A New Paper to Explain the Pause

[code1211]

Hmmm. So much for Spain. I'd rather have been in Italy.

My very limited understanding of history and the standards of living for the average guy makes me think that there is no place in the world or in history that I would rather live than right here and rich now.

I have a bigger TV than any of the Caesers ever had.

 

[longview]

An increase in radiative forcing (W/m^2) due to more atmospheric GHGs would presumably be more or less instantaneous, but that doesn't translate into an instantaneous increase in global annual temperatures (°C). It takes time to fully heat the climate system, most notably the oceans - hence the difference between the transient climate response to incrementally increasing forcing, and its equilibrium sensitivity. Hansen et al 2004, for example, estimated that for a new radiative forcing value it would take some 25-40 years for 60% of the full effect to be manifest in annual surface temperatures. Alternatively, Wetheral et al 2001 suggested that "the climate system's transient SAT response lags the present day radiative forcing by approximately 20 years, leading to a present-day warming commitment of about 1.0K."

In other words we're looking at either c. 0.45 degrees' warming from CO2 and 0.35 from other factors (based on 100% of emissions up to 25 years ago and 60% of emissions since, an over-estimate compared with Hansen et al 2004), or else 1 degree of total warming in the pipeline of which 0.6 degrees is from CO2.

Our estimates are far too simplistic to be particularly meaningful, but they do support the conclusion that if present trends continue (CO2 reaches 560ppm by c. 2070 and continues rising) we'll be commiting ourselves to 1.2 degrees or more of additional warming in the next hundred years.

The IPCC disagrees with you.
Baede et al, still cited in IPCC AR5 says.

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,with everything else remaining the same,
the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2.
In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm−2.
To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C
(with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
The direct response of CO2 is a quantum effect, and would be measured in hours.
(I.E. it still cools down at night)

 

[Jack Hays]

My very limited understanding of history and the standards of living for the average guy makes me think that there is no place in the world or in history that I would rather live than right here and rich now.

I have a bigger TV than any of the Caesers ever had.

Fair enough. I was limiting myself to 15th century choices. To your point, whenever I hear someone talk about how much better life was sometime in the past I always tell them I have only one word in reply: dentistry.

 

[Threegoofs]

The boiled frog analogy is perfect for this.

Everyone knows about it and it's not true.

Just like CAGW.

Every blogger you mean?

 

[Threegoofs]

The IPCC disagrees with you.
Baede et al, still cited in IPCC AR5 says.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
The direct response of CO2 is a quantum effect, and would be measured in hours.
(I.E. it still cools down at night)

Equilibrium. It's not a tough concept.

And your quote says nothing about it. You might want to look up the definition of 'if', and note that the only one who thinks it's measured in hours is you.

 

[LowDown]

I am quite well aware that the fundamental import of this paper, if its findings were corroborated, would be to support AGW orthodoxy. I found it interesting and I posted it.

This makes 58 (59?) different explanations for the halt in global warming published in the peer reviewed literature. (Don't call it a pause. We don't know for sure whether or not warming will ever resume.). So the question is which of these explanations, if any, is right.

By the way, no, climate scientists didn't acknowledge climate cycles or deemed them unimportant until a few years ago. Now they are trying to use them to save their computer models in the face of the global warming halt. The assumption seems to be that the models are correct, that warming would be happening if not for some unforeseen natural variation which will be temporary after which warming will resume. Again, only time will tell if this is correct. It's not a given.

 

[Mithrae]

The IPCC disagrees with you.
Baede et al, still cited in IPCC AR5 says.

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,with everything else remaining the same,
the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2.
In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm−2.
To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C
(with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-01.pdf
The direct response of CO2 is a quantum effect, and would be measured in hours.
(I.E. it still cools down at night)

Strange as this may seem to you, a local decrease in incoming shortwave radiation of around 1360Wm-2 at the equator does tend to have quite a rapid cooling effect :roll: Only the intentionally self-delusional could persuade themselves that the setting sun proves something about the climate response time of changing CO2 concentrations. Even so, the fact that hot rocks remain warm for many hours after sunset, or that lakes and oceans are only marginally warmer even after eight or nine hours of exposure to a summer day's +1360Wm-2, does help illustrate our planet's thermal inertia despite the flawed analogy.

I have tried to help you out of your confusion - and this is not the first time - but you are determined to remain hopelessly mired in ignorance. If you ever find yourself able to honestly answer this question, you might begin to understand: What units are used to measure the direct effect of atmospheric CO2 changes?

Here's a hint - it's not degrees Celsius.

Neither IPCC TAR nor AR5 support your self-delusion. You're talking about radiative forcing, but did you even bother to read where that term is explained in your link?

Radiative forcing and forcing variability
In an equilibrium climate state the average net radiation at the top of the atmosphere is zero. A change in either the solar radiation or the infrared radiation changes the net radiation. The corresponding imbalance is called “radiative forcing”. In practice, for this purpose, the top of the troposphere (the tropopause) is taken as the top of the atmosphere, because the stratosphere adjusts in a matter of months to changes in the radiative balance, whereas the surface-troposphere system adjusts much more slowly, owing principally to the large thermal inertia of the oceans.​

No, I guess you didn't bother to read that, did you? You prefer cherry-picking quotes (and misrepresenting even those) and hopelessly flawed logic to actually learning what you're talking about :lol:

 

[code1211]

Every blogger you mean?

