• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Climate Nut dies after lighting himself on fire outside Supreme Court

I cannot help but notice that while you claim the math is in the IPCC report, you did not cite and quote the report.
IPCC AR6 SPM

So the 1.07C already included cooling from aerosols.
Yes!! Already included. That is the point!! But you didn't include aerosols in your calculation. And when you pull this crap you make the cooling from those aerosols falsely look like less warming from the GHGs. For your calculations, the way you do them, to be somewhat representative of the Earth you should be using a number between 1.0°C to 2.0°C. You did see that, didn't you??
It is likely that well-mixed GHGs contributed a warming of 1.0°C to 2.0°C
Now, this is probably the 5th or 6th time I have pointed out this flaw in your reasoning. Are you really unable to understand this or are you just lying to everyone again?
As for the AGGI, where do I assume 1950? I have used 1950 for other calculations, just not this one.
What is so hard about this? You are comparing the GHG change from 1700-1750 to 2020 with the temperature change from 1950 to 2020. This is just another ridiculous calculation that does nothing but underestimate the Earth's sensitivity to increased GHGs.
You may have a point about the AGGI covering more than the instrument record, But let's rerun the same calculation with the AGGI's 1850 level.

NOAA AGGI figure 4 is a graph, but the AGGI level in 1850 looks very close to 290 ppm.
The unknown warming of 0.76°C/ln (504/290) = 1.375. 1.375 X ln(2) =0.95C.

Also about the 10 year lag between CO2 emissions and maximum warming, you know there are two unrefuted studies on this topic.
The first made the finding and the second attempted to refute it but came to the same finding,
For Human size emissions, the lag between emission and maximum warming is about 10 years.
Maximum warming occurs about one decade after a carbon dioxide emission
The time lag between a carbon dioxide emission and maximum warming increases with the size of the emission
Note both studies are by real climate scientist, and published in peer reviewed journals.
Blah, blah, blah... I am done with this stupid rabbit hole. I have proven this wrong many times and I'm not doing it again.
 
Yes!! Already included. That is the point!! But you didn't include aerosols in your calculation. And when you pull this crap you make the cooling from those aerosols falsely look like less warming from the GHGs. For your calculations, the way you do them, to be somewhat representative of the Earth you should be using a number between 1.0°C to 2.0°C. You did see that, didn't you??

Now, this is probably the 5th or 6th time I have pointed out this flaw in your reasoning. Are you really unable to understand this or are you just lying to everyone again?

What is so hard about this? You are comparing the GHG change from 1700-1750 to 2020 with the temperature change from 1950 to 2020. This is just another ridiculous calculation that does nothing but underestimate the Earth's sensitivity to increased GHGs.

Blah, blah, blah... I am done with this stupid rabbit hole. I have proven this wrong many times and I'm not doing it again.
Did you happen to notice the ranges applied to aerosol cooling?
other human drivers (principally aerosols) contributed a cooling of 0.0°C to 0.8°C,
So the cooling you seem to think I missed is anywhere between -0.0°C to -0.8°C,
we could guess, or we could use the Southern Hemisphere temperatures which were largely unaffected by aerosols
as the actual GHG warming, without any aerosol cooling (in your world that would mean that the Southern Hemisphere
should have warmed more, since it has the same GHG level but without the aerosol cooling.)
Hum, that is a problem, the HadCrut5 annual Southern Hemisphere only has warming 0.87°C, with post 1950 warming of 0.65°C.
That lines up well with simple CO2 forcing without any feedback, but let's run the numbers to check.
AGGI moved from 290 ppm to 504 ppm for CO2 -eq, so 5.35 X ln(504/290) X .3 =0.89C.
Wow, even simple forcing would produce more warming than is observed.
This is one of the major problems with this concept of catastrophic AGW, the numbers predicted simply
cannot be demonstrated in the instrument record!
 
If we could only get more leftist nutjobs to self-immolate this would be a much safer and far better planet. I fully support his actions and sincerely hope that more leftist filth follow his very fine example.
Words of a callous sociopath.
 
