change in CO2 alone driving warming. Now that 516 is very close to the 560 for a doubling. Now if we go back to the gas chamber plot, assume 9 C instead of 6 C, the quadripling shows what. About a 2.25 C increase? That means about a 1.6 C for doubling, going by worse case of a chart I don't agree with.... Your chart, your 9 C. The 6 C I agree wit by the chart would be about 1.1 C per doubling.

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

So once the response of the whole climate system is factored into a quadrupling of CO2, the likely increase in temperature would be about 6°C. But it might be 3° or 9°C.


I don't buy the 3 C per doubling. Still, how do we ever get to a 1% plus CO2 level. We are right now out of balance between ocean and atmospheric CO2. The ocean sinks the gas pretty fast. That's why we are not as high as prior IPCC reports predicted we would be. The more we pump into the atmosphere, the faster the ocean will absorb it. I just don't see the way equilibrium works, achieving past 1% unless we seriously increase our CO2 emission rate.

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

I've found them very good. Both technically satisfying and accessible to a non-specialist. (Such as myself).

They're just saying for and increase in the range of a quadrupling of CO2 the measurable increase in absorbance would be in the shaded area. The bit in the middle is already saturated, the bit beyond represents parts of the spectrum where the absorbed proportion would still be 1% or much lower of the transmitted energy.
Yes, but you have to be careful. They are not right about everything.

I don't recall clearly enough that page, and I'm not going to go back right now. I've already spent too much time today on this. Someone else pulled that page on me last year. That's way I had the other two pics stored. Can anyone really extrapolate a 3C per doubling? I say only if it isn't in saturation.

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't seem to be slowing down yet. I don't share your confidence that it will suddenly start to plateau.


Yes I know. Still, have you ever wondered how they correlate a warm area from near an ocean that can be a source rather than sink of CO2, and be accurate? What we see could be coincidence of less ocean currents and increased CO2 release. Even assuming the graph is correct, it is still just one piece of a complex puzzle. CO2 is absorbed in cold water and released in warm water. Isn't the ocean current cycle as long as 500 years also? How does that compare to a station near either pole? Need multiple test points. It wouldn't bother me so much if we had ice core samples from the same area for correlation. hard to have ice in Hawaii though...

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

He's done nothing peer reviewed then. That doesn't tend to inspire confidence in me.


Why does that matter so much? I understand what he's saying. That's what's important to me.

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

No they don't they say "convince me". The science is already clear. If they haven't been convinced already, there's no show of it happening now.


But the science isn't clear. There are so many factors the IPCC and others who are driving this global warming scare flat out ignore. For the theory to be tested valid, it must answer those questions. It must eliminate the other possibilities. I have yet to see a proper elimination of the sun's heat change for example. They switch to cosmic radiation and it's effect on clouds when that is not the question. The question is how do they ignore the change in the suns output.

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

No, they ask someone to show it to their satisfaction. And to protect themselves, the evidence can't already be in the public domain, so no one can know how idiotic their objections are. If they were genuinely interested in settling the issue they would accept papers that have been forwarded for publication elsewhere.


But it is only a theory. Until there is convincing evidence that cannot be denied, then the theory can be wrong!

Bored_Wombat;845697 wrote:

Because this is throwing away your work so that it would never see the light of day rather that sending it to a journal where you would receive the recognition. Combined with the fact that the bias of the judges is clear from the iconography on the web page. I see no reason why anyone would waste their work and $15 by submitting it here.


What is their challenge is genuine. Is it right to assume the worse from an organization that may honestly believe a theory opposed to yours? What if they really are people who would change their minds with the proper facts?

I've done some pretty exhaustive research in the past. A couple files from 7/25/07 on my computer; look firmiliar?:
No, it doesn't.

The first one is basically the same data as the graph you presented from RealClimate, except it is a wider range. The second one is the refined data from the 15 micron area. They are both from spectralcalc dot com.

Well... hope this is right. I'm not taking the time to proof read it.

The attached pic is CO2 and H2O from 2 to 32 microns. Spectralcalc didn't allow me to input values for two gasses so I assume they are at equal levels. It shows their basic coverage. If you go there, you can refine the range and see specific overlap.

Attached files

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;845621 wrote: I forgot to address this. It is a key piece of evidence why the CO2 anthropogenic connection is false. Look at it again. The "hockey stick" shows a dramatic rise of CO2 from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. Still, we see what. Only about a 0.6 C increase? How can that be? When the CO2 levels changed from 180 ppm to 280 ppm, we had a 9 C change. Shouldn't that extra 100 ppm give us at least something closer to 9 C? Maybe at least 3 C?


That 9°C change didn't happen in the first few hundred years after the increase in CO2. We have started to see a rise in temperature, and it is enough to be confidently attributed to human activity, but it is likely that the lion's share of the warming is still in the post.

This is why you are seeing a difference in the magnitudes of the temperature rise, the temperature rise due to the current change in radiative forcing has only just begun to take place.

[Wild Cobra]

Bored_Wombat;847911 wrote: That 9°C change didn't happen in the first few hundred years after the increase in CO2. We have started to see a rise in temperature, and it is enough to be confidently attributed to human activity, but it is likely that the lion's share of the warming is still in the post.

This is why you are seeing a difference in the magnitudes of the temperature rise, the temperature rise due to the current change in radiative forcing has only just begun to take place.


Bolieve what you want. Too bad you listen to others instead of understanding the material with science. Consider how modern CO2 effects on temperature should be the same now as it was in historical times.

I notice you don't address the more complex items I explained. It would be nice if you did.

Now let me get this strait. You are claiming a 9 C we see from the Ice Age takes time. Fine. How much time? There is an almost immediate correlation with warming and CO2 levels when you look at the data. Thing is, when the oceans warm, the CO2 comes out rather rapidly. The 800 years is an average. It's the absorption out of the atmosphere that takes a longer timeframe. Consider this graph:



The full size without my added lines are here.

Notice there is no discernable time in the upward trend of CO2 and temperature, but a lag when temperature decreases. Anyway, from left to right, I marked the times of about 8,000 years before present, 11,000 y, 14,000 y, 18,000 y, 24,000 y, 128,000 y, 238,000 y, and 323,000 y. For the temperature, I marked about –9.5 C, -7.7 C, -4.3 C, -2 C, -0.4 C, 0 C, +0.9 C, +2 C, and +3.2 C. For CO2 levels, I marked about 182 ppm, 236 ppm, 239 ppm, 254 ppm, 264 ppm, and 283 ppm. Note that all this is earlier work, I believe 2004. I will reference the times from there. Temperatures I think are relevant to 1750, but if you look at the aberage of these last 11,000 years, it should be about 0.3 C lower. Now notice the following:

About 24,000 years ago we say the last minimum Insolation at 65 degrees north. This also coincides with lowest temperature of about –9.5 C and the lowest methane levels. CO2 levels didn't react their minimum of about 182 ppm for another approximate 6000 years. During this 6,000 years, temperatures were fluxuating in a small range with a small upward trend, yet CO2 levels still declined

At the end of this 6,000 years, CO2 levels, CH4 levels, and temperature all took a notable increase. Bu about 14,000 years ago, temperature peaked at about the –2.0 C point. CO2 rose to about 236 ppm and methane peaked some time later at about 620 ppb. The next temperature peak is about 11,000 years ago where it goes to about 0.9 C. We are now in the modern warming that encompasses almost all of mans known history.

Now before this last increase I speak of, notice about half way in time, the temperature drops to about –4.3 C while the CO2 still rises to about 239 ppm. Wow... a 2.3 C decrease with increasing CO2.... The methane levels also drop to about 475 ppb. after the temperature change.

When we hit this 0.9 C, CO2 rises all the way to about 264 ppm. After this, CO2 actually decreases back to about 254 ppm after the 8,000 year point is reached, and after the temperature spikes to a +2.0 C! This is the highest we see the world temperature since about the 128,000 and 323,000 year points. We have not seen this high of temperature yet with our increased CO2. In fact, since the 8,000 year point, we see a rise to 283 ppm with the temperature staying within a small range, going both up and down with increased CO2.

Now back to solar irradiance. Here is a nice image I forgot about:



It shows just over a 0.15% variation in two of the three composites. That equates to over a 0.3 C temperature change by solar activity. The chart is found here:

Solar Constant

Construction of a Composite Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Time Series from 1978 to present

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;846425 wrote: If the finer resolution traces overlap, then they can only effectively block the full effect of each other. If they are near each other, they can amplify the effect. This gets to be very tricky in making a solid assessment.
I don't think amplification is possible. They either absorb partly in the same frequencies or they don't.

Agreed, however, I am looking at what appears to be the nominal mix in the atmosphere. If I recall, CO2 can be as high as 26% of the greenhouse effect. I use 32 °C, but I'll go along with 33 °C. 26% of 33 is 8.58 C. Right? Let's say 9 C. Just multiply by 1.5 for simplicity from the 6 C.

I don't think that's quite right. CO2 is very well mixed in the atmosphere. Water vapor is only in the lower 10 km of the atmosphere. Above that point, it's levels are insignificant. Still, most of the CO2 forcing is already realized. The final result may be as said, but I don't completely agree. I think the change would still be between that 6 to 9 C range if we could remove all the CO2.You seem to be understanding what I'm talking about here. I'm not talking about the mix of gasses in the atmosphere, I'm saying that when you talk about the proportion of the greenhouse effect that is attributable to CO2, you need to be clear whether or not you are including the overlap with other greenhouse gasses. If you include this, you get about 25% attributable to CO2. If you exclude the overlap you get about 10%. Give or take a couple of percent in either case.

The 10% or so figure is probably the more relevant one to be discussing in terms of considering reducing CO2 emissions because of the enhanced greenhouse effect that they cause.

Don't forget that without the major greenhouse gasses above 10 km, just less than half the absobed heat from CO2 trapping here is radiated back into space. In that manner, just the lower 10 km is most relavant.Are you talking about the height of the tropopause?

I don't see how you can calculate from that what proportion of "trapped" heat will be radiated upwards.

There are important stratospheric greenhouse gasses. Ozone and stratospheric water vapour are examples.

I'm open to take that into consideration, It just doesn't seem right. I don't think the effect of amplifying the absorption is as great as people think. Again, I am weak in this part though.What "effect of amplifying the absorption" is this?

The problem I have with that assessment is that CO2 only covers about 26% greenhouse effect value when the earth is at 200 K (-73.15 C.) The peak of radiation at 200 K is 14.89µm.More or less. I get a little bit less than that. 14.49 microns.

At an average 15 C (288.15 K,) the peak is at 10.01 µm.Yes. I get 10.06 microns.

The 15µm band sees a power of only 60% to 70% of the peak now, or about 16% to 18%. If I take this global average of 15 C at 18% of the 33 C greenhouse effect, I get 5.9 C. When we get to a warm day, 300 K (80.33 F) then the peak IR radiation is at 9.95µm.Do you have a source for these figures?

Since water is saturated between 4 to 8 microns, it becomes more and more of the equation as temperature increases.Not that wide. 5 or so to almost 7.

CO2 becomes less. Only about 13% at this point. Find a normally hot place on earth, and you get down to the 9% CO2 minimum. I always understood this change in black body radiation to be why CO2 has a 9% to 26% effect. Not the factors you are attributing it to. Yes, they play a small factor. Just not as much as how the percentage changes with temperature.No. The 25% or 9% thing is whether you consider the overlap as CO2 or not. The emission spectrum of the earth considered as a whole doesn't vary that much. And the greenhouse effect causes a global warming more than a local one, so world average temperatures give and okay result.

Good. I don't believe it's that high, but I can live with that for assuming what can happen.Well it's your figure. If you don't believe it's that high, pick another.

I was furious about the 3 C per doubling. That may be a correct assumption when CO2 has no part in saturation, but you cannot get over 100% for any given wave number.3°C per doubling is once the climate has responded to the forcing. It is the net effect after albedo feedback and water vapour feedback and cloud feedback and all the little but significant oceanic current and weather systems feedback.

And we can be 95% certain that it sits in the 1.5 to 4.5 degree range, with near three the most likely. As you will recall from the IPCC report.

There has been much work done on this.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2 ... 5259.shtml

(http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research ... tivity.pdf)

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/knutti/pape ... ti06jc.pdf

http://www.essc.psu.edu/essc_web/semina ... ture06.pdf

http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf

For example, but that section of the IPCC report discusses about 30 papers.



This is true. However, the clouds seem to regulate this effect to a small range.Yes, clouds are an important feedback. They feedback negatively during the day and positively at night. This effect is included in the 3°C per doubling that estimates of climate sensitivity seem to centre around.



This is where I have a problem. Like I said, the 3 C per doubling looks right, but only before any part is saturated. The IPCC is a politically influence body. They take numers that are real, and apply them in manners that are incorrect. This is one example. They are politically influenced, cut only once the first draft is written and then undergone scientific review. So the paper that the politicians get influence on is already technically correct. And the objective of the politicians is to soften the report, not strengthen it. It has been the scientists of the NASA GISS that have been gagged by politicians, not ExxonMobil. What the IPCC says is reliable at least. The only thing is that the reader should allow for the possibility that things are a whole lot worse.

There is no way that doubling our CO2 can increase our temperature by 3 C. I suspect you’re not going to convince me on this point.This paper, linked also above, it reasonably telling that 3 is a likely value, as far as we can tell.