Your answer is here:

Welcome to the International Scholars Office

 

[longview]

Strange as this may seem to you, a local decrease in incoming shortwave radiation of around 1360Wm-2 at the equator does tend to have quite a rapid cooling effect :roll: Only the intentionally self-delusional could persuade themselves that the setting sun proves something about the climate response time of changing CO2 concentrations. Even so, the fact that hot rocks remain warm for many hours after sunset, or that lakes and oceans are only marginally warmer even after eight or nine hours of exposure to a summer day's +1360Wm-2, does help illustrate our planet's thermal inertia despite the flawed analogy.

I have tried to help you out of your confusion - and this is not the first time - but you are determined to remain hopelessly mired in ignorance. If you ever find yourself able to honestly answer this question, you might begin to understand: What units are used to measure the direct effect of atmospheric CO2 changes?

Here's a hint - it's not degrees Celsius.

Neither IPCC TAR nor AR5 support your self-delusion. You're talking about radiative forcing, but did you even bother to read where that term is explained in your link?

Radiative forcing and forcing variability
In an equilibrium climate state the average net radiation at the top of the atmosphere is zero. A change in either the solar radiation or the infrared radiation changes the net radiation. The corresponding imbalance is called “radiative forcing”. In practice, for this purpose, the top of the troposphere (the tropopause) is taken as the top of the atmosphere, because the stratosphere adjusts in a matter of months to changes in the radiative balance, whereas the surface-troposphere system adjusts much more slowly, owing principally to the large thermal inertia of the oceans.​

No, I guess you didn't bother to read that, did you? You prefer cherry-picking quotes (and misrepresenting even those) and hopelessly flawed logic to actually learning what you're talking about :lol:

First if you will notice from my quote,

If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,with everything else remaining the same,
the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2.
In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm−2.
To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C
(with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes.

They are expressing the units of change in watts-2.
Nothing you have said changes the time period CO2 decays from an excited state to ground state.
I don't know about your house, but in mine we obey the laws of Physics.
An excited CO2 molecule will spontaneously decay back to ground state is less than 100 ms.
The Thermal inertia of the solids and liquids of the earth are a very different thing that the daily energy exchange with the atmospheric gasses.
If you think about just a bit, if the latency of the energy passing through CO2 were greater than say 24 hours,
the earth would have gone into thermal avalanche eons ago.

 

[code1211]

This makes 58 (59?) different explanations for the halt in global warming published in the peer reviewed literature. (Don't call it a pause. We don't know for sure whether or not warming will ever resume.). So the question is which of these explanations, if any, is right.

By the way, no, climate scientists didn't acknowledge climate cycles or deemed them unimportant until a few years ago. Now they are trying to use them to save their computer models in the face of the global warming halt. The assumption seems to be that the models are correct, that warming would be happening if not for some unforeseen natural variation which will be temporary after which warming will resume. Again, only time will tell if this is correct. It's not a given.

It's interesting, is it not, that natural variation is accepted when it benefits the zealots, but is dismissed when it does not.

 

[Mithrae]

First if you will notice from my quote,

They are expressing the units of change in watts-2.
Nothing you have said changes the time period CO2 decays from an excited state to ground state.

No it doesn't, because I'm not talking about the decay of CO2 from an excited state to a ground state. I'm talking about the observed vs. expected change in annual surface air temperatures. You pretended that you were too.

Is the decay of CO2 from an excited state to a ground state measured in degrees Celsius?

I don't know about your house, but in mine we obey the laws of Physics.
An excited CO2 molecule will spontaneously decay back to ground state is less than 100 ms.

So you expect surface temperatures to respond to changes in radiative forcing in less than 100ms, do you?

The Thermal inertia of the solids and liquids of the earth are a very different thing that the daily energy exchange with the atmospheric gasses.
If you think about just a bit, if the latency of the energy passing through CO2 were greater than say 24 hours,
the earth would have gone into thermal avalanche eons ago.

I suspect even you don't know what you're trying to say here, but I'll attempt to make sense of it nonetheless.

"Thermal avalanche" I'm guessing is meant to mean a snowball effect of temperatures getting endlessly hotter or endlessly colder.

"The latency of the energy passing through CO2"...? Perhaps you mean the climate's response time to a radiative imbalance? The "energy exchange with the atmospheric gasses," which you believe must occur in less than 24 hours?

By implication, what you're trying to say is that if there's a sphere rotating near an energy source, if it takes more than the rotation period for the darker side to become as cool as it can then surely that energy would build up and its temperatures would eventually spiral out of control!!!11

It's really hard to know what is going through your mind here, because that's obviously nonsense for more than one obvious reason :lol: Perhaps you would like an opportunity to collect your thoughts and clarify your meaning.

 

[longview]

No it doesn't, because I'm not talking about the decay of CO2 from an excited state to a ground state. I'm talking about the observed vs. expected change in annual surface air temperatures.

You are digressing from the subject,
You are trying to show additional latency from long term effects of warming the atmosphere, but the gas comprising the atmosphere
warms and cools every day and night.
But enough of this, What elements in the concept of AGW are Scientific facts, and which are speculation?
CO2 levels have increased ----- Fact
Average Temperatures have increased about .8 C in the last 133 years ----Fact (*1)
CO2 is a greenhouse gas--------Fact (*2)
The increase in CO2 has cause some of the warming ----- Fact(but level of the direct response is not resolved)
The direct response warming from additional CO2 will be amplified to cause several multiples of additional warming------Speculation(*3)

*1, Most of the increase in average temperature in in nighttime lows not going as low, not daytime highs.
*2, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and causes the atmosphere to warm. The mechanism of how it does this is based on 19th century Science
and my not be accurate.
*3, There is no empirical evidence that the additional forcing exists.


.