Wild Cobra

It's atmospheric warming in minimal, but on glacier and arctic ice, it causes the ice to absorb multiples more energy from the sun and atmosphere. Without soot, we wouldn’t see the ice caps melting at the rate they do, and this absorbed energy is a net increase to the earth as less is reflected outward. Yes, I assumed you meant the forcing change from 1750 to 2005/2011 (AR4/AR5). Soot on ice, is primarily ocean warming and ice melt. The IPCC AR4 claims 1.66 W/m^2 for CO2 and only 0.12 W/m^2 for solar. Here is the paper that comes from: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/KiehlTrenbBAMS97.pdf OK, I don't know how accurate those are. If you ever read KT '97 and other similar works, they describe their problems with the numbers adding up and adjusting them. For the purpose of the graph, that's fine. They also use emissivity = 1 for some of those calculation. I don't have a problem with the graph, and contend that CO2 total downward forcing is using the IPCC numbers on a log graph puts the total CO2 forcing at 30.26 W/m^2 for 1750 at 278 ppm, 31.92 W/m^2 for 2005 at 379 ppm, and 32.08 W/m^2 for 2011 390.48 ppm. Of course the numbers are slightly higher on new graphs, if my memory is correct, the 390 is now at 396. Anyway, the CO2 values come from the 324 W/mm^2 back radiation. The 2005 levels - the 1750 levels yield 31.92 - 30.26 = 1.66 W/m^2 as indicated in the AR4 for forcing change. Now is you consider the approximate 32 W/m^2 of CO2 forcing from the 324, it is under 10% of the greenhouse effect. Now if you use Hansen’s formula, you get 22.18, 23.89, and 24.06 W/m^2 for the 1750, 2005, and 2011 CO2 forcing value. Far less than 10% of the greenhouse effect. I have taken years back, another graph that is simplified from that, and edited it with what the numbers would be for 1750, showing that though, as claimed in the AR4, the direct solar change is 0.12 W/m^2, but the indirect forcing is far greater. The 390 and 324 don't just come out of thin air. They are the effect of the atmosphere and greenhouse gasses, acting as a feedback. Though changing the ppmv of a greenhouse gas induces a logarithmic response, that is to the feedback effect. Changing the solar intensity, as a source to this feedback, gives you a near linear change in response. OK. I have a serious problem with the musical chairs of the climate stations and accuracy over the years. Do we have any that have not been influence by land changes around them?

I disagree with that. I believe it's more like <25% greenhouse gasses, >50% solar, and a large portion from soot on ice, melting the northern ice. Of course there are other facters, and I believe the H2O feedback is from solar, not CO2. Hard to say. I will not dispute that assessment as I never tried to quantify it. Since CO2 is a well mixed gas into the upper atmosphere, and H2O is not, there is no saturation of H2O spectral lines to limit CO2's potential. The effect of that approximate 2 micron band is a very small percenatge of the solar power, so I think the effect would be small, but it may be significant. CO2 is capable of blocking a far greater level of power of upward longwave from the surface than the downward longwave of the sun, but much of the CO2 band is already saturated by H2O. I'm only saying that it is a reduction of energy making it to the surface, which when reemitted up to feed the greenhouse effect, is reduced. It is a negative feedback for CO2. To what significance it plays, I don't know. You mean the one in my signature? It is a clip taken from Wiseguy season 2 episode 9. Ron Silver speaks of the arrogance of NASA and people with degrees. Silver play a role of David Sternberg in this arc. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0749525/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt Episode date 1/18/89. I thought just the link would appear, I didn't know it would automatically display the YOUTUBE.

I was speaking in terms of the IR from greenhouse gasses and shortwave from the sun, for the effect on the oceans. The longwave of the sun that is absorbed, is mostly done so in the upper most atmosphere, and a different spectral band. I believe just under 2 microns, but I would have to look it up again. The more greenhouse gasses we have, reduces the suns longwave to the troposphere, so it is an effect that acts opposite of tropospheric greenhouse gasses. It is just one factor that naturally helps to mitigate greenhouse gas warming.

I have often wondered if that was part of Noah's flood.

