2017 is the 2nd Warmest Year on Record

[Lord of Planar]

Actually you still have not demonstrated that you are capable of anything more than rhetoric.
If you cannot understand the science, why are you here discussing it?

That's what I want to know. And why I never reply to him any more.

 

[Surface Detail]

Your inability to comprehend that the last paper you cited was only published because it illustrates an unusual anomaly from the overall global warming seen everywhere else tells me you don’t understand the state of the science of AGW.


I wonder if this weird ‘do my math problem!’ thing is a staple of other conspiracy theory adherents?

It is, unfortunately, pretty common. There seems to be quite a widespread delusion among AGW deniers in particular that the ability to do basic arithmetic is all that is required to be a scientist.

They remind me of the bottom set high school students to whom I once had the dubious pleasure of teaching basic science. No matter what the problem, they had a tendency to divide the large number by the small number and present that as the answer. Then they would argue that, since they'd done the arithmetic correctly (using a calculator), that must be the answer!

 

[longview]

It is, unfortunately, pretty common. There seems to be quite a widespread delusion among AGW deniers in particular that the ability to do basic arithmetic is all that is required to be a scientist.

They remind me of the bottom set high school students to whom I once had the dubious pleasure of teaching basic science. No matter what the problem, they had a tendency to divide the large number by the small number and present that as the answer. Then they would argue that, since they'd done the arithmetic correctly (using a calculator), that must be the answer!

The math is straight forward enough, what do you get for the forcing warming for
the changes in CO2, the changes in CH4 and the increase in TSI since 1850?
compare that number to the HadCrut4 average increase over the same period.
The American Chemical Society has the formulas, simply plug in the new values.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

 

[Surface Detail]

The math is straight forward enough, what do you get for the forcing warming for
the changes in CO2, the changes in CH4 and the increase in TSI since 1850?
compare that number to the HadCrut4 average increase over the same period.
The American Chemical Society has the formulas, simply plug in the new values.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html

Thank you for illustrating my point.

 

[longview]

Thank you for illustrating my point.

So, what kind of forcing warming do you expect for just those three variables?
the answer is central to the AGW question.
Science is about finding even the answers we don't like!

 

[SirGareth]

Thank you for illustrating my point.

So its true that 2018 is set to go down as the most gullible year "on record"

 

[Threegoofs]

It is, unfortunately, pretty common. There seems to be quite a widespread delusion among AGW deniers in particular that the ability to do basic arithmetic is all that is required to be a scientist.

They remind me of the bottom set high school students to whom I once had the dubious pleasure of teaching basic science. No matter what the problem, they had a tendency to divide the large number by the small number and present that as the answer. Then they would argue that, since they'd done the arithmetic correctly (using a calculator), that must be the answer!

You think it would dawn on them at some point that the scientists who do this work are more than competent mathematically, so doing little equations to come up with conclusions that oppose virtually all established science is just ridiculous on its face.

 

[Surface Detail]

So, what kind of forcing warming do you expect for just those three variables?
the answer is central to the AGW question.
Science is about finding even the answers we don't like!

It has nothing to do with liking the answers or not. It's just not clear what you're asking. What exactly do you mean by "forcing warming"? That's not a common term. Do you mean the warming that results from direct forcing due to these factors, or do you mean including the water vapour feedback? What period of time are you talking about?

 

[Threegoofs]

It has nothing to do with liking the answers or not. It's just not clear what you're asking. What exactly do you mean by "forcing warming"? That's not a common term. Do you mean the warming that results from direct forcing due to these factors, or do you mean including the water vapour feedback? What period of time are you talking about?

It means whatever it needs to to come up with a conclusion that shows AGW is not a problem.

Science is easy when you know your conclusion and then find ways to confirm it!

 

[longview]

It has nothing to do with liking the answers or not. It's just not clear what you're asking. What exactly do you mean by "forcing warming"? That's not a common term. Do you mean the warming that results from direct forcing due to these factors, or do you mean including the water vapour feedback? What period of time are you talking about?

Simply the direct warming as a result of the energy imbalances from the addition of CO2, CH4, and changes in TSI.
The ΔT as described by the American Chemical society, in their article on climate sensitivity.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
Change in CO2 level = energy imbalance= ΔT
Change in CH4 level =energy imbalance = ΔT
Change in TSI is a change in energy imbalance =ΔT
The core of AGW is not that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that the warming from CO2 will be amplified
through feedbacks to produce much greater warming, (with long latency).
For the time period, since 1850, the start of the Hadcrut4 data set.