Consider the (high value) assumed 0.7 C over the change from 280 ppm to 380 ppm. A simple way to look at is that we have 1.36 times in CO2, and 0.7 C rise. Another 1.36 x would be 516 ppm for another 0.7 C increase. That's only 1.4 C and assuming that it is the change in CO2 alone driving warming. Now that 516 is very close to the 560 for a doubling. Now if we go back to the gas chamber plot, assume 9 C instead of 6 C, the quadripling shows what. About a 2.25 C increase? That means about a 1.6 C for doubling, going by worse case of a chart I don't agree with.... Your chart, your 9 C. The 6 C I agree wit by the chart would be about 1.1 C per doubling. Yes, the temperature is still rising.

I don't buy the 3 C per doubling. Then you’re out of whack with about 30 papers that estimate the climate sensitivity, that I could point you towards. I lean towards the work of the world’s climatologists on this one.

Still, how do we ever get to a 1% plus CO2 level. We are right now out of balance between ocean and atmospheric CO2. The ocean sinks the gas pretty fast. That's why we are not as high as prior IPCC reports predicted we would be. Here you are misinformed. We are over the previous worst case scenarios for greenhouse gas concentrations. (As reported here: Recent CO2 rises exceed worst-case scenarios)

The more we pump into the atmosphere, the faster the ocean will absorb it. I just don't see the way equilibrium works, achieving past 1% unless we seriously increase our CO2 emission rate. The oceans appear to be slowing down in their capacity to absorb CO2. (See this study of the southern ocean: Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 Sink Due to Recent Climate Change (Full paper here, I think), and this of the Atlantic: A variable and decreasing sink for atmospheric CO2 in the North Atlantic )



Yes, but you have to be careful. They are not right about everything. I’ve found them pretty good. And they are climate scientists.

Yes I know. Still, have you ever wondered how they correlate a warm area from near an ocean that can be a source rather than sink of CO2, and be accurate? What we see could be coincidence of less ocean currents and increased CO2 release. Even assuming the graph is correct, it is still just one piece of a complex puzzle. CO2 is absorbed in cold water and released in warm water. Isn't the ocean current cycle as long as 500 years also? How does that compare to a station near either pole? . Well here’s the situation 7.5 degrees from the North Pole:



And here’s the situation at the South Pole:





Need multiple test points. Of course, we have data from these sites:



Why does that matter so much? I understand what he's saying. That's what's important to me. It should also be true.

But the science isn't clear. There are so many factors the IPCC and others who are driving this global warming scare flat out ignore. For the theory to be tested valid, it must answer those questions. It must eliminate the other possibilities. I have yet to see a proper elimination of the sun's heat change for example.That’s easy.

The Sun would warm the planet more when the sun is shining. Ie, During the day and during the summer. The greenhouse effect would slow the loss of heat, ie more warming at night and in winter.

Measurements show that the warming is occurring at night and in winter more.



Here’s another one:

The Sun would warm the upper atmosphere as well as the troposphere, whereas the greenhouse effect would warm the troposphere, but the stratosphere would initially cool, since the heat would be trapped below.

Measurement shows a cooling of the stratosphere.



Here’s a third one (although it’s more circumstantial, it’s still good enough for science daily)

Since the satellite era, there is no evidence that the sun’s irradiance has varied by more than 0.07%. (Although not all frequency bands have been monitored). This is not enough to explain the recent warming.

But it is only a theory. Until there is convincing evidence that cannot be denied, then the theory can be wrong!There’s plenty of convincing evidence.

What is their challenge is genuine. Then they would be okay with people submitting papers that had also been submitted for publication. Since they haven’t we can conclude that the challenge is not genuine. Quite apart from their caricatures of USA politicians on their competition’s web page.

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;847934 wrote: Bolieve what you want. Too bad you listen to others instead of understanding the material with science. Consider how modern CO2 effects on temperature should be the same now as it was in historical times.


Such as described in this paper:

Climate sensitivity constrained by temperature

reconstructions over the past seven centuries

Gabriele C. Hegerl, Thomas J. Crowley, William T. Hyde & David J. Frame, NATURE|Vol 440|20 April 2006

The magnitude and impact of future global warming depends on

the sensitivity of the climate system to changes in greenhouse gas

concentrations. The commonly accepted range for the equilibrium

global mean temperature change in response to a doubling of

the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration1, termed climate

sensitivity, is 1.5–4.5 K (ref. 2). A number of observational

studies3–10, however, find a substantial probability of significantly

higher sensitivities, yielding upper limits on climate sensitivity of

7.7K to above 9 K (refs 3–8). Here we demonstrate that such

observational estimates of climate sensitivity can be tightened if

reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperature over the

past several centuries are considered. We use large-ensemble

energy balance modelling and simulate the temperature

response to past solar, volcanic and greenhouse gas forcing to

determine which climate sensitivities yield simulations that are

in agreement with proxy reconstructions. After accounting for

the uncertainty in reconstructions and estimates of past external

forcing, we find an independent estimate of climate sensitivity

that is very similar to those from instrumental data. If the latter

are combined with the result from all proxy reconstructions,

then the 5–95 per cent range shrinks to 1.5–6.2 K, thus substantially

reducing the probability of very high climate

sensitivity.

(Emphasis mine).

[Wild Cobra]

Wombat. None of that explains the temperature vs. CO2 levels over the last 11,000 years. You have not addressed than in any manner that shows me you understand the sciences. Quoting other people simply tell me you would be one that believed the world was flat 500 years ago. You listen to what others say rather than testing the science yourself.

Please explain how the climate sensitivity can be as said vs. the data I supplied over that period.

Consider what the reports you linked say. "LIKELY" (50% or more) to be 1.5 K to 4.5 K and unlikely to be 4.3 K or higher. That means a 45% to 50% chance by their assessment it is less than 1.5 K!

Explain to my satisfaction please. Otherwise, you are wasting my time. Besides, you seem to completely misunderstand my point of the 9% to 26% range of CO2 being based on the temperature. Specifically the ground temperature. Consider the power points of the gasses and what the IR spectra is day, night, and by latitude and season.

Overlap gets complicated, but It's obvious I understand it better than you. I'm not going to elaborate farther as it is likely the most complex aspect and I'm no teacher.

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;845632 wrote: It is the reverse of the graph in your RealClimate link for CO2 in a gas cell.

Does it look right now?

The zero point on mine starts at 230 watts per meter geenhouse forcing without CO2 and rises past 260 (+30 watts) as CO2 increases. The RealClimate lik shows transmission. This is 100% - transmission (absorption.)


It still looks wrong.

Increasing CO2 since the industrial revolution has only caused about 1.5 W/m² of warming.



30 is way too high.

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;848729 wrote: Wombat. None of that explains the temperature vs. CO2 levels over the last 11,000 years. You have not addressed than in any manner that shows me you understand the sciences.
I apologise if I missed one of the points that you raised.

Quoting other people simply tell me you would be one that believed the world was flat 500 years ago. You listen to what others say rather than testing the science yourself.I am a simple acoustician. I have neither the training nor the resources to reproduce the work that the scientific community is producing on climate change. I believe that I can understand some of it though.

Please explain how the climate sensitivity can be as said vs. the data I supplied over that period.What data is this again?

Consider what the reports you linked say. "LIKELY" (50% or more) to be 1.5 K to 4.5 K and unlikely to be 4.3 K or higher. That means a 45% to 50% chance by their assessment it is less than 1.5 K!Well, no, for two reasons. A 50% chance of being between 1.5 and 4.5 would generally mean a 25% chance of being under 1.5

But the passage you quote is talking about the accepted value prior for comparison to the findings of the study. I don't believe that "likely" here has the meaning of '50% or more', but rather the non-technical meaning that is probably lies in that range. The IPCC report gives "It is very

unlikely [Subject to a number of assumptions on the models and datasets used, it is found that climate sensitivity is very unlikely (5% probability) to be either below 1.5–2 K or above about 5–6.5 K, with the best agreement found for sensitivities between 3 and 3.5 K.

If the latter are combined with the result from all proxy reconstructions, then the 5–95 per cent range shrinks to 1.5–6.2 K

We conclude that a climate sensitivity greater than1.5 6C has probably been a robust feature of the Earth’s climate system over the past 420 million years, regardless of temporal scaling.

Explain to my satisfaction please. Otherwise, you are wasting my time.I'm certainly sorry to be wasting your time, but I'm not sure what you want explained, nor what you would consider "satisfaction".

Neither was it my intention to take ownership of the burden of proof, merely to point out some of the ideas and information that are out there.

But point me a second time to this data that you need explained, and I'll do my best to make a fist of it, as far as my knowledge allows.

Besides, you seem to completely misunderstand my point of the 9% to 26% range of CO2 being based on the temperature.I didn't misunderstand it, I think it's wrong. The 9% to 26% range is because of the overlap with other greenhouse gasses. It might be that the temperature range of earth also produces a similar range of results, but you have not shown in sufficient detail these calculations for me to reproduce this 9% and 26%. But treating the worlds as about 15°C wouldn't got too far wrong.

Overlap gets complicated, but It's obvious I understand it better than you. I'm not going to elaborate farther as it is likely the most complex aspect and I'm no teacher.This much is indeed, as you say, obvious. But I don't think that it's the most complex aspect of climate science. I think that I have an okay handle on it, but there are many papers that I have read but have found myself only a little the wiser.

[Wild Cobra]

Bored_Wombat;848774 wrote:

It still looks wrong.




The link from RealClimate you supplied has:



See what it looks like when I flip it:



Looks allot like the first now when you change transmission to absorption.

Bored_Wombat;848774 wrote:

Increasing CO2 since the industrial revolution has only caused about 1.5 W/m² of warming.

30 is way too high.




Well, first of all, the 30 watts (actually just less than) is what that one source counts for the total CO2 up to the 1750 period. Notice the top graph starts at 230, a number with no CO2. It rises to about 257.5 with 1750 era CO2, at 280 ppm. The rise to 380 ppm has the graph at about 259 ppm, or +1.5 watts since 1750. It matches your chart in "added" CO2 pretty close. When it goes to 2x CO2 at 560 ppm, the chart shows about 260.5 watts, or +3 watts since 1750. Also notice this chart shows a doubling to be about 1 C.

If we use the 30 as an easy round number added to the 230, we get 260. CO2 is 11.54% of the greenhouse effect by that calculation. I don't agree with the chart in some ways, but it is the accepted science by the alarmists, except those who advocate the 3 C per doubling. I say the chart should flatten our more at the top than this one does. With all the research I have done, I believe this should be the worse case graph:



Here is an accepted greenhouse model that shows the net effect at 324 watts:



Always keep in mind particulars like Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin, absolute, relative, differential, etc. It's important to keep things in perspective.

[Clodhopper]

Bum. Got lost in the maths. Will just stick to the opinions of the IPCC, which seems to represent the opinion of the vast majority of respectable workers in the field. In my lifetime the scientific community has NEVER come together in such a way, and had its findings watered down by the politicians in the way that occurred.

If they are right (and I've been watching for a while now and the weather does seem to be getting, well, more violent) it is simply too important an issue to ignore.

I do remember the ice age warnings of the 1980s or 90s, but they were saying we need to worry in about 10,000 years time, as I remember it (I could be wrong), not 100 years as they are now.

I'm worried about this, and when someone comes along and says to disbelieve the IPCC and listen to oil company flunkies, I'm not reassured.

Nonetheless, interesting stuff, and thanks for posting.

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;849897 wrote:

Well, first of all, the 30 watts (actually just less than) is what that one source counts for the total CO2 up to the 1750 period.
Yes, alright.

Also notice this chart shows a doubling to be about 1 C.With the other GHGs held constant the 6°C marked on the graph should only be about 3°C, shouldn't it? 9% of 33°C?

Note also that CO2 represents just about half of the anthropogenic greenhouse gas increase since the start of the industrial revolution. CH4, NO2, Halocarbons, Tropospheric Ozone and Stratospheric H2O add to about the same amount of forcing again.

But the 3°C is when other feedbacks are included. (Such as increased water vapour in the air, decreased ice cover, and stronger winds.) The temperature rise from radiative forcing alone due to GHGs is, indeed, much less.

[Bored_Wombat]

Clodhopper;850005 wrote: Bum. Got lost in the maths. Will just stick to the opinions of the IPCC, which seems to represent the opinion of the vast majority of respectable workers in the field. In my lifetime the scientific community has NEVER come together in such a way, and had its findings watered down by the politicians in the way that occurred.

If they are right (and I've been watching for a while now and the weather does seem to be getting, well, more violent) it is simply too important an issue to ignore.


Sensibly said.

I do remember the ice age warnings of the 1980s or 90s, but they were saying we need to worry in about 10,000 years time, as I remember it (I could be wrong), not 100 years as they are now.There were a total of about 6 papers predicting cooling, in the time period 1965-1970. These got blown out a bit by the press. (Over the same time period over 40 papers were predicting warming).

But it was over by the 80s or 90s. If the press were still going then, they were being reasonably irresponsible. (Having said that, I remember them too).

I'm worried about this, and when someone comes along and says to disbelieve the IPCC and listen to oil company flunkies, I'm not reassured.

Nonetheless, interesting stuff, and thanks for posting.Hear, hear.

[Wild Cobra]

Bored_Wombat;848778 wrote:

I apologise if I missed one of the points that you raised.

I am a simple acoustician. I have neither the training nor the resources to reproduce the work that the scientific community is producing on climate change. I believe that I can understand some of it though.

What data is this again?


I wouldn't call that field simple!

Maybe I didn't explain it well enough. Back to this chart:



Notice how CO2 and Temperature rise together from about the 182 ppm to 264 ppm (absolute) levels and –8 C to 0 C (relative) levels. There are no farther temperature changes that correspond to increased CO2 levels. The temperature remains in a –2 C to +2 C range at an approximate 1500 year cycle. How about going back and read again what I posted earlier with that graph.

Bored_Wombat;848778 wrote:

Well, no, for two reasons. A 50% chance of being between 1.5 and 4.5 would generally mean a 25% chance of being under 1.5


Yes and no. There doesn't need to be 25% on each side. By the description in the links, the increase being higher than 4.3 C was classed as very unlikely, or some similar term. I forget the exact term used, but if you assign that a 5% then 45% remains for the Bored_Wombat;848778 wrote:

But the passage you quote is talking about the accepted value prior for comparison to the findings of the study. I don't believe that "likely" here has the meaning of '50% or more', but rather the non-technical meaning that is probably lies in that range. The IPCC report gives "It is very

unlikely [
I was thinking about the terms. I was wrong on the 50% assignment. I was going by memory. "Most" is at 50% and above. "Likely" is 66% or more. It does change the math a bit.

Bored_Wombat;848778 wrote:

But most of the papers that I linked were using 95% confidence intervals.Subject to a number of assumptions on the models and datasets used, it is found that climate sensitivity is very unlikely (5% probability) to be either below 1.5–2 K or above about 5–6.5 K, with the best agreement found for sensitivities between 3 and 3.5 K.


Yes, but do they qualify that with current levels, are they mixing truth and past levels. There are points that CO2 has that range of change. Not when it is partially in saturation.

This is an area where the political nature interferes with real science. It is impossible for the CO2 effect to be that strong for level chances in terms at current levels. The assessment of "likely" for the 1.5 C to 4.5 C change is a reasonable statistical assessment.

Bored_Wombat;848778 wrote:

If the latter are combined with the result from all proxy reconstructions, then the 5–95 per cent range shrinks to 1.5–6.2 K


I don't understand how they can say this except for using the coincidence of CO2 levels vs. temperature, and ignoring the sun's effect, heat islands, etc. They have to cherry-pick data to do this.

Bored_Wombat;848778 wrote:

I'm certainly sorry to be wasting your time, but I'm not sure what you want explained, nor what you would consider "satisfaction".

Neither was it my intention to take ownership of the burden of proof, merely to point out some of the ideas and information that are out there.


The burden of proof is hard. That's why nobody has taken the challenge. When you do real scientific analysis to take a theory into proving and disproving various elements, the science is against anthropogenic warming at the levels the alarmists state.

As for the material out there, yes, I know the papers are out there explaining so many aspects. If I couldn't pick apart their so-called facts so easily, I would be convinced too. Like the people of 500 years ago. They had nothing to indicate the world was round, and everyone said it was flat. Those who understood how to plot routes using time, stars, the sun, and the moon realized the earth had to be round. Unless you understand the sciences pretty well, the political bodies will win with their propaganda.

Bored_Wombat;848778 wrote:

But point me a second time to this data that you need explained, and I'll do my best to make a fist of it, as far as my knowledge allows.


Let's just start by you taking a good hard look at the temperature vs. CO2 on the graph I linked. If CO2 has such an effect, why has it maintained that +/- 2 C range for the last 11,000 years as CO2 levels climbed past the 264 ppm levels. This chart defies the idea that added CO2 increases temperature past the 264 ppm point.

Bored_Wombat;848778 wrote:

I didn't misunderstand it, I think it's wrong. The 9% to 26% range is because of the overlap with other greenhouse gasses. It might be that the temperature range of earth also produces a similar range of results, but you have not shown in sufficient detail these calculations for me to reproduce this 9% and 26%. But treating the worlds as about 15°C wouldn't got too far wrong.


Well, I did try to explain the idea. You has some source for blackbody calculations that are very close to my numbers. Did it list power at the peak and total power as well? How can it be wrong? As the peak changes, it changes the percentage that the various bands of CO2, water, methane, etc. are capable of controlling:

Kelvin W/m2 peak µm

200 90.7284 14.4888

220 132.835 13.1716

240 188.134 12.074

260 259.129 11.1452

280 348.542 10.3491

300 459.312 9.65918

320 594.598 9.05548

340 757.773 8.5228

Notice how dramatically the power levels change with temperature too. Look at the curves of these and note how the 15 micron bad has more effect of the percentage a colder temperatures tan warmer:



Bored_Wombat;848778 wrote: Don't forget that without the major greenhouse gasses above 10 km, just less than half the absorbed heat from CO2 trapping here is radiated back into space. In that manner, just the lower 10 km is most relevant.
Are you talking about the height of the tropopause?

I don't see how you can calculate from that what proportion of "trapped" heat will be radiated upwards.

There are important stratospheric greenhouse gasses. Ozone and stratospheric water vapour are examples.
Consider this. Water vapor stops at about the 10 km point. Any heat generated by greenhouse gasses is more effectively trapped below 10 km as water has the widest absorption. Any greenhouse gas above the 10 km point primarily traps heat that is directed downward because nearly all heat directed upward escapes to space. That is why greenhouse gasses above 10 km are less effective. It really changes some of the alarmists ideas if they would realize this point.

If you like reading, check this our:

Estimation of the Radiative Forcing

for CO2 Doubling

It comes from a site I just discovered. Damn... Now I have more reading to do myself. Check this site out:

Climate Change:

Guest Papers

[Bored_Wombat]

Maybe I didn't explain it well enough. Back to this chart:



Notice how CO2 and Temperature rise together from about the 182 ppm to 264 ppm (absolute) levels and –8 C to 0 C (relative) levels.
Yes, they do that ... Give or take about 800 years.

There are no farther temperature changes that correspond to increased CO2 levels.
I wouldn't say that. It looks like the temperature changes and CO2 levels follow each other pretty well over smaller rises and falls. There's a couple of rises about 60,000 ybp, and one at about 80,000 ybp, and the two rises and falls, and a smaller rise at 220,000 200,000 and 190, 000 ybp for example all appear on both the temperature and CO2 data as plotted.

Are we looking at one Russian ice core site here, with local temperature?

The temperature remains in a –2 C to +2 C range at an approximate 1500 year cycle.
It's not possible to tell anything of the sort from that chart. I presume you have this information from some other source?

How about going back and read again what I posted earlier with that graph.


You mean this?:

Notice there is no discernable time in the upward trend of CO2 and temperature, but a lag when temperature decreases.


