Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic [W:1239:1469]

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

How about a money quit, time index, or something please.

I bring it to you. If you can't understand it, that's not my problem.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

You are a piece of poorly planned and executed work.

I mentioned that volcanoes can and do impact the climate. You assumed I was saying volcanoes cause warming. i did not. You are wrong in that. You seem to be making a habit of being wrong. Strike one.

Ocean currents most obviously do have a very strong impact on the Climate. On the weather as well, but also on the climate. Ice age cycles did not start until the Isthmus of Panama was closed by Continental Drift thereby altering the ocean currents. You deny that ocean currents have an impact on climate. Strike two.

Warming describes the change in the temperature. The temperature has both increased and decreased over the sliver of time you have cherry picked. You deny this and are wrong. Strike three. You're out.

I am not discussing "deniers". I am discussing you. You are making another mistake interpreting what I say. I must admit, your thought process is entirely disjointed. I say something pretty clearly and you take off on a tangent unrelated to my statement. Interesting method of avoidance and denial.

I'm still waiting for you to define the "catastrophe" that you have said will occur due to AGW. You also avoided and denied that.

You do a lot of denying for a person who seems to despise deniers.

If you could get a hold of your runaway emotions on this you might be able to comprehend what you're reading. First, volcanoes do not in any significant way affect climate. Weather, yes, occasionally and briefly (as in years not decades) and never warming. So volcanoes are pretty much irrelevant and you still don't know the difference between weather and climate. We're right back at square 1 with you.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

The idea is that cloud formation can reduce the warming effect of the Sun's radiation.

I don't think that the effect of cosmic radiation is going to create another snowball Earth absent other influences.

However, there are some pretty brainy folks wondering abut this and doing research on it.

The impression I was getting from various comments was that the entire scientific community had rejected this notion out of hand and that is simply not so.

The research is ongoing.

The sun's rays and cosmic radiation are completely separate sources of energy. So the hypothesis that cosmic radiation might have some influence (over 32-150 million year cycles) on the formation and/or destruction of atmospheric aerosols is an interesting but completely untested and undocumented thought problem. Even its most ardent advocate (Shaviv) isn't trying to sell it as an alternate theory of current warming but has run into well-deserved resistance from the climate science community (Shaviv is an astrophysicist who's done absolutely no climate research) for comments suggesting that atmospheric CO2 may not be that big a deal. As of now he has absolutely no data or research to back up his hypothesis.

 

[code1211]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

That's the sort of empty comment that someone who's got no idea what he's talking about. It's basically just a whine in written form.

Continue beating up that straw man.

Why do respond quoting my posts when you are obviously just arguing with your voices?

 

[code1211]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

If you could get a hold of your runaway emotions on this you might be able to comprehend what you're reading. First, volcanoes do not in any significant way affect climate. Weather, yes, occasionally and briefly (as in years not decades) and never warming. So volcanoes are pretty much irrelevant and you still don't know the difference between weather and climate. We're right back at square 1 with you.

You never really leave square one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora

<snip>
The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, on the island of Sumbawa in Indonesia, was one of the most powerful in recorded history and is classified as a VEI-7 event. The eruption resulted in a brief period of significant climate change that consistently led to various cases of extreme weather. Several climate forcings coincided and interacted in a systematic manner that has not been observed since, despite other large eruptions that have occurred since the early 20th century. Although the link between the post-eruption climate changes and the Tambora event has been established by various scientists, the understanding of the processes involved is incomplete.[1]
<snip>

 

[code1211]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

The sun's rays and cosmic radiation are completely separate sources of energy. So the hypothesis that cosmic radiation might have some influence (over 32-150 million year cycles) on the formation and/or destruction of atmospheric aerosols is an interesting but completely untested and undocumented thought problem. Even its most ardent advocate (Shaviv) isn't trying to sell it as an alternate theory of current warming but has run into well-deserved resistance from the climate science community (Shaviv is an astrophysicist who's done absolutely no climate research) for comments suggesting that atmospheric CO2 may not be that big a deal. As of now he has absolutely no data or research to back up his hypothesis.

Unlike you, real and legitimate scientists continue the research on this topic.

Perhaps that why they are considered to be real and legitimate.

Immediately disqualifying a thought because it runs counter to your bias and prejudice is not science. It's you.

Actual science proposes an idea and then tries to prove it or disprove it. That is what is happening with this. CERN has produced a similar effect in the lab.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

". . . It should also be noted, that the U.S. Climate Reference Network, designed from the start to be free of the need for ANY adjustment of data, does not show any trend, as I highlighted in June 2015 in this article: Despite attempts to erase it globally, “the pause” still exists in pristine US surface temperature data

Here is the data plotted from that network:

Of course Tom Karl and Tom Peterson of NOAA/NCDC (now NCEI) never let this USCRN data see the light of day in a public press release or a State of the Climate report for media consumption, it is relegated to a backroom of their website mission and never mentioned. When it comes to claims about hottest year/month/day ever, instead, the highly adjusted, highly uncertain USHCN/GHCN data is what the public sees in these regular communications.
One wonders why NOAA NCDC/NCEI spent millions of dollars to create a state of the art climate network for the United States, and then never uses it to inform the public. Perhaps it might be because it doesn’t give the result they want? – Anthony Watts"


Approximately 92% (or 99%) of USHCN surface temperature data consists of estimated values

An analysis of the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) shows that only about 8%-1% (depending on the stage of processing) of the data survives in the climate record as unaltered/estimated data. Guest essay by John Goetz A previous post showed that the adjustment models applied to the GHCN data produce estimated values for approximately 66% of…
Continue reading →

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

". . . It should also be noted, that the U.S. Climate Reference Network, designed from the start to be free of the need for ANY adjustment of data, does not show any trend, as I highlighted in June 2015 in this article: Despite attempts to erase it globally, “the pause” still exists in pristine US surface temperature data

Here is the data plotted from that network:

Of course Tom Karl and Tom Peterson of NOAA/NCDC (now NCEI) never let this USCRN data see the light of day in a public press release or a State of the Climate report for media consumption, it is relegated to a backroom of their website mission and never mentioned. When it comes to claims about hottest year/month/day ever, instead, the highly adjusted, highly uncertain USHCN/GHCN data is what the public sees in these regular communications.
One wonders why NOAA NCDC/NCEI spent millions of dollars to create a state of the art climate network for the United States, and then never uses it to inform the public. Perhaps it might be because it doesn’t give the result they want? – Anthony Watts"


Approximately 92% (or 99%) of USHCN surface temperature data consists of estimated values

An analysis of the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) shows that only about 8%-1% (depending on the stage of processing) of the data survives in the climate record as unaltered/estimated data. Guest essay by John Goetz A previous post showed that the adjustment models applied to the GHCN data produce estimated values for approximately 66% of…
Continue reading →

And temperatures around here have rapidly declined since mid August.

Love how short term regional temperature trends are 'proof' of....something.

 

[fmw]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

The disagreement is between greedy people who only care about themselves versus people who would rather minimally defile Earth's ecosystems for future generations.

I agree. I view the concept of using nature to achieve a political goal to be as greedy as one can be.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

And temperatures around here have rapidly declined since mid August.

Love how short term regional temperature trends are 'proof' of....something.

It's an example of a temperature record with no estimates or adjustments included.

 

[Verax]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I agree. I view the concept of using nature to achieve a political goal to be as greedy as one can be.

Of course you do.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Originally Posted by code1211 View Post
You are a piece of poorly planned and executed work.

I mentioned that volcanoes can and do impact the climate. You assumed I was saying volcanoes cause warming. i did not. You are wrong in that. You seem to be making a habit of being wrong. Strike one.

Ocean currents most obviously do have a very strong impact on the Climate. On the weather as well, but also on the climate. Ice age cycles did not start until the Isthmus of Panama was closed by Continental Drift thereby altering the ocean currents. You deny that ocean currents have an impact on climate. Strike two.

Warming describes the change in the temperature. The temperature has both increased and decreased over the sliver of time you have cherry picked. You deny this and are wrong. Strike three. You're out.

I am not discussing "deniers". I am discussing you. You are making another mistake interpreting what I say. I must admit, your thought process is entirely disjointed. I say something pretty clearly and you take off on a tangent unrelated to my statement. Interesting method of avoidance and denial.

I'm still waiting for you to define the "catastrophe" that you have said will occur due to AGW. You also avoided and denied that.

You do a lot of denying for a person who seems to despise deniers.

If you could get a hold of your runaway emotions on this you might be able to comprehend what you're reading. First, volcanoes do not in any significant way affect climate. Weather, yes, occasionally and briefly (as in years not decades) and never warming. So volcanoes are pretty much irrelevant and you still don't know the difference between weather and climate. We're right back at square 1 with you.

Diditusmedius,

You have not read the post you have quoted. You do not understand that climate is the sum of weather. Volcanoes certainly can effect climate to a great extent. Normally by causing cooling.

Please spell out what disater you think is going to happen due to human induced global warming. Ideally cite the science to back this up.

 

[fmw]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Of course you do.

I don't agree with that link at all. I view the entire issue as a political one and I prefer to keep political issues about people and not nature. Nature is not political.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

There is too much emphasis placed on carbon dioxide and not enough on methane as means of man quickly altering greenhouse gases in the atmosphere This is primarily due to politics since big oil/gas are far easier to portray as the boogie man than dairy/meat farmers are.

Methane vs. Carbon Dioxide: A Greenhouse Gas Showdown | One Green Planet

Your link is very deceiving. they use facts, and terms invented by the IPCC et. al. that rely on the slope of a curve, that decreases as values increase.

Let's start with RE (radiative efficiency.) This is the slope created from the present level of a greenhouse gas by adding 1 ppb. It looks like this:

Please note, that the slope as plotted here is 0.0168 for CO2 and 0.4598 for CH4. I used 280 to 379 ppm for CO2 and 730 to 1774 ppb for CH4, and a slightly revised log curve so a zero value could be met. These values are close to the AR4 material, which even in it is inconsistent in values they use. The AR4 lists the RE of these gasses at 0.000014 and 0.00037 (page 212.) The factor of 1,000 difference is the slopes are because I plotted the graph in ppm rather than ppb. Anyway:

0.4598/0.0168 = 27.369

For the AR4:

0.00037/0.000014 = 26.43

So, this is the ratio of RE between the two gasses.

Now what GWP does is use this relationship, and assume an equal mass increase of 1 kg. See page 210 of the AR4. This means they are using 2.75 times more CH4 than CO2 to get the GWP number:

27.37 x 2.75 = 75.26

IPCC AR4:

26.43 x 2.75 = 72.68

Now that's the instantaneous number for the GWP calculation, then over time, the ratio changes dependent on the dissipation rates of the gasses. That's why we see the nominal 72 and 100 for GWP numbers. The link you provide is incorrect in that they say 100 times on a molecule by molecule basis, but it is mass. Not molecules counts that determine GWP.

You are citing agenda driven idiots!

Notice how fast the slope flattens as the gas levels increase.

Also consider this. The 1750 to 2005 forcing for CO2 and CH4

1.66 W/m^2 for CO2 from a 36.3% increase (278 to 379 ppm.)

0.48 W.m^2 for CH4 from a 146% increase (715 to 1774 ppb.)

Log curve fits:

CO2 W/m^2 = ln(379/278) x 5.35

CH4 W/m^2 = ln(1774/715) x 0.528

The ratio of 5.35 to 0.528 suggests that CO2 is 10 times stronger than CH4, bu CH4 is not a simply log fit since N2O and CH4 overlap too much in their spectra. The formula the AR4 uses for both gasses are closer to the graph I made than what a pure log formula yields.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

I bring it to you. If you can't understand it, that's not my problem.

LOL...

Serious?

Situation normal:

You have no explanation or understanding.

Too bad you are incapable of telling us how that discredits them.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

The sun's rays and cosmic radiation are completely separate sources of energy. So the hypothesis that cosmic radiation might have some influence (over 32-150 million year cycles) on the formation and/or destruction of atmospheric aerosols is an interesting but completely untested and undocumented thought problem. Even its most ardent advocate (Shaviv) isn't trying to sell it as an alternate theory of current warming but has run into well-deserved resistance from the climate science community (Shaviv is an astrophysicist who's done absolutely no climate research) for comments suggesting that atmospheric CO2 may not be that big a deal. As of now he has absolutely no data or research to back up his hypothesis.

You forget, the earths and sun's magnetic fields modulate the incoming cosmic rays.

My mistake...

You probably never knew that to forget it!

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Continue beating up that straw man.

Why do respond quoting my posts when you are obviously just arguing with your voices?

So you also don't know what a straw-man argument is, either. Have I told you how much fun it is to have you around here?

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

You forget, the earths and sun's magnetic fields modulate the incoming cosmic rays.

My mistake...

You probably never knew that to forget it!

By modulate, you mean protect of course. If only you were agile enough to make any connection (other than fanciful) to climate with that statement. Maybe you have a handy Shaviv quote at the ready.

 

[Jack Hays]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

By modulate, you mean protect of course. If only you were agile enough to make any connection (other than fanciful) to climate with that statement. Maybe you have a handy Shaviv quote at the ready.

There is a new [2014] paper in Environmental Research Letters that give additional support to Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis of climate change on Earth. The idea is basically this: the suns changing magnetic field has an influence on galactic cosmic rays, with a stronger magnetic field deflecting more cosmic rays and a weaker one allowing more into the solar system. The cosmic rays affect cloud formation on Earth by creating condensation nuclei. Here is a simplified block flowchart diagram of the process:


The authors of the the new paper have a similar but more detailed flowchart:

More support for Svensmark's cosmic ray modulation of Earth's

wattsupwiththat.com/.../more-support-for-svensmar...


Watts Up With That?


Apr 10, 2014 - There is a new paper in Environmental Research Letters that give additional support to Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis of climate ...

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

You do not understand that climate is the sum of weather.

Well, climate is weather over time. Don't know what you mean by "sum." That's a nonsense term in the discussion of weather and climate. Here are a official definitions that may help you (though I doubt it):

noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.

from: Climate | Define Climate at Dictionary.com

Climate is the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.[1] It is measured by assessing the patterns of variation in temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, precipitation, atmospheric particle count and other meteorological variables in a given region over long periods of time. Climate is different from weather, in that weather only describes the short-term conditions of these variables in a given region.

from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate

the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

from: Climate | Definition of climate by Merriam-Webster



Volcanoes certainly can effect climate to a great extent. Normally by causing cooling.

Not climate, weather. The Krakatoa eruption in 1883 was certainly as massive as any in human history. There also happens to be a global temperature record starting in 1880.* The record begins with in a relatively cold period as compared to the baseline of 1951-1980 and there does seem to be a fairly dramatic cooling for about 5-6 years and then a brief warming and then another cooling and brief warming. So there may have been a period of maybe 10-15 years of "cooling" that mightbe attributable to the eruption. So, as you said (and I have many times) volcanic eruptions may have an effect on weather (not climate) for a limited time and it is a cooling effect. On the other side of the equation, some science deniers want to claim that the CO2 that comes out of active volcanoes on the earth (and the ocean floors) contribute enough CO2 to affect climate (i.e., long-term weather) and rapidly rising CO2 is their fault, not human activity. Problem here is that all the steady volcanic activity on the planet puts out less than 1% of the CO2 produced by humans burning fossil fuels.

Please spell out what disater you think is going to happen due to human induced global warming. Ideally cite the science to back this up.

It's amazing you have to ask me for this information when it's readily available on the web and in libraries. So I'll give you a link so you can learn a little bit how to inform yourself (but you and I both know you won't accept any of the science on this issue so I do it as an exercise): Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet: Effects

It's a pleasure to have another denier on board. The argument is stale but at least it's new grist for the mill and the pretty blue text is nice and for some reason it worked for me for some of the response.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Your link is very deceiving. they use facts, and terms invented by the IPCC et. al. that rely on the slope of a curve, that decreases as values increase.

Let's start with RE (radiative efficiency.) This is the slope created from the present level of a greenhouse gas by adding 1 ppb. It looks like this:

Please note, that the slope as plotted here is 0.0168 for CO2 and 0.4598 for CH4. I used 280 to 379 ppm for CO2 and 730 to 1774 ppb for CH4, and a slightly revised log curve so a zero value could be met. These values are close to the AR4 material, which even in it is inconsistent in values they use. The AR4 lists the RE of these gasses at 0.000014 and 0.00037 (page 212.) The factor of 1,000 difference is the slopes are because I plotted the graph in ppm rather than ppb. Anyway:

0.4598/0.0168 = 27.369

For the AR4:

0.00037/0.000014 = 26.43

So, this is the ratio of RE between the two gasses.

Now what GWP does is use this relationship, and assume an equal mass increase of 1 kg. See page 210 of the AR4. This means they are using 2.75 times more CH4 than CO2 to get the GWP number:

27.37 x 2.75 = 75.26

IPCC AR4:

26.43 x 2.75 = 72.68

Now that's the instantaneous number for the GWP calculation, then over time, the ratio changes dependent on the dissipation rates of the gasses. That's why we see the nominal 72 and 100 for GWP numbers. The link you provide is incorrect in that they say 100 times on a molecule by molecule basis, but it is mass. Not molecules counts that determine GWP.

You are citing agenda driven idiots!

Notice how fast the slope flattens as the gas levels increase.

Also consider this. The 1750 to 2005 forcing for CO2 and CH4

1.66 W/m^2 for CO2 from a 36.3% increase (278 to 379 ppm.)

0.48 W.m^2 for CH4 from a 146% increase (715 to 1774 ppb.)

Log curve fits:

CO2 W/m^2 = ln(379/278) x 5.35

CH4 W/m^2 = ln(1774/715) x 0.528

The ratio of 5.35 to 0.528 suggests that CO2 is 10 times stronger than CH4, bu CH4 is not a simply log fit since N2O and CH4 overlap too much in their spectra. The formula the AR4 uses for both gasses are closer to the graph I made than what a pure log formula yields.

Oooooo, somebody's been busy cutting and pasting.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

There is a new [2014] paper in Environmental Research Letters that give additional support to Henrik Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis of climate change on Earth. The idea is basically this: the suns changing magnetic field has an influence on galactic cosmic rays, with a stronger magnetic field deflecting more cosmic rays and a weaker one allowing more into the solar system. The cosmic rays affect cloud formation on Earth by creating condensation nuclei. Here is a simplified block flowchart diagram of the process:


The authors of the the new paper have a similar but more detailed flowchart:

More support for Svensmark's cosmic ray modulation of Earth's

wattsupwiththat.com/.../more-support-for-svensmar...


Watts Up With That?


Apr 10, 2014 - There is a new paper in Environmental Research Letters that give additional support to Henrik Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis of climate ...

That's such a pretty flow chart. If there was only a speck of actual evidence for it actually doing what it says it does. Even your hero, Shaviv, admits he's got nothing but an untested hypothesis so far. But keep your finger crossed.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

Unlike you, real and legitimate scientists continue the research on this topic.

Perhaps that why they are considered to be real and legitimate.

Immediately disqualifying a thought because it runs counter to your bias and prejudice is not science. It's you.


Actual science proposes an idea and then tries to prove it or disprove it. That is what is happening with this. CERN has produced a similar effect in the lab.

And I eagerly await the results of Shaviv's experiement evidence. Meanwhile, I'll stick with what we already know for certain about CO2 forcing of global warming.


Look, you didn't even know the difference between infrared and cosmic radiation, so trying to insult my knowledge of science just makes you look even sillier. Please, continue.

 

[digitusmedius]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

". . . It should also be noted, that the U.S. Climate Reference Network, designed from the start to be free of the need for ANY adjustment of data, does not show any trend, as I highlighted in June 2015 in this article: Despite attempts to erase it globally, “the pause” still exists in pristine US surface temperature data

Here is the data plotted from that network:

Of course Tom Karl and Tom Peterson of NOAA/NCDC (now NCEI) never let this USCRN data see the light of day in a public press release or a State of the Climate report for media consumption, it is relegated to a backroom of their website mission and never mentioned. When it comes to claims about hottest year/month/day ever, instead, the highly adjusted, highly uncertain USHCN/GHCN data is what the public sees in these regular communications.
One wonders why NOAA NCDC/NCEI spent millions of dollars to create a state of the art climate network for the United States, and then never uses it to inform the public. Perhaps it might be because it doesn’t give the result they want? – Anthony Watts"


Approximately 92% (or 99%) of USHCN surface temperature data consists of estimated values

An analysis of the U.S. Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) shows that only about 8%-1% (depending on the stage of processing) of the data survives in the climate record as unaltered/estimated data. Guest essay by John Goetz A previous post showed that the adjustment models applied to the GHCN data produce estimated values for approximately 66% of…
Continue reading →

Every time you cart some doctored chart or false data from WUWT it just makes your already laughable case more pathetic. If your primary source is a documented liar, guess what you'll be passing on. And when a chart's title starts out with a major word misspelled, that just makes it all the more enjoyable.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Re: Capturing Global Warming in One Simple Statistic

By modulate, you mean protect of course. If only you were agile enough to make any connection (other than fanciful) to climate with that statement. Maybe you have a handy Shaviv quote at the ready.

LOL...

No, it controls how much makes it into the upper atmosphere.

Modulation is the process of varying one or more properties of a high-frequency periodic waveform.
​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation_(disambiguation)#Science