I think it shows we have a communications breakdown. Not all the energy is reemitted. Some of the IR does heat the surface of the water. There will be that 4th power function where the water does respond to changes in downward IR and change temperture and reemit IR. As for the sun, I am refering to the shortwave that gets absorbed deeper than thre longwave. Yes, CO2 forcing has a higher change in flux when there is less H2O to compete with, but don't forget the soot on ice in the arctic.

Yes, a typo. I did mean radiative efficiency. If you think I’m wrong, can you explain how?

Here is the full Hansen/Sato paper. http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783709109724-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1328875-p174243184 And I read the first link as assessing the results if we see a 12 degree increase. add... LOL... I saved the Hansen/Sato paper to my HD, I already have a copy of it save date of 8/17/14. Thought I saw it before!

OK, it acts somewhat like an insulator. Indirectly, the CO2 does change the heat of the immediate surface of the ocean by changing the transfer of energy.

Funny thing is I edited and saved my changes before your response came in because I am trying to be more tactful than is natural. I really get tired of repeating things and then yes, nitpick, at the depth of penetration. You should understand that there is no actual zero for an expoential decay, so what was I to assume you were doing? When I see that type of reply, I see it as appealing to those who do not understand at all, or that yuo don't. I see it as an attack on me, confusing the debate with irrelavant nuances. Sorry if I'm wrong, but it baffles me that you know its an expoential decay, but then attack my stated depth of pentration just because my source was different. http://www.wyzant.com/resources/lessons/math/precalculus/exponential_functions

Yes, there are different metrics that can be used. I don't recall what the author of that graph used, but I think is was a percentage of the staring level. With an expoential decay, you never actually reach zero? They have to use a designated cutoff value, and their value places it as the depths seen. I will agree I could use a better term than immediate. Yes, there will be thermal conductance. There will also be emission of radiation like any blackbody/greybody does, and evaporative cooling of the ocean. If I recall, consensus has it that evaporative cooling is greater than the radiative warming from longwave, but I would have to look that up again. It also depends on the prvailing winds as they change the velocity of evaporation. You don't have as fast thermal radiative response at the very surface of the ocean with shortwave, as it warms the waters deeper than longwave can.

When your attenuator is going so far, over 100 meters of depth... Let me ask you this. If the visaible light enering the ocean isn't absorbed, what happens to it? What happens to it once it reaches, say, 400 meters of depth? I hope you don't think this energy vanished out of existance. Added: Layers of the Ocean The light that enters the surface and isn't reflected or absorbed by algae and other materials gets fully absorbed by around 1000 meters. The ocean absorbs this heat readily. No, it isn't the end of story. That's right, forget the context I put it is. I said "for short distances." Not my fault you disregard qualifiers of peoples words. The very minor absorption at short distances effectively absorb it all over great penetration depths. I thought I explained it well enough. Just how simple must I elaborate? You say you have a pretty decent understanding? Not from my view, when you fail to undertsand my words. I edited a couple graphs some time back. Trust me, I do understand what is happening. I don't think you really do. And do you think 1/3rd, absorbed deep enough that it doesn't immediately radiate back out is insignificamnt? OK...

Yes, they do, and the way the put together the various contributors to forcing, they have CO2 at about 100% of the forcing value, with others cancelling each other out. I am uncertain, but I can agree that CO2 may have the approximate 3.7 W/m^2 claimed. However, it's full force is on land and the ocean effectively absorb the longwave, heat the skin, and reemit is in short order. Plus, I have ever seen them account for the reduces solar from the extra CO2 blocking the longwave portion in the upper atmosphere. I believe its around the 2 micron spectral range. CO2 does warm the surface by redirecting longwave to the surface, but also redirects solar longwave away from the earth at the top of the atmosphere. Reducing the solar component reduces the source heat for the greenhouse effect. Some scientists have calculated that CO2 actually cools because of this. The 1.5 to 4.5 is not realistic. They simply do not account for the factors that are negative feedback properly. Back to the high end of 4.5 degrees. This is based on CO2 being 3.7 W/m^2 and H2O feedback. Consider if the 3.7 with blackbody formulas and this nets you a sensitivity of 0.68 degrees with no feedback. 0.3 degrees for the AR4 assessment of a 36.3% increase in CO2. The feedback is highly controversial. The ocean skin heating from added CO2 will yield some added warming, and in extra precipitation and latent heat, and is very small. There can be some H2O feedback, but not this extra 0.8 to 3.8 degrees. Go over the 1:1 threshold, and H2O is past a trip point itself, with no need of help. There is no tripping point for H2O feedback to solar changes, and the sun warms the oceans far deeper than CO2. Does it make sense that H2O feedback can exceed the H2O without going into runaway mode? This tells me that this extra evaporation which causes the extra absolute humidity has it's own regulating mode. We see that in more clouds, increasing the earth albedo. Higher albedo means less solar heating for the input to the greenhouse gas feedback. All the conditions have to violate how they naturally respond to get these hogh CO2 sensitivity values claimed, or be best case 100% of the time, which of course, never happens. I believe if people understand the science, their common sense leads them to near the same conclusions I have. I have not yet come across anyone on the various forums I visited over the years that actually understand the basic of these climate sciences. This lack of proper understanding allows for the IPCC and likes to imply results that are not true. It is absolutely clear, to anyone crunching the numbers, that the IPCC et al. do not include the indirect forcing cause by solar variations, in their solar radiative forcing results. In the AR4, they used a 0.12 W/m^2 value for solar flux since 1750 and I believe they reduced it to 0.06 in the AR5. These are the direct changes they can justify as a low increase, and it does not account for the extra greenhouse effect caused by the extra source heat to the greenhouse effect. It also does not account for the extra latent heat, or extra ocean warning. Using averaged year data instead of cycle average also skew the facts needed to account for equalized states. The six year span on the AR4 to AR5 places the solar about a half cycle off from each other. The solar start should also be 1713, not 1750, because of thermal inertial. Just like the greenhouse effect takes the incoming solar and holds more heat, the total greenhouse effect needs to be increased linearly with the incoming solar change as indirect solar heating. For every 0.1% increase in the suns output, the greenhouse effect should increase by close to that. A greenhouse effect, if stated to be 324 W/m^2, becomes 324.3 for a 0.1% increase. This puts the suns effect of indirect warming at 0.3 W/m^2 per 0.1% increase, and with an approximate increase of 0.2% to 1980 and thermal inertia, we can see an approximate 0.6 W/m^2 indirect solar warning hiding in the greenhouse gas warming. Read carefully how the IPCC specifies "direct" solar changes in their calculations. They never lie about it, but they effectively lie by omission. I have repeatedly tried to show simple facts behind misleading metrics the IPCC et al. used like RE (radiative forcing) and GWP (global warning potential.) I assume you have read what I said in the past about these. Can you say I'm wrong about what they truly indicate? Hint. You cannot, because I am not wrong.

It's this lack of understanding you have that makes it impossible to talk about this with you. The water is effectivley transparent to shortwave, but for short distance. It takes these several, and even hundreds of meters of depth to completely absorb the light that isn't reflected. Because the light is traveling so far before being fully absorbeed, it is effectively all absorbed. Longwave is absorbed at such a shallow depth, just microns, that it effectively radiates back out. I don't know what else to say if you don't understand this simplicty. There is no sense in attempting a debate with someone who doesn't comprehend what I say.

I've lost track of what context "outlier" was used, and not going to go back to look. I do recall using it to say I believe in the under 5% possibility the consensus community allows for error in their judgment. My complaint is that I have, for more than a decade, tied the thermal inertia of the ocean and sun together, and just been laughed at by everyone. Now there are recent papers that are assigning CO2 warming of the ocean and thermal inertia together. The 20 +/- 8 years is their assessment and may or may not be correct. I have revised my own assessments down to 55 from 70 years. I am completely open to being wrong on the time of equalization, but I will never agree there is no lag. Bludgeon? Sure, for those laughing at me before. If CO2 can show lag with thermal inertia, why not the sun? To me, it's silly to think CO2 has any appreciable thermal inertia with the ocean when all its spectral lines are absorbed in the top microns of the waters. The ocean so effectively absorbs the solar shortwave, and deep enough for this longer period equalization than CO2. Cooling starting in the 80's? Why? Because the graph shows a very minimal reduction of output? That reduction is nothing compared to increase starting at the beginning of the 20th century. Please stop believing what the bloggers at skeptical science say, and think about the science yourself. They are clearly agenda driven to protect the consensus. There is no one source of energy change that in such small changes can easily be seen in the climate. Too many other influences with radiative flux. We shouldn't forget extra energy the arctic ocean absorbs from the extra uncapped exposure. This is probably more than enough to counter the very small reduction is solar output since 1980. If I find the time, I will experiment with shorter timespans, but 20 years does seem short to me.

If a 95% of the models fail after a few years to predict occurrences, then how can the certainty be 95%? The peer review process is far from perfect, especially when it is a closed review process. All the journals from the AGW side are for profit journals. They appeal to what they think their subscribers want to pay for. Ever read their selection criteria? I think you misspoke there, because then you would be agreeing with me, that the sun is responsible for most the changes we have observed. No, the sun is responsible for the earth's average increase in temperature, but the thermal inertia of the oceans makes this a process taking several decades to equalize. My estimate is around 55 years. I will say the sun is the primary source, but the other factors modulate the heat. Some more than others. Some negative and some positive. Some faster, some slower. Try to poke holes? I have poked holes in the material. It is laced with errors of omission. It is laced with weasel words, and are ignored by people who are content in their confirmation bias. One thing everyone should understand if they are going to debate this topic is what RE and GWP actually look like. What they actually mean. Not what they imply, but I haven't met one person buying into the consensus that acknowledges they understand this simple part of the science. Yes. Possible, likely, but I disagree with probable. The use weasel words and ignore important factors in their writings to justify probable. Yes, the surface is changing, but the IPCC and likes completely dismiss the indirect impact of the solar changes. They include the indirect heat added into the greenhouse gasses. Being open to all data... Yes. How many of your beloved authors do that? Have they denied the rate is on the low end? No. They have however scurried with excuses for it and the most laughable to me is assigning thermal lag to the CO2 effect. CO2 only warms the skin of the ocean, it doesn't go the depths that shortwave energy does. For years I have argued solar energy lag from the thermal inertia of the ocean, but everyone laughed at me. Now that CO2 needs support in its claimed prominent mode, you guys don't laugh at the thermal inertia any more. Why is that? It looks like you are simply appealing to authority, than common sense. Not only have temperatures been on the low end of the predictions, but most models have been broken by them. How can the claim be anything but laughable that a doubling of CO2 can cause 4.5 degrees or more of warming... the high end of modeling... when CO2 stays in the low end? Shouldn't this be revised lower?

Willie, I post articles that show reasons to remain skeptical, and you post others as evidence to reamain in denial. Please stop being a denier of relavant information in science. If anyone allows this to be a debate on who has the most research, then it is a populatrity contest and no longer science. There are easily more than 20 times more artciles supporting the idea than mankind has caused most of the tbserved climate change and warming. Correlation only implies cause. It does not prove cause in such complex systems. I'll ask again. Can you explain what RE and GWP actually indicate, in your own words, rather than what they imply? It really should be a requirement for all debating, to understand some of these simple concepts involved in a thread topic, before posting. A debate about science should be about science. Actually debating what happens at the chemistry or physics of material. If you don't understand the material, then you are simply taking a side, and using what isn't viewed any better than propaganda by others.

Yawn. That's to your response Willie. Can you explain in your own words what RE and GWP actually are vs. what they imply? If not, don't expect more from me than getting bored with the parroting of dogma.

If you understand thermal inertia, then why the statement about the opposite direction for 35 years? To me, you proved you do not understand. Skeptics were the first to use thermal inertia, and we were laughed at. Funny how now, it is being used to explain the hiatus claim with CO2 by warmers.