There is a discernible time in the upward trend of CO2 and temperature. It's about 5000 years.

What do you mean by a 'lag when temperature decreases'?

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;850032 wrote: Yes and no. There doesn't need to be 25% on each side.
There sort of does. If you're quoting a confidence interval, it would be unusual (and misleading) not to have the tails containing different probabilities.

By the description in the links, the increase being higher than 4.3 C was classed as very unlikely, or some similar term. I forget the exact term used, but if you assign that a 5% then 45% remains for the No, none of the links describe that.The first paper, by Annan and Hargreaves says that the climate sensitivity is estimated to "be likely to lie in the range of 1.5–4.5°C", but that the work that they do, narrows that estimate, and they give a likelihood of <5% that it exceeds 4.5°C. That does not mean that there is a 29% chance that it is less than 1.5°C, because the "likely 1.5 to 4.5°C" is the current estimate at the date of them writing the paper, not including their findings.

[Wild Cobra]

Bored_Wombat;856713 wrote: There are no farther temperature changes that correspond to increased CO2 levels.
I wouldn't say that. It looks like the temperature changes and CO2 levels follow each other pretty well over smaller rises and falls. There's a couple of rises about 60,000 ybp, and one at about 80,000 ybp, and the two rises and falls, and a smaller rise at 220,000 200,000 and 190, 000 ybp for example all appear on both the temperature and CO2 data as plotted.


That's not what I meant. I meant after the rise to 264 ppm, the temperature was stable within a +/-2 C without the change having influence from the COP2 level. I'm talking about the area within the last 11,000 year area.

Bored_Wombat;856725 wrote:

Are we looking at one Russian ice core site here, with local temperature?


Yes, but other paleoclimatology measurements sites and methods yield similar results.

Bored_Wombat;856725 wrote:

It's not possible to tell anything of the sort from that chart. I presume you have this information from some other source?


The chart is an accepted reconstruction by the experts. It verifies several things talked about by various professionals in the subject. The area I was focusing on shows the temperature changes that are not uncommon. There are historical accounts verifying the temperatures. Any one who will fairly acknowledge the data cannot discount that the temperature does not strictly coincide CO2 levels when they are above 260 ppm. My point is that we have seen notable correlation between CO2 up to about 260 ppm with temperature, but almost no change of temperature when the CO2 is higher.

Bored_Wombat;856725 wrote:

You mean this?:


I really don't remember what I meant then...

Bored_Wombat;856725 wrote:

There is a discernible time in the upward trend of CO2 and temperature. It's about 5000 years.

What do you mean by a 'lag when temperature decreases'?
As the temperature and CO2 raise, it is hard to distinguish which one leads and which one follows. However, as the temperature drops, there is a visible lag of the CO2 levels falling slower than the temperature does. This is clearly seen on the larger rises and drops. Not so clear on the smaller changes. Of course, there are other things that can account for the changes.

Bored_Wombat;856725 wrote: There sort of does. If you're quoting a confidence interval, it would be unusual (and misleading) not to have the tails containing different probabilities.


Well, there is nothing to my knowledge that states it must be on a classic bell curve.

Bored_Wombat;856725 wrote:

No, none of the links describe that.The first paper, by Annan and Hargreaves says that the climate sensitivity is estimated to "be likely to lie in the range of 1.5–4.5°C", but that the work that they do, narrows that estimate, and they give a likelihood of
Well, that's how I read it. 66% confidence 1.5 to 4.5 with Dennis Avery today on the radio. Thing with these people who are called deniers, is they can respond very well to the questions presented to them. They don't give flimsy answers. According to him, we are currently seeing about 75% of the total effect that CO2 can have until complete saturation. If we use 6.7 C, then take the atmosphere to lethal levels of CO2, the temperature could increase another 2.2 to 2.3 C.

If we are past 50% CO2 forcing, then there is no level to double the effect!

[nvalleyvee]

Can I get all the money if I prove Humsns aren't the cause of Glogal Warming.

Oh wait - that is what you said!!!!

Thanks

Vanessa

[Wild Cobra]

Here are two good pieces to read on the subject of Global Warming:

A Skeptics Guide to An Inconvenient Truth

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

The first is pretty easy to understand. The second one is very scientific and I don't understand all of it.

added:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"

[Bryn Mawr]

Wild Cobra;862528 wrote: Here are two good pieces to read on the subject of Global Warming:

A Skeptics Guide to An Inconvenient Truth

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

The first is pretty easy to understand. The second one is very scientific and I don't understand all of it.

added:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"


I've taken a look at the second of your papers and it is absolutely wonderful stuff.

I printed it out, all hundred and fourteen pages of it, so that I could work my way through it and keep some notes but I'm stumped - I've been laughing so much I'ts very difficult to concentrate.

They start by castigating researchers for concentrating on the radiation effect of the CO2 at the expense of thermal conductivity which they then proceed to deal with exclusively. The trouble with this is that radiation is the only mechanism that is relevant to the global energy equation. The Earth exists in the vacuum of space and conduction and convection can have no effect on heat gain / loss across that boundary. Global warming is a result of the total energy of the system, not with the distribution of energy within the system.

They then try to prove that CO2 cannot adsorb energy from low frequency radiation by treating it as a many-body problem with "particles" of radiation "striking" the atoms of CO2. The adsorption of energy by CO2 from radiation at any given frequency is easily measured and is well documented.

This is not science - it is technobabble for people to point at.

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;857604 wrote: The chart is an accepted reconstruction by the experts. It verifies several things talked about by various professionals in the subject. The area I was focusing on shows the temperature changes that are not uncommon.
Right. But you claim that there has been a 1500 year cycle, which is way too fine to read off that chart, and one would want to do a Fourier transform before claiming such even if the scale was good enough. Where did you get this 1500 year cycle from.

I really don't remember what I meant then...No.

And I can't work out what you meant either.

Which is why your response: "How about going back and read again what I posted earlier with that graph." isn't that useful.

As the temperature and CO2 raise, it is hard to distinguish which one leads and which one follows. However, as the temperature drops, there is a visible lag of the CO2 levels falling slower than the temperature does. This is clearly seen on the larger rises and drops. Not so clear on the smaller changes.The most salient thing to note is despite these small differences in which one goes first, there is a clear correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature.

And this confirms what we know from optics and the greenhouse effect. Heat trapping gasses, such as CO2, trap heat.

Well, there is nothing to my knowledge that states it must be on a classic bell curve.No. There is nothing. I was only saying that a 90% confidence interval is stated by giving the value that there is a 95% confidence of the real value being lower than and the value that there is a 95% confidence of the real value being higher than.

Well, that's how I read it. 66% confidence 1.5 to 4.5 with You've misread it.

It doesn't say 66% confidence, and the discussion about the 1.5 to 4.5 is about what is already known prior to this paper.

Besides. There is an acknowledged chance that doubling CO2 has an increase smaller than 1.5 C. Right?Wrong.

About 3°C, as each of the three linked papers calculated by a wide range of methodologies. But you have read the IPCC reports? The section on climate sensitivity references about 30 papers with similar outcomes.

Remember, these are based upon the theorized models accepted at the time. Consider how those numbers change when you change the model.No. Again you haven't read the three papers that I have linked. There are a variety of methods to reach the 3°C, and these are three quite different ones.

Thing with these people who are called deniers, is they can respond very well to the questions presented to them. They don't give flimsy answers. According to him, we are currently seeing about 75% of the total effect that CO2 can have until complete saturation. He's not in line with the physics of optics. It is a little strange that you would take the word of an agricultural economist over the calculations of the world's physicists on a point of optics. Can you explain why you find a lone voice way out of his area of expertise a reliable source, and the physics of absorbance spectra built up these last four hundred years as likely to be wrong?

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;862528 wrote: Here are two good pieces to read on the subject of Global Warming:

A Skeptics Guide to An Inconvenient Truth

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

The first is pretty easy to understand. The second one is very scientific and I don't understand all of it.

added:

U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus"


There are a lot of non peer reviewed and political sources.

This is why we have peer review. It allows us to know that what we are reading is at least serious and intelligent.

Science, Nature and Cell are the English language's most esteemed scientific journals. Nature has a climate change news page here. If you read it you might be able to partake in a debate about the genuine scientifically backed issues, rather than this discussion of what a particular US senator wants you to think are the issues.

[Wild Cobra]

Bored_Wombat;869960 wrote:

There are a lot of non peer reviewed and political sources.


Peer review is not what it's cracked up to be. It has many problems. It is fine for an organization wanting such academic standards to proceed on a work because they don't understand the sciences, but to those of us who understand the sciences.... We don't need it!

Bored_Wombat;869959 wrote:

This is why we have peer review. It allows us to know that what we are reading is at least serious and intelligent.


I disagree. I see it as a way of entrenched pundits in academia being able to suppress work they don't like.

Bored_Wombat;869959 wrote:

Right. But you claim that there has been a 1500 year cycle, which is way too fine to read off that chart, and one would want to do a Fourier transform before claiming such even if the scale was good enough. Where did you get this 1500 year cycle from.


You really are new at this subject, aren't you? It is an established trend. The only reason I can think of it is left out of any lemming feeding climatologic related classes is it defies the dogma. See Bond Event. Part of link:

Most Bond events do not have a clear climate signal; some correspond to periods of cooling, others are coincident with aridification in some regions.

* ≈1,400 BP (Bond event 1) — roughly correlates with the Migration Period Pessimum (450–900 AD)

* ≈2,800 BP (Bond event 2) — roughly correlates with the Iron Age Cold Epoch (900–300 BC)

* ≈4,200 BP (Bond event 3) — correlates with the 22nd century BC drought

* ≈5,800 BP (Bond event 4) — correlates with an unnamed aridification event (3900–3800 BC) that, among other things, led to the abrupt end of the Ubaid period on the Arabian peninsula.

* ≈8,200 BP (Bond event 5) — correlates with the 8.2 kiloyear event

* ≈9,700 BP (Bond event 6) — unnamed event

* ≈11,200 BP (Bond event 7) — unnamed event

* ≈12,700 BP (Bond event 8) — correlates with the Younger Dryas (12,800 to 11,500 BP)


Now look at this icew core file to, with the last 11,000 years of temperatures which range in a +/- 2 C range for temperature... avearge not affected by CO2 above 260 ppm... See:



Bored_Wombat;869959 wrote:

The most salient thing to note is despite these small differences in which one goes first, there is a clear correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature.

And this confirms what we know from optics and the greenhouse effect. Heat trapping gasses, such as CO2, trap heat.


No it doesn't. Again, CO2 and temperature have a clear relationship up to somewhere in the 260's ppm levels. There is NO CORRESPONDING RISE in temperature with increased CO2 past that point. There is a clear correleation explained about the 800 year lag here. And here is a graph from a link within the article:



Feedback from other scientists say 800 years. Other work I have found supports 800 years, but that is some statistical average that varies depending on how you calculate it. Probably at varying sigma levels. The lag is long during cooling and short during warming. More from the article:



E. MEASURING AND MODELING THE LAG IN THE CO2 DATA

By convention, the Greek tau (t for time) stands for lag. The relation between correlation and tau is the correlation function. Auto–correlation is correlation of a record with itself, and cross–correlation is the correlation between two different records. Figure 10 contains the cross–correlation function of CO2 and temperature for the entire Vostok record of 400,000 years. (The graph is more dense on the left because of an intentional computational artifact. Sample intervals increase exponentially to simplify the computation load. The correlation method wraps the data on itself, analogous to a 420,000–year long tape loop.)

Zooming in by a factor of 100 shows the fine structure in the near term. This is Figure 11.

Three or four nearly equivalent peaks appear where carbon dioxide has the greatest correlation with temperature. The fact that the correlation is relatively poor at zero temperature offset emphasizes that the lag is real, and that any model should account for the lag. Subsequent analysis is offset to the nearest local peak in the correlation at 1073 years. As already stated, the correlation shift has no effect on the qualitative result, namely that CO2 is not responsible for but is a response to global temperature. Applying the lag to the model does improve the accuracy of the results by a few percent.

F. LAG–COMPENSATED CO2 RECORD

Offsetting the CO2 trace by 1073 years has the scientifically desirable effect of sharpening or flattening the constellation of data. This is an improvement in signal to noise ratio. It makes the curvature more apparent, as shown in Figure 12.

Again dropping the sample paths and representing the CO2 concentration in percentage produces the new constellation of ice core data, offset for maximum correlation, shown in Figure 13.

The best fit straight line through these points shows that the average variation of CO2 concentration is 3.49% per degree Centigrade, shown in Figure 14. The complementary, catastrophe straight line fit is 21.8ºC per 100% change in CO2 concentration, or 0.218ºC/%, included in Figure 15.

The offset for lag increased the slope from 3.42%/ºC to 3.49%/ºC with temperature as the independent variable, and the catastrophe slope from 0.216 ºC/% to 0.218 ºC/% CO2 with the greenhouse gas as the independent variable. The 1073 year offset slightly changes the operating point on the solubility curve. The product of the two slopes, r^2, is 0.7609, and r is thus increased from 0.860 to 0.872. (Computation of correlation by the straight line fit method does not involved data wrapping.)

For several reasons, the catastrophic fit can be put to rest. Carbon dioxide is dependent on temperature, and not the reverse. The reason is not just the fact that concentration lags temperature changes, but because it is a physical consequence of the ocean temperature distribution.




Bored_Wombat;869959 wrote:

It doesn't say 66% confidence, and the discussion about the 1.5 to 4.5 is about what is already known prior to this paper.


66% is the normal value for the term I was applying it to. I don't clearly remember the specific term now.

Bored_Wombat;869959 wrote: Besides. There is an acknowledged chance that doubling CO2 has an increase smaller than 1.5 C. Right?


Wrong.


Wait a minute. There is a statistical change it is lower the 1.5 C unless there is otherwise a 100% certainty it is higher than 1.5 C and I don't see that anywhere!

Bored_Wombat;869959 wrote:

About 3°C, as each of the three linked papers calculated by a wide range of methodologies. But you have read the IPCC reports? The section on climate sensitivity references about 30 papers with similar outcomes.


So what. Most the population on earth used to think the world was flat too.

Bored_Wombat;869959 wrote:

No. Again you haven't read the three papers that I have linked. There are a variety of methods to reach the 3°C, and these are three quite different ones.


I'm sorry. It is impossible with the understanding of science I have. 3 C for doubling only works at lower concentrations. Not now, where we have some of the spectra in saturation.

Bored_Wombat;869959 wrote:

He's not in line with the physics of optics. It is a little strange that you would take the word of an agricultural economist over the calculations of the world's physicists on a point of optics. Can you explain why you find a lone voice way out of his area of expertise a reliable source, and the physics of absorbance spectra built up these last four hundred years as likely to be wrong?


Sorry, the subject is complex, I give you that and I am not good at explaining things rather often. The physics of optics and IR absorption are different subjects, but any competent scientist can understand them. The counter explanations I have seen by the alarmists do not understand them, or if the do....The lie, knowing that most people no not understand either! They have severe faults. When you account for various pressure and temperature at the various altitudes, it is clear when you understand the correlations why the alarmists are wrong. Half of the CO2 is within about the closest 6 km of the atmosphere because we have ½ atmospheric pressure at about 6 km, and CO2 is evenly mixed in the atmosphere.. The primary greenhouse gas, water vapor, stops about 10 km and only about 1/3rd the CO2 content is any higher. At 10 km, the temperature takes a severe drop, to 50 C below zero. It is close to linear from 15 C at 0 km to the –50 C at 10 km. The temperature gets as low as –210 C at higher altitudes. Average per mass above 10 km is probably about –40 C. There is a peak of about –10 C at about 48 km. There is no effective greenhouse effect above 10 km, yet the alarmists calculate these levels to, at ground level black body radiation standards, pressure, and forcing values. They are deceitful in the effects, relying on the ignorance of those not taking the time to understand all the relative factors.

For the above gas, pressures, and radiation levels, go to SpectralCalc. Use "blackbody calculator" and "atmospheric browser."

[Bored_Wombat]

Wild Cobra;870677 wrote: Peer review is not what it's cracked up to be.
Well, I crack it up to be a way of differentiating articles that have might have some scientific merit, and those that probably don't. Since there have been about 3000 peer reviewed papers on global climate change in the last 15 years, there is little time to include unreviewed literature in one's reading in this subject so fraught with misinformation.

I think that it is what it is cracked up to be in this case.

It has many problems.It is certainly no guarantee of correctness, but it is some of some validity. It is not proof against fraud, but the authors academic reputation and careers do stand against fraud. Nevertheless some people occasionally take a tumble even from papers accepted to the most respected of journals.

But it is not really right to say that it has many problems.

All the scientific journals that there are have come to use peer review as a protection against the publication of work that is substandard, or, as we prefer to say in Australia, "wrong".

It is fine for an organization wanting such academic standards to proceed on a work because they don't understand the sciences, but to those of us who understand the sciences.... We don't need it!Gauss was considered by some to be the last man who understood all the sciences, being as perhaps he was, at the forefront of every scientific field.

Please don't include me in your claim that "we" understand the sciences today. It is laughably presumptuous.

[BTS]

Hot off the press...................

A KOOL 1/2 a Million now being offered

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/index.htm





CHALLENGE

$500,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:



UGWC Hypothesis 1



Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

UGWC Hypothesis 2



The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.

[Bored_Wombat]

BTS;913479 wrote: Hot off the press...................

A KOOL 1/2 a Million now being offered

http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/index.htm





CHALLENGE

$500,000 will be awarded to the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming. The winning entry will specifically reject both of the following two hypotheses:



UGWC Hypothesis 1



Manmade emissions of greenhouse gases do not discernibly, significantly and predictably cause increases in global surface and tropospheric temperatures along with associated stratospheric cooling.

UGWC Hypothesis 2



The benefits equal or exceed the costs of any increases in global temperature caused by manmade greenhouse gas emissions between the present time and the year 2100, when all global social, economic and environmental effects are considered.


This offer is no more genuine than the last.

The science tells us that there is warming, it is anthropogenic.

Un-peer reviewed websites can post as many hostile competitions as they like, and unless they have an unbiased judge from the scientific community, it doesn't mean anything.

There are no scientific organisations and practically no scientific research from the past 15 years that doubts global warming.

If there were a sound basis for doubting it there would be a scientific paper pointing this out. If you have to argue with biased websites instead of science, your have no case.

[Bryn Mawr]

Bored_Wombat;933020 wrote: This offer is no more genuine than the last.

The science tells us that there is warming, it is anthropogenic.

Un-peer reviewed websites can post as many hostile competitions as they like, and unless they have an unbiased judge from the scientific community, it doesn't mean anything.

There are no scientific organisations and practically no scientific research from the past 15 years that doubts global warming.

If there were a sound basis for doubting it there would be a scientific paper pointing this out. If you have to argue with biased websites instead of science, your have no case.


Did you notice, in the recent judgement fining Channel-4 for biassed and inaccurate reporting over the "Great Global Warming Scandal", the regulator did not apply the full criteria because global warming was effectively proven and therefore no longer a "controversial" subject to be governed by the more stringent regulations.

[Bored_Wombat]

Bryn Mawr;933620 wrote: Did you notice, in the recent judgement fining Channel-4 for biassed and inaccurate reporting over the "Great Global Warming Scandal", the regulator did not apply the full criteria because global warming was effectively proven and therefore no longer a "controversial" subject to be governed by the more stringent regulations.


Yeah, thanks, Bryn.

I did notice that, but I didn't realise that it was such a vindication of the scientific position, because I was busy being offended that they were let off the hook.

I felt something similar to the nature's climate feedback blog that uses the adjectival phrase "extremely frustrating" reagardin the ruling, and the adverb "maddeningly" regarding the specific that Ofcom dismisses swindles' scepticism, and that this is the basis for not faulting channel four for providing an impartial viewpoint.

So thanks for that perspective.