 

[Surface Detail]

Simply the direct warming as a result of the energy imbalances from the addition of CO2, CH4, and changes in TSI.
The ΔT as described by the American Chemical society, in their article on climate sensitivity.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
Change in CO2 level = energy imbalance= ΔT
Change in CH4 level =energy imbalance = ΔT
Change in TSI is a change in energy imbalance =ΔT
The core of AGW is not that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that the warming from CO2 will be amplified
through feedbacks to produce much greater warming, (with long latency).
For the time period, since 1850, the start of the Hadcrut4 data set.

Reading from the chart on that page, the total ΔF from CO2, CH4 and TSI from 1750 to 2005 is about 1.7+0.4+0.1 = 2.2 W·m-2.

This would give a ΔT of roughly [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K (coincidentally the same as that predicted earlier in the paper re the ice age)

Of course, this neglects the four-to-fivefold amplification from water vapour feedback.

 

[SirGareth]

Simply the direct warming as a result of the energy imbalances from the addition of CO2, CH4, and changes in TSI.
The ΔT as described by the American Chemical society, in their article on climate sensitivity.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
Change in CO2 level = energy imbalance= ΔT
Change in CH4 level =energy imbalance = ΔT
Change in TSI is a change in energy imbalance =ΔT
The core of AGW is not that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that the warming from CO2 will be amplified
through feedbacks to produce much greater warming, (with long latency).
For the time period, since 1850, the start of the Hadcrut4 data set.

Anyone who who strikes a match has observed a positive feedback mechanism at work. Its alarmingly simple. Perhaps the first strike creates a tiny errant spark but does not raise the potassium chlorate-sulfur mixture temperature high enough to cause the sulfur to oxidize creating heat to release more oxygen and heat from the rapid heat-generated dissociation of the potassium chlorate. But on the second strike, the temperature is reached and positive feedback occurs, then a runaway reaction is unstoppable until the fuel that supports this positive feedback mechanism is exhausted.

Lets see how positive feedback occurs with the Earths atmospheric content: We know that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas but water vapor is even a much more powerful greenhouse gas.

At some point someone on Earth will light a match and as the match stick burns jut one too many CO2 molecules will be created and this ONE molecule will kick off the chain reaction by trapping just one too many photons thus raising the temperature of the Earth by just a tad but all it takes is a tad to cause just ONE more ocean water to evaporate trapping even more photons and withing seconds the rate of increase (the derivative) rises "exponentially" and nothing will stop this "positive feedback" until the seas have completely boiled off and the atmosphere is now a roiling hothouse, hot enough to cremate all life on Earth releasing even more deadly CO2 until the Earth is just a cinder.

This is the reality of CO2's positive feedback mechanism and the horror is that you just might be the person who strikes that match to send us all over the tipping point into fiery hell.

On the other hand, atmospheric CO2 levels have been 20 times what they are today with no real change in the Earth's atmospheric temperature.

So just maybe the "positive feedback" of CO2 is just one more crackpot theory of loser leftists who call themselves "scientists" but who must feed at the public trough since they are incapable of doing anything productive.

I'll leave it to you to decide which version of CO2 and "positive feedback" is correct.

 

[Threegoofs]

Anyone who who strikes a match has observed a positive feedback mechanism at work. Its alarmingly simple. Perhaps the first strike creates a tiny errant spark but does not raise the potassium chlorate-sulfur mixture temperature high enough to cause the sulfur to oxidize creating heat to release more oxygen and heat from the rapid heat-generated dissociation of the potassium chlorate. But on the second strike, the temperature is reached and positive feedback occurs, then a runaway reaction is unstoppable until the fuel that supports this positive feedback mechanism is exhausted.

Lets see how positive feedback occurs with the Earths atmospheric content: We know that CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas but water vapor is even a much more powerful greenhouse gas.

At some point someone on Earth will light a match and as the match stick burns jut one too many CO2 molecules will be created and this ONE molecule will kick off the chain reaction by trapping just one too many photons thus raising the temperature of the Earth by just a tad but all it takes is a tad to cause just ONE more ocean water to evaporate trapping even more photons and withing seconds the rate of increase (the derivative) rises "exponentially" and nothing will stop this "positive feedback" until the seas have completely boiled off and the atmosphere is now a roiling hothouse, hot enough to cremate all life on Earth releasing even more deadly CO2 until the Earth is just a cinder.

This is the reality of CO2's positive feedback mechanism and the horror is that you just might be the person who strikes that match to send us all over the tipping point into fiery hell.

On the other hand, atmospheric CO2 levels have been 20 times what they are today with no real change in the Earth's atmospheric temperature.

So just maybe the "positive feedback" of CO2 is just one more crackpot theory of loser leftists who call themselves "scientists" but who must feed at the public trough since they are incapable of doing anything productive.

I'll leave it to you to decide which version of CO2 and "positive feedback" is correct.

Love how in one thread we do not know what the current global temperature is at all (therefore no AGW!) and in another thread we know that the earths temperature was not changed from today when CO2 was 20x higher.

At least you’re consistently inconsistent!

 

[longview]

Reading from the chart on that page, the total ΔF from CO2, CH4 and TSI from 1750 to 2005 is about 1.7+0.4+0.1 = 2.2 W·m-2.

This would give a ΔT of roughly [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K (coincidentally the same as that predicted earlier in the paper re the ice age)

Of course, this neglects the four-to-fivefold amplification from water vapour feedback.

Based on 10 year averaging The Hadcrut4 data set,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
has increased .89 C since 1850.
For the purposes of temperature anomalies degrees K and degrees C are the same graduations,
but even with .7 C that only leaves .19 C for possible feedbacks to the known warming roughly 70 years earlier.
if your four-to-fivefold amplification from water vapour feedback existed, it has always been there,
so the .2C of warming before 1940 would be subject to those amplification factors,
I think Hansen said that 70% of ECS would be complete in 70 years.
If the amplification factor were fourfold, then that pre 1940 .2 C would be (.2 C X 4)*.7= .56 C.
the difficulty with that number, is there is only .19 C of unknown available,
and we still have not taken off the .308 W·m–2 from the TSI increase (roughly .09 C).

 

[longview]

I'll leave it to you to decide which version of CO2 and "positive feedback" is correct.

The reality is that if the atmosphere were that unbalanced, it would have gone into screaming
mad oscillations before life formed on earth.
My point is that when we subtract all of the supposedly known contributors,
there is little remaining to be counted in this amplified feedback.

 

[Surface Detail]

Based on 10 year averaging The Hadcrut4 data set,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg.txt
has increased .89 C since 1850.
For the purposes of temperature anomalies degrees K and degrees C are the same graduations,
but even with .7 C that only leaves .19 C for possible feedbacks to the known warming roughly 70 years earlier.
if your four-to-fivefold amplification from water vapour feedback existed, it has always been there,
so the .2C of warming before 1940 would be subject to those amplification factors,
I think Hansen said that 70% of ECS would be complete in 70 years.
If the amplification factor were fourfold, then that pre 1940 .2 C would be (.2 C X 4)*.7= .56 C.
the difficulty with that number, is there is only .19 C of unknown available,
and we still have not taken off the .308 W·m–2 from the TSI increase (roughly .09 C).

You calculation doesn't make sense.

Just looking at the bolded line, your use of the 0.7 C figure ignores both the fact that the current greenhouse gas concentrations have not prevailed for the last 70 years, and that 0.7 C is the final equilibrium figure. It's how much you'd expect the temperature to eventually rise to (if there was no water vapour in the atmosphere), not what it would be now.

Also, I think you've misunderstood the 70 year figure. It's part of the definition of the transient climate response (TCR), not an outcome.

 

[Threegoofs]

You calculation doesn't make sense.

Just looking at the bolded line, your use of the 0.7 C figure ignores both the fact that the current greenhouse gas concentrations have not prevailed for the last 70 years, and that 0.7 C is the final equilibrium figure. It's how much you'd expect the temperature to eventually rise to (if there was no water vapour in the atmosphere), not what it would be now.

Also, I think you've misunderstood the 70 year figure. It's part of the definition of the transient climate response (TCR), not an outcome.

But the arithmetic is right, so therefore he has to be correct.

 

[longview]

You calculation doesn't make sense.

Just looking at the bolded line, your use of the 0.7 C figure ignores both the fact that the current greenhouse gas concentrations have not prevailed for the last 70 years, and that 0.7 C is the final equilibrium figure. It's how much you'd expect the temperature to eventually rise to (if there was no water vapour in the atmosphere), not what it would be now.

Also, I think you've misunderstood the 70 year figure. It's part of the definition of the transient climate response (TCR), not an outcome.

You do not understand climate forcing, there is minimal latency between the energy imbalance
and the change in the temperature of the surface troposphere system.
Gavin Schmidt mentioned this in one of his responses in realclimate.
What the IPCC models really say « RealClimate
[

Response: No. There is no lag to the forcing and it would only look good in the one case he picked.

We see this every day when the sun comes up, Sunrise changes the energy imbalance, a few hours later,
the air temperature adjusts upward to the new higher energy, the higher the humidity, the longer it takes.
Peak temperatures, are a few hours after peak energy, pending other weather happenings.

 

[Surface Detail]

You do not understand climate forcing, there is minimal latency between the energy imbalance
and the change in the temperature of the surface troposphere system.
Gavin Schmidt mentioned this in one of his responses in realclimate.
What the IPCC models really say « RealClimate
[
We see this every day when the sun comes up, Sunrise changes the energy imbalance, a few hours later,
the air temperature adjusts upward to the new higher energy, the higher the humidity, the longer it takes.
Peak temperatures, are a few hours after peak energy, pending other weather happenings.

He said that there is no lag to the forcing, not that there is no lag in the temperature change resulting from the forcing.

As regards night and day temperatures, you are looking at superficial temperature changes resulting from huge changes in incident solar radiation (from zero at night to full daytime intensity). It's very different to changing the temperature of the entire land and ocean with just a few Wm-2 difference. For a somewhat closer analogy, consider the seasons, where the hottest and coldest parts of the year lag the summer and winter solstices by a month or so.

 

[Threegoofs]

You do not understand climate forcing, there is minimal latency between the energy imbalance
and the change in the temperature of the surface troposphere system.
Gavin Schmidt mentioned this in one of his responses in realclimate.
What the IPCC models really say « RealClimate
[
We see this every day when the sun comes up, Sunrise changes the energy imbalance, a few hours later,
the air temperature adjusts upward to the new higher energy, the higher the humidity, the longer it takes.
Peak temperatures, are a few hours after peak energy, pending other weather happenings.

You should talk to LoP sometime.

He keeps telling us that the sun has a latency of decades.

Odd that you never called him out on this oft repeated point of his.

 

[SirGareth]

Love how in one thread we do not know what the current global temperature is at all (therefore no AGW!) and in another thread we know that the earths temperature was not changed from today when CO2 was 20x higher.

At least you’re consistently inconsistent!

Not really, it's one thing to maintain the Earth was colder during the maximum ice extant some 15,000 years ago than it is today.

So just what makes this claim different from that of your AGW fraud?

1) No is claiming that one year 15000 years ago is 1/100 of a degree "hotter" or colder than another as is the case today where we are supposed to believe the average temperature of the world in 1850 (or 1890) can be assessed to such accuracy.

2) No one is demanding that a gate-keeper's fee be collected from every soul on Earth to pay for their "carbon sin" that every socialist politician and his bevy of climate priests are somehow collecting for themselves but at the same time exempted from paying for their own "sin"

This puts my climate claims in the realm of the believable and yours where they have always belonged, in the toilet called socialism.

 

[longview]

He said that there is no lag to the forcing, not that there is no lag in the temperature change resulting from the forcing.

As regards night and day temperatures, you are looking at superficial temperature changes resulting from huge changes in incident solar radiation (from zero at night to full daytime intensity). It's very different to changing the temperature of the entire land and ocean with just a few Wm-2 difference. For a somewhat closer analogy, consider the seasons, where the hottest and coldest parts of the year lag the summer and winter solstices by a month or so.

The latency in the change in air temperature from a CO2 induced energy imbalance is measured
in quantum decay state times, in the amount of time an excited CO2 molecule starts to decay,
and transfer it's energy to surrounding molecules and atoms.
The spontaneous decay time for a 15 um excited CO2 molecule.
Whatever CO2 is going to do, that is it's cycle time.

 

[longview]

You should talk to LoP sometime.

He keeps telling us that the sun has a latency of decades.

Odd that you never called him out on this oft repeated point of his.

You keep confusing CO2's direct response with ECS, I am guessing that is because you do not really
understand the different factors in this concept know as AGW.

 

[Surface Detail]

The latency in the change in air temperature from a CO2 induced energy imbalance is measured
in quantum decay state times, in the amount of time an excited CO2 molecule starts to decay,
and transfer it's energy to surrounding molecules and atoms.
The spontaneous decay time for a 15 um excited CO2 molecule.
Whatever CO2 is going to do, that is it's cycle time.

That has got to be one of your most ridiculous posts to date.

Not only does the decay time of an excited CO2 molecule have nothing whatsoever to do with the rate at which the bulk air (or ground and ocean) warms, very few of the CO2 atoms actually lose their energy by spontaneous decay. Almost all of them lose the energy in inelastic collisions with neighbouring molecules (at atmospheric temperature and pressure).

 

[Tim the plumber]

Reading from the chart on that page, the total ΔF from CO2, CH4 and TSI from 1750 to 2005 is about 1.7+0.4+0.1 = 2.2 W·m-2.

This would give a ΔT of roughly [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K (coincidentally the same as that predicted earlier in the paper re the ice age)

Of course, this neglects the four-to-fivefold amplification from water vapour feedback.

Given we have had a aprox 0.7c (0.8c ish) increase since then, why was there no four or five fold amplification over that period?