Can you say "thermal inertia?" I think you are reading that incorrectly. He made claims to after this current solar cycle, and predicts a little ice age around 2060. In the abstract: Now of course, the body of the material is more detailed:

You guys want reasons why I am a skeptic, and claim the sun is the primary cause of change? Try this paper out for size: http://omicsgroup.org/journals/grand-minimum-of-the-total-solar-irradiance-leads-to-the-little-ice-age-2329-6755.1000113.pdf An article a few years older than that paper: http://en.ria.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html First four paragraphs: I am not alone in this idea. Scientists from other nations aren't ostracized like a heretic, like western scientists are for falling outside of the consensus view. How about this: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html There is little disagreement in the forcing in W/m^2 that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses cause, when their source energy for these forcings remains the same. Haven't you ever wondered what happens in the upper atmosphere? In the upper atmosphere, CO2 is not in competition with H2O, and CO2 mixes quite well at all levels. As CO2 increases, it actually reduced the solar forcing that makes to to the clouds and surface. This means there is less energy for the greenhouse effect to hold in. All these alarmist claims are ignoring the cooling effect CO2 also exhibits. There are a very small handful of scientists that claim CO2 causes more cooling than warming. I disagree with the net cooling aspect, but to omit certain facts becomes a lie that these scientists are perpetrating on society.

How about applying your side to the same standards before asking me to prove my opinion, from a thread, asking why we are skeptics. That is a lame request you have. As for other models... When around 95% of the models from the consensus crowd fail after a few years, shouldn't you be coming down on them instead? I continue to see people on the consensus side only attacking the messengers when it disagrees with their beliefs set in faith. You aren't practicing science when you do this, you are the true form of a denier when you do this. How about attacking the science of the article instead of looking like a religious zealot? You need to understand such works yourself and use your own mind to decide with instead of appealing to the authority of the consensus. I'm pretty sure I elaborated in one thread here about how the accepted average of various solar studies showing a significant increase in TSI since 1700. These account for more than half the warming. To account for only the 0.12 W/m^2 as laid out in the IPCC AR4, they completely ignore the indirect feedbacks caused by the increased solar, and in the AR5, the numbers are reduced yet again but using a solar cycle minimum instead of an 11 year average. If you have followed the IPCC reports without blinders, you will see they keep shifting values as needed to show CO2 as primary. If you have followed the source material of any study quantifying CO2 sensitivity used by the IPCC and others, you will see it is outdated and laughable the way they did these studies. I can only lead you guys to water. I cannot make you drink it. It is up to you, and I am not going to go out of my was with a crowd that uses unethical tactics that are not part of science. My God. Dismissing papers because of the publisher rather than its stand alone merit? Just how elitist are you? You need to understand the material. This tells me you are accepting other material without merit, other than it is by the right people… Appealing to authority… Misunderstanding the actual science behind terms like RE (Radiative Effieciency) and GWP (Greenhouse Warming Potential)? I'm not even going to bother when you all fail to understand some of the simplest deceptions used by the IPCC. I have explained these over and over, and I'm getting tired of it. Can you, in your own words, describe what RE and GWP are? Not what the IPCC implies them to be, but what they really are? Until you can explain such things to the rest of us, don't expect me to go too far in answering stupid questions because all I see are strawmen and other unethical tactics used by your side. I’m getting infuriated. I am getting infuriated with a forum called “Science Forum” when everyone here appears to only understand 6th grade science. To discredit? 100%. Absolutely beyond doubt, because the truth can be in the outlier of statistics. Facts make statistics and statistics do not make facts. Why do you deny real science by not understanding such truths? Again, you change my argument to suit what you consider a winning anwser for you. I find this rather unethical. I am only saying do not dismiss the material for the reasons you do. Instead, try to read and understand what he is dong and saying. You are denying what might be a very good insight to CO2 forcing. Over and over, I see the people who appeal to the authority of the IPCC, as the deniers. Deniers of real science.

Burden of proof for what? What have I said that requires proof? His are calculations are from known spectral sets. It is laughable that you guys will go to such lengths to discredit a paper. This reminds me of a political race, and you are using dirty tricks like politiocians use. You appear to de in denial of real science, over the same politics. You are wasting everyone's times when focusing on the linage of a scientific thought reather than its merit.

I would say yes. More so than ambigous works that show far less of the methodology. The sting done with vanity publications showed 18% of them were credible. Unless you have solid facts that this should be included in the 82%, then don't even go there. Facts make statistics, statistics do not make facts.

I don't know if it is preferable. It views a couple angles that are not in play with other models, and that suggests to me it is preferable. Not absolutle so however. Why can't you accept it is another paper that should be considered, instead of finding lame excuses to dismiss it, because it doesn't suit your confirmnation bias?

Then stay ignorant with your confirmation bias.