Simple Question About AGW

[David Rodale]

And here we have it again, ladies and gentlemen:

Our very own loud-mouthed schmuck, yet again insulting a class of scientists and a leading scientific organization, all for your viewing pleasure!

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen, step right up...

Another example of "a leading scientific organization" publication; a prophecy and unsubstantiated assumptions. This is your idea of a science article?
Global temperature change

Global surface temperature has increased

0.2°C per decade in the past 30 years, similar to the warming rate predicted in the 1980s in initial global climate model simulations with transient greenhouse gas changes. Warming is larger in the Western Equatorial Pacific than in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific over the past century, and we suggest that the increased West–East temperature gradient may have increased the likelihood of strong El Niños, such as those of 1983 and 1998. Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within

1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years. We conclude that global warming of more than

1°C, relative to 2000, will constitute "dangerous" climate change as judged from likely effects on sea level and extermination of species.

Megalodon, would you mind graphing the lower stratosphere data and create a pretty graph demonstrating it is cooling?

 

[mhaze]

Another example of "a leading scientific organization" publication; a prophecy and unsubstantiated assumptions. This is your idea of a science article?
Global temperature change

Never let it be said Hansen is not entertaining! It's at least on a par with a Stephen King novel!

oh wait.... this is supposed to be scientific articles!

hmmm....

 

[Megalodon]

Another example of "a leading scientific organization" publication; a prophecy and unsubstantiated assumptions. This is your idea of a science article?
Global temperature change

Edited by chillzero: 

Edited for civility

Write a rebuttal! Or better yet, ask one of the bloggers you feed on to write one... You can even submit it to Energy and Environment.

Megalodon, would you mind graphing the lower stratosphere data and create a pretty graph demonstrating it is cooling?

I'm supposed to do your homework now?

And why are you so hung up on the stratospheric cooling? It's almost as if you have no idea what you're talking about... Chew on this for a while, and maybe I'll give you some time another day...

Impact of middle-atmospheric composition changes on greenhouse cooling in the upper atmosphere

R.A. Akmaeva, , , V.I. Fomichevb and X. Zhuc
aCIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
bDepartment of Earth and Space Science and Engineering, York University, Toronto, Ont., Canada
cApplied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University, Laurel, MD, USA

Available online 12 May 2006.

Abstract

The greenhouse effect, commonly associated with lower-atmospheric warming, manifests as cooling in the middle and upper atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is the main cooler and its continuing rise has been demonstrated to result in dramatic temperature reductions, particularly in the thermosphere. In a hydrostatic atmosphere, the cooling is associated with a density decrease at a given height. The stratospheric ozone depletion documented in satellite observations since 1979 and a steady increase of water vapor are also expected to introduce a net cooling in the middle atmosphere primarily via a reduced solar heating and increased emissions in the infrared, respectively. These effects are simulated with the global spectral mesosphere/lower thermosphere model (SMLTM) extending approximately from the tropopause to over 200 km. Climatological distributions of the radiatively active gases are prescribed in the model, which makes it suitable for studies with imposed realistic trends in CO2, O3, and H2O approximately corresponding to the period 1980–2000. Although confined to the stratosphere, the ozone depletion has a profound cooling effect on mesospheric temperatures, which is comparable to or exceeding that of the CO2 forcing. The water vapor cooling appears to play a secondary but non-negligible role, especially in the overall density reduction in the lower thermosphere. The additional hydrostatic contraction of the colder middle atmosphere is predicted to result in a local maximum of the density decline near 110 km of up to -6.5% per decade over the twenty-year period.

Stop this pattern of uncivil behaviour toward a member

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero

 

[CapelDodger]

And why are you so hung up on the stratospheric cooling?

It's the minutia de jour, old boy. They come and they go, and Rodale goes with them.

The stratosphere is a fine refuge. There are other cooling influences, so you have some play in attribution. Temperatures up there are tricky to measure, and we're pretty new at the game. It's ideal GWSceptic territory.

 

[CapelDodger]

What an idiotic thing to post. Clearly, you are more interested in the players than the game.

Damn' straight. The proper study of Man is Man.

Since you've retired so young and are so interested in physics, why not go to school and get a real degree that would allow you to understand the science you try to trumpet so loudly? Context is such a terrible thing for people like you.

I understand the science I talk about perfectly well. I already have a degree in something more remunerative than physics, and my main interest is in history anyway. Then there's the garden to think about.

And I'm very keen on context. Context is at the root of scepticism; you have to understand its context before you can judge a statement.

CapedDodger, there's a guy at RealClimate who needs your correcting about "voodoo science" and "mystic physics". He also believes that there are "other physical forces" at work in the environment, specifically the tropics. Please correct him.

There are physical forces specific to the tropics? I'm sure I'd have noticed that claim. Go on, give me a clue.

 

[bobdroege7]

Never let it be said Hansen is not entertaining! It's at least on a par with a Stephen King novel!

oh wait.... this is supposed to be scientific articles!

hmmm....

But you read Crichton,don't you.

How about you refute Hansen's arguments rather than ad hom attacks.

But you can't.

It's the same old same old, any time I post something from PNAS, nobody attacks the arguments, they only argue that PNAS is not peer reviewed and not science.

 

[mhaze]

But you read Crichton,don't you.

How about you refute Hansen's arguments rather than ad hom attacks.

But you can't. It's the same old same old, any time I post something from PNAS, nobody attacks the arguments, they only argue that PNAS is not peer reviewed and not science.

Well, like refuting what, exactly? I've seen assertions made by Hansen that do not merit refutiing, for example, the 80 foot sea level rise "prediction". Hansen does not provide any heat capacity calculations to substantiate it, he just throws it out there as a possibility.

So what did you have in mind that needed refutation? Wild claims of massive species extinction?

Likely, the easiest way to "refute Hansen" is to simply compare him with IPCC, and note how far to the side he is of the "consensus view".

 

[a_unique_person]

Well, like refuting what, exactly? I've seen assertions made by Hansen that do not merit refutiing, for example, the 80 foot sea level rise "prediction". Hansen does not provide any heat capacity calculations to substantiate it, he just throws it out there as a possibility.

That's because there are other reasons for glaciers causing the sea level to rise, including a sudden collapse. Collapses have been observed of several large glaciers. It's a real risk, which is what this whole topic is about. Risk management.

 

[mhaze]

But you read Crichton,don't you. How about you refute Hansen's arguments rather than ad hom attacks. But you can't. It's the same old same old, any time I post something from PNAS, nobody attacks the arguments, they only argue that PNAS is not peer reviewed and not science.

I'll agree without doing a full literature survey, that some of the wilder stuff seems to come from PNAS. Now a question is to what extent anyone should have to support or refute it. What's reasonable? AUP would like to throw out some suggestions that "it's all about risk management".


Okay, well, then, I'll just throw some risk management issues, too!

Man isn't severely messing up the planet.
Coastlines are not going to flood.
No reason for being alarmed.
​

Supposing we somehow melted a big pile of ice, enough to create a 20 foot sea level rise. This would cause sea temperature for the top 300 meters of the ocean to go down about 2C. And that would result in much, much more sea ice and larger amounts of ice in the polar regions, because the water got substantially colder, causing the ice lines to move south In other words, if it melts, then it reforms ice. But Hansen doesn't want to discuss these concepts of heat capacity, does he?

Then again, we could look at actual science - here is a relevant piece that shows a explained variance of 85% (as opposed to wild speculation). "Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseason oscillations", by Spencer, Braswell, Christy and Hnilo, 8-2007, GRL. Vol 34, L15707.

"A linear regression yields a sensitivity factor of -6.1 W/m^-2/K^-1 with an explained variance of 85%. This indicates that the net (SW + LW) radiative effect of clouds during the evolution of the compositie ISO is to cool the ocean-atmosphere system during its tropospheric warm phase, and to warm it during it's cool phase.

ANALYSIS: Shows a very strong negative feedback mechanism and is supportive of Lindzen's "Infrared iris Hypothesis". Tropical troposphere was measured, and these results help explain why there may be no "tropical mid troposhere hot spot" as predicted by AGW theory - negative feedbacks predominate.

 

[Megalodon]

Tropical troposphere was measured, and these results help explain why there may be no "tropical mid troposhere hot spot" as predicted by AGW theory

You keep throwing this little gem around, but when it comes to evidence:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 16, NO. 12, PAGES 1441–1444, 1989

How will Changes in Carbon Dioxide and Methane Modify the Mean Structure of the Mesosphere and Thermosphere?

R. G. Roble

High Altitude Observatory, National Center for Atmospheric Research


R. E. Dickinson

Climate and Global Dynamics Division, National Center for Atmospheric Research

Abstract

A global average model of the coupled mesosphere, thermosphere and ionosphere is used to examine the effect of trace gas variations on the overall structure of these regions. In particular, the variations caused by CO 2 and CH 4 doublings and halvings from present day mixing ratios are presented. The results indicate that the mesosphre and thermosphere temperatures will cool by about 10K and 50K respectively as the CO 2 and CH 4 mixing ratios are doubled. These regions are heated by similar amounts when the trace gas mixing ratios are halved. Compositional redistributions also occur in association with changes in the temperature profile. The results show that global change will occur in the upper atmosphere and ionosphere as well as in the lower atmosphere during the 21st century.

Received 14 September 1989; accepted 5 October 1989.

Can you explain where does this idea that stratospheric cooling, as a consequence of GHG emission, was not predicted by science?

Or is it GRL also a part of the world-domination conspiracy of left-wing scientists?

 

[Megalodon]

It's the minutia de jour, old boy. They come and they go, and Rodale goes with them.

Yes, I've noticed that... It's like playing whack-a-mole, but against a dumber adversary.

The stratosphere is a fine refuge. There are other cooling influences, so you have some play in attribution. Temperatures up there are tricky to measure, and we're pretty new at the game. It's ideal GWSceptic territory.

Actually it's only a refuge if you don't have access to databases of scientific literature. As the abstract above shows, the effect was predicted in 89...

Loud-mouthed schmucks... the lot of them.

 

[David Rodale]

Have a problem with it, schmuck? Write a rebuttal! Or better yet, ask one of the bloggers you feed on to write one... You can even submit it to Energy and Environment.

Read the IPCC

 

[Megalodon]

BTW, here is the global values shifts of temperature, throughout the atmosphere.



And for those who like to focus on the troposphere, here is the breakdown by latitude



Let the hand-waving start...

 

[Slimething]

But he does not justify the numbers or references the equations used.

All that is needed to evaluate the validity of a claim.

The 69% claim is not what I commented about. I commented on the first-order prediction of temperature increase based on actual temperature data vs CO2 concentrations. That k number is the maximum warming rate from any source. From there, you have to use an estimate of how much of that k is due to GHG and how much is due to other factors.

I knew I had seen something similar to mhaze's analysis. Stephen Schwartz has made a similar analysis without adding the made up solar component. His estimate is 1.1±0.5 deg C for C02 doubling. This is on the low end of other models that predict 2 to 4.5 deg C for doubling CO2.

If you have actual measurements that by definition include all possible components, made-up or otherwise, why do you need to correct the first-order model? You're losing me here. I looked at his abstract and could not see any justification for messing with the thermodynamics of the case.

Of course contrarians are going to take this discrepancy and argue is the end of AGW.

You keep using the term "contrarian" to label people who don't agree with you. How is that contrarian? A contrarian would be someone who disagrees automatically, as in opposional-defiant disorder. That's not what we have here. There's a few of us who want a full scientic treatment of these claims before we either believe them or make changes specifically for these claims.

Also, no one can argue that a small number negates AGW. The true warming of AGW alone has not been isolated, only the effective number of the all contributions.

This is all underlined by the assumption that 1 deg C change won't kill our way of life. Which in truth it might.

You must live in San Diego. That's the city with the lowest day-to-day temperature variance. Nice place. The rest of us live in places where daily temperatures vary by much more than 1 C on any given day. My way of life sucks but it's not because of the daily temperature.

 

[Slimething]

Damn' straight. The proper study of Man is Man.

We're talking science here. Try to keep up.

I understand the science I talk about perfectly well.

Nope. If you can dismiss Einstein's relativity theories just because you don't use them in everyday life, you don't understand science.

I already have a degree in something more remunerative than physics, and my main interest is in history anyway. Then there's the garden to think about.

Thanks for being honest finally about your true interests. Money and plants. Yeah, if I want to know about thermodynamics, I'll be sure to give you a call.

And I'm very keen on context. Context is at the root of scepticism; you have to understand its context before you can judge a statement.

You haven't been able to place all the physiccs you bandy about re AGW in any type of context. To you, these models are absolute and primal, exempt from any limits.

There are physical forces specific to the tropics? I'm sure I'd have noticed that claim. Go on, give me a clue.

That's what the guy at RealClimate seems to believe. Write him. You don't believe me when I say the same thing, although I don't limit myself to the tropics with that statement. Go ahead. Write him. What are you worried about? He might help you with context.

 

[mhaze]

Of course another approach

Originally Posted by Alric
I knew I had seen something similar to mhaze's analysis. Stephen Schwartz has made a similar analysis without adding the made up solar component. His estimate is 1.1±0.5 deg C for C02 doubling. This is on the low end of other models that predict 2 to 4.5 deg C for doubling CO2.
​

If you have actual measurements that by definition include all possible components, made-up or otherwise, why do you need to correct the first-order model? You're losing me here. I looked at his abstract and could not see any justification for messing with the thermodynamics of the case.

The 69% claim is not what I commented about. I commented on the first-order prediction of temperature increase based on actual temperature data vs CO2 concentrations. That k number is the maximum warming rate from any source. From there, you have to use an estimate of how much of that k is due to GHG and how much is due to other factors.

Well, I noted where I got the 69% other factor (solar, peer reviewed).

Another approach would be to presume that an amount of 20th century warming equal to 17th (or 18th) century warming was natural (since it was natural when it happened in those times, no AGW then). But this leaves the AGW believers with basically, nothing.

How about we go that route?

 

[mhaze]

Yes, I've noticed that... It's like playing whack-a-mole, but against a dumber adversary. Actually it's only a refuge if you don't have access to databases of scientific literature. As the abstract above shows, the effect was predicted in 89... Loud-mouthed schmucks... the lot of them.

Read the IPCC, ch. 9.

 

[David Rodale]

BTW, here is the global values shifts of temperature, throughout the atmosphere.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_28147daab456ac25.jpg

And for those who like to focus on the troposphere, here is the breakdown by latitude

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_28147daabbcc276f.jpg

Let the hand-waving start...

No hand waiving needed. Here, allow someone who does know what is going on explain it. Lindzen must have heard your cries of despair as it is fresh off the press and saves me time:
CO2 and Global Warming

“I used this data to show that the trend at 300 hPa was not about 2.5 x the surface trend which is what greenhouse warming [models] requires.” Apparently climate models that predict global warming ala increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 assume increasing temperature trends in the troposphere, where CO2 concentrates, and the reality is the troposphere is not getting hotter, it is getting cooler.

 

[David Rodale]

Is the correlation between solar proxies and clouds
affected by ENSO and volcanic events?

Studies of correlation between the cloud cover and solar proxies suggest that variations of solar activity can affect the cloud cover at Earth. Atmospheric processes are important when studying the extent of the link between the solar activity and global climate change and it was suggested that climatic or terrestrial quasi-periodic and sporadic phenomena, such as ENSO and/or major volcanic eruptions, which do affect the cloud formation, may influence the results of statistical studies of the Sun-cloud relation. Using partial and total correlation analysis, we show that removing ENSO and volcanic years from the full-set analysis does not alter the results. Moreover, some relations, as for instance the anticorrelation between low clouds and UV irradiance, are improved. This supports the idea that the solar signal affects clouds directly. An interesting result relates to an area in the eastern Pacific, where the full-set analysis showed that the relationship between cosmic ray induced ionization and clouds is opposite to the global one. This odd correlation is no longer observed when the “problematic” years are removed. We conclude that, although removing years of strong ENSO and volcanic eruptions has no important effect on global correlation patterns, caution must be paid when interpreting the results of correlation studies in some areas, prone to be affected by extreme internal climate processes.

 

[mhaze]

Is the correlation between solar proxies and clouds affected by ENSO and volcanic events?

well, like I gotta comment, this stuff is real headache level complicated.

Like, you gotta actually read, think to plough thru well, this there science stuff, and some of these papers like, ten or twenty pages with lots of like, equations and math and stuff, and wouldn't if all be a lot easier if we could like, just blame all the warming on CO2?

I mean like, the planet's getting warming, right?

What, its cooling? Well, like, blame that, you know, like on co2 too, like cool, man!