What is so hard about this? You are comparing the GHG change from 1700-1750 to 2020 with the temperature change from 1950 to 2020. This is just another ridiculous calculation that does nothing but underestimate the Earth's sensitivity to increased GHGs.
That is not what he did. Read his words again:

Of that 1.07°C, in the modified HadCrut5 data set 0.31°C was pre 1950 warming considered natural.
So we have 0.76°C of warming from unknown sources,

There is no absolute way to read that, but my impression is after you take out the natural warming of 0.31C, you have 0.76C for the period on preindustrial, to the end year of the study. I don't see it as claiming everything before 1950 was natural. Just the 0.31 of it.
 
Did you happen to notice the ranges applied to aerosol cooling?

So the cooling you seem to think I missed is anywhere between -0.0°C to -0.8°C,
we could guess, or we could use the Southern Hemisphere temperatures which were largely unaffected by aerosols
as the actual GHG warming, without any aerosol cooling (in your world that would mean that the Southern Hemisphere
should have warmed more, since it has the same GHG level but without the aerosol cooling.)
Hum, that is a problem, the HadCrut5 annual Southern Hemisphere only has warming 0.87°C, with post 1950 warming of 0.65°C.
That lines up well with simple CO2 forcing without any feedback, but let's run the numbers to check.
AGGI moved from 290 ppm to 504 ppm for CO2 -eq, so 5.35 X ln(504/290) X .3 =0.89C.
Wow, even simple forcing would produce more warming than is observed.
This is one of the major problems with this concept of catastrophic AGW, the numbers predicted simply
cannot be demonstrated in the instrument record!
This is also just wrong. Using the Southern Hemisphere in this manner is wrong for many reasons. One is that the two hemispheres are drastically different in the ratio of land to sea and how they warm. And there is the well-known heat transfer from the south to the north caused by the ocean currents that you constantly forget all about.

You don't know what you are talking about... as usual.
 
That is not what he did. Read his words again:

Of that 1.07°C, in the modified HadCrut5 data set 0.31°C was pre 1950 warming considered natural.
So we have 0.76°C of warming from unknown sources,

There is no absolute way to read that, but my impression is after you take out the natural warming of 0.31C, you have 0.76C for the period on preindustrial, to the end year of the study. I don't see it as claiming everything before 1950 was natural. Just the 0.31 of it.
Go back and read what he said. He used 280ppm which is the CO2 level back in 1700 to1750. And he compared that to the temps in 1950 as if they were related when, in fact, they are not. His calculations are a joke.

Is this really that hard for you to understand?
 
Go back and read what he said. He used 280ppm which is the CO2 level back in 1700 to1750. And he compared that to the temps in 1950 as if they were related when, in fact, they are not. His calculations are a joke.

Is this really that hard for you to understand?
Apparently for you, it is. I see the separation.
 
Apparently for you, it is. I see the separation.
:ROFLMAO:

That's the point. There shouldn't be any separation. The CO2 level(or equivalent) should match the starting time period. You obviously DON'T understand.
 
This is also just wrong. Using the Southern Hemisphere in this manner is wrong for many reasons. One is that the two hemispheres are drastically different in the ratio of land to sea and how they warm. And there is the well-known heat transfer from the south to the north caused by the ocean currents that you constantly forget all about.

You don't know what you are talking about... as usual.
Do you really think the ocean emits any less 15 um radiation than the land?
Please understand that ANY surface above about -60C in temperature will radiate 15 um photons.
Also using the Southern Hemisphere as a control group for aerosol cooling, is better than an actual guess,
which is what the range of -0.0°C to -0.8°C represents.
Think about that range (-0.0°C to -0.8°C) for a second, against the question of how much cooling did aerosols cause?
Hum!, well they might not have caused any cooling, or they might have caused -0.8°C of cooling.
To attempt to narrow that range, we can use the Southern Hemisphere as the control group to see what aerosols
actually did in the Northern Hemisphere, are there potential errors, sure, but perhaps less then the posted range.
Wood for trees Hadcrut4
In the actual data, we can see that the Northern Hemisphere saw more warming not less, and it dragged the global average up
by 0.2°C, since about 1985.
Wood for trees 120 month mean
This is clearer with the 120 month mean.
1652355312788.png
 
Do you really think the ocean emits any less 15 um radiation than the land?
It does when the surface temperature of the ocean is less than the land.
Please understand that ANY surface above about -60C in temperature will radiate 15 um photons.
No duh.
Also using the Southern Hemisphere as a control group for aerosol cooling, is better than an actual guess,
Yeah... maybe if the two hemispheres were a mirror image of each other and the only difference was aerosols. But, as I keep pointing out to you, they are drastically different. So... using the southern hemisphere like you are without taking into consideration all the differences and accounting for the heat transfer of the ocean currents makes this another of your unscientific and misleading exercises in climate change denialism.
which is what the range of -0.0°C to -0.8°C represents.

Think about that range (-0.0°C to -0.8°C) for a second, against the question of how much cooling did aerosols cause?
Hum!, well they might not have caused any cooling, or they might have caused -0.8°C of cooling.
Yes, there is a range. But that doesn't mean that the ends of that range are just as likely as the middle. The fact of the matter is that somewhere in the middle of that range is what is most likely.
To attempt to narrow that range, we can use the Southern Hemisphere as the control group to see what aerosols

actually did in the Northern Hemisphere, are there potential errors, sure, but perhaps less then the posted range.
Wood for trees Hadcrut4
In the actual data, we can see that the Northern Hemisphere saw more warming not less, and it dragged the global average up
by 0.2°C, since about 1985.
Wood for trees 120 month mean
This is clearer with the 120 month mean.
View attachment 67390301
Again... this is just a horrible method of assessing cooling from aerosols. Another thing that you are neglecting to account for is the fact that the Southern Hemisphere has so much more ocean and oceans are what is absorbing much of the extra energy the planet is receiving due to AGW.
 
It does when the surface temperature of the ocean is less than the land.

No duh.

Yeah... maybe if the two hemispheres were a mirror image of each other and the only difference was aerosols. But, as I keep pointing out to you, they are drastically different. So... using the southern hemisphere like you are without taking into consideration all the differences and accounting for the heat transfer of the ocean currents makes this another of your unscientific and misleading exercises in climate change denialism.

Yes, there is a range. But that doesn't mean that the ends of that range are just as likely as the middle. The fact of the matter is that somewhere in the middle of that range is what is most likely.

Again... this is just a horrible method of assessing cooling from aerosols. Another thing that you are neglecting to account for is the fact that the Southern Hemisphere has so much more ocean and oceans are what is absorbing much of the extra energy the planet is receiving due to AGW.
Buzz the liquid portions of the oceans emit just as many 15 um photons as the land, so with respect to the CO2 absorption of 15 um photons, there is likely little difference between land and ocean.
P.S. I would be the first to say that the land emits more high energy short wavelength photons, but that is not what CO2 is absorbing!
 
Last edited:
Buzz the liquid portions of the oceans emit just as many 15 um photons as the land, so with respect to the CO2 absorption of 15 um photons, there is likely little difference between land and ocean.
Damn, long... are you unaware that it is the temperature that determines how much outgoing longwave energy something emits??

Here is what that looks like:

640px-AIRS_OLR.png

It looks to me like areas of land that are hotter than the oceans emit more photons than the cooler oceans do.

And you are still blowing off the ability of the deep oceans to absorb a lot more energy than the land. The land is just not able to transfer much energy down into the earth.
P.S. I would be the first to say that the land emits more high energy short wavelength photons, but that is not what CO2 is absorbing!
What in the heck are you talking about?? The land doesn't emit high-energy short-wavelength photons. You are not making sense again.
 
Damn, long... are you unaware that it is the temperature that determines how much outgoing longwave energy something emits??

Here is what that looks like:

View attachment 67390822

It looks to me like areas of land that are hotter than the oceans emit more photons than the cooler oceans do.

And you are still blowing off the ability of the deep oceans to absorb a lot more energy than the land. The land is just not able to transfer much energy down into the earth.

What in the heck are you talking about?? The land doesn't emit high-energy short-wavelength photons. You are not making sense again.
That is what the broad band of the long wave infrared looks like, in the range that CO2 absorbs, there is little difference between the land and ocean.
ABI band 16 is the closest they have,
Note: the coastlines have to be drawn in!

Earth does reflect plenty of shortwave photons.
 
That is what the broad band of the long wave infrared looks like, in the range that CO2 absorbs, there is little difference between the land and ocean.
Who said anything about the range that CO2 absorbs? Nobody. This is about aerosols and how the Northern and Southern hemispheres are different in how they warm... remember?
ABI band 16 is the closest they have,
Which include clouds. Why would you use such a noisy picture of the Earth's radiated longwave radiation??
Note: the coastlines have to be drawn in!
So what? The land on coastlines are well known for being similar in temperature to the oceans they are next to.
Earth does reflect plenty of shortwave photons.
You said emits, and not reflects. Don't act like you were not completely wrong.

This debate is rapidly devolving into another of your denialist rabbit holes of lies and obfuscation.
 
Who said anything about the range that CO2 absorbs? Nobody. This is about aerosols and how the Northern and Southern hemispheres are different in how they warm... remember?

Which include clouds. Why would you use such a noisy picture of the Earth's radiated longwave radiation??

So what? The land on coastlines are well known for being similar in temperature to the oceans they are next to.

You said emits, and not reflects. Don't act like you were not completely wrong.

This debate is rapidly devolving into another of your denialist rabbit holes of lies and obfuscation.
The discussion was about the Northern hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere emitting different levels of 15 um photons, because of the differences in land area.
The GOES-16 satellite images, show that at the CO2 wavelengths, there is very little difference in the photons emitted from land vs water.
Roughly the same 15 um emissions would come from both hemispheres, so the Southern Hemisphere can make a decent control group, for the evaluation of aerosols in the Northern hemisphere.
Focus, the discussion is about the long wave IR emissions.
 
The discussion was about the Northern hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere emitting different levels of 15 um photons, because of the differences in land area.
Bullshit!! This debate is about aerosols and the fact that you keep ignoring them in your denialist calculations of climate sensitivity. Then you attempt to refute what I am saying by bringing up the differences in warming of the two hemispheres as if they were exactly the same except for aerosols. But now that I have pointed out that the two hemispheres are drastically different and that aerosols are not the only difference you are just attempting to change the subject yet again because you can not refute what I am saying.
The GOES-16 satellite images, show that at the CO2 wavelengths, there is very little difference in the photons emitted from land vs water.
No, it doesn't. Especially when the Goes-16 satellites include clouds that obscure the land and sea. But even despite the inclusion of clouds, one can see that there are, at times, huge differences.

Take this current band 16 picture:
20221351420_GOES16-ABI-FD-16-678x678.jpg
It is not hard to see the huge difference between the ocean and land in northern Chile and southern Peru. And this is shown in the first picture I provided as well. The fact of the matter is that the oceans just don't get as hot as the land can. So... lots of lands, especially deserts, get hotter than oceans. And that is one reason why the Northern Hemisphere warms faster than the Southern Hemisphere. The northern Hemisphere just has more land and more deserts than the Southern Hemisphere.
Roughly the same 15 um emissions would come from both hemispheres, so the Southern Hemisphere can make a decent control group, for the evaluation of aerosols in the Northern hemisphere.

Focus, the discussion is about the long wave IR emissions.
Nope!! You are just wrong. The two hemispheres are so dramatically different that one can not be used as a control for the other. This is just more of your denialist lies and misinformation.

And don't forget that this is about aerosols and how much they offset warming from GHGs and not about long-wave IR emissions.

Please... stick to the topic at hand and quit trying to change the subject.
 
Bullshit!! This debate is about aerosols and the fact that you keep ignoring them in your denialist calculations of climate sensitivity. Then you attempt to refute what I am saying by bringing up the differences in warming of the two hemispheres as if they were exactly the same except for aerosols. But now that I have pointed out that the two hemispheres are drastically different and that aerosols are not the only difference you are just attempting to change the subject yet again because you can not refute what I am saying.

No, it doesn't. Especially when the Goes-16 satellites include clouds that obscure the land and sea. But even despite the inclusion of clouds, one can see that there are, at times, huge differences.

Take this current band 16 picture:
View attachment 67390918
It is not hard to see the huge difference between the ocean and land in northern Chile and southern Peru. And this is shown in the first picture I provided as well. The fact of the matter is that the oceans just don't get as hot as the land can. So... lots of lands, especially deserts, get hotter than oceans. And that is one reason why the Northern Hemisphere warms faster than the Southern Hemisphere. The northern Hemisphere just has more land and more deserts than the Southern Hemisphere.

Nope!! You are just wrong. The two hemispheres are so dramatically different that one can not be used as a control for the other. This is just more of your denialist lies and misinformation.

And don't forget that this is about aerosols and how much they offset warming from GHGs and not about long-wave IR emissions.

Please... stick to the topic at hand and quit trying to change the subject.
Let's refresh!
I am looking for a way to evaluate the climate feedback factors.

You claim I am not considering aerosol cooling, but without stating how much aerosol cooling you think exists.
The IPCC says aerosols (mostly in the Northern Hemisphere) have caused cooling from between zero and -0.8C.

I use the Sothern Hemisphere as a control group since it did not have much aerosol effect, and has seen the same CO2 increases.

You say the differences in land area between hemispheres, means the Southern hemisphere cannot be a control group.

I point out that the GOES satellite band 16 (13.3 um) shows that at the longer infrared wavelengths (like CO2's AGW band of 15 um)
have almost not difference between land and ocean.

You say that clouds obscure the difference between land and ocean, and there is a difference between land an ocean,

I think what is showing up at 13.3 um is a difference in 13.3 um emissions from all sources.
There are some differences on some coast's but that could be attributed to mountains causing clouds.
For the most part the large swaths of orange show little difference between land and ocean.
GOES Band-16
20221361100_GOES17-ABI-FD-16-1808x1808.jpg

The GOES-16 satellite demonstrates that the longer wavelength infrared emissions, are not significantly different between land and ocean.
 
Let's refresh!
O.K... let's...
I am looking for a way to evaluate the climate feedback factors.
And every way you come up with has serious flaws. Again and again... for years now.
You claim I am not considering aerosol cooling, but without stating how much aerosol cooling you think exists.
So What? Not stating how much aerosol cooling I think exists doesn't negate the fact that you keep leaving aerosol cooling out of your calculations when it is essential to such a calculation.
The IPCC says aerosols (mostly in the Northern Hemisphere) have caused cooling from between zero and -0.8C.
While most aerosol cooling has happened in the Northern Hemisphere the IPCC numbers are for the whole planet.
I use the Sothern Hemisphere as a control group since it did not have much aerosol effect, and has seen the same CO2 increases.
Which would be fine if they were a mirror image of each other... but they are not and are, in fact, very different.
You say the differences in land area between hemispheres, means the Southern hemisphere cannot be a control group.
The Northern Hemisphere has about twice as much land as well as about half the ocean of the Southern Hemisphere. Do you really understand what a control group is and how it is used in science? Your insistence on using the Southern Hemisphere as such suggests that you don't.
I point out that the GOES satellite band 16 (13.3 um) shows that at the longer infrared wavelengths (like CO2's AGW band of 15 um)

have almost not difference between land and ocean.
You are citing one instance of anecdotal weather of mostly the Pacific ocean that includes clouds to make declarative statements about the whole planet. This is just fundamentally wrong. The graphic I cited in post #88 is not based on 1 instance of the weather and is much more relevant to this discussion and shows that there are significant differences.
You say that clouds obscure the difference between land and ocean, and there is a difference between land an ocean,


I think what is showing up at 13.3 um is a difference in 13.3 um emissions from all sources.
There are some differences on some coast's but that could be attributed to mountains causing clouds.

For the most part the large swaths of orange show little difference between land and ocean.

GOES Band-16
20221361100_GOES17-ABI-FD-16-1808x1808.jpg

The GOES-16 satellite demonstrates that the longer wavelength infrared emissions, are not significantly different between land and ocean.
Again... you are citing anecdotal weather. Have you forgotten that pointing at a specific instance of the weather doesn't prove anything?

And you are still blowing off the fact that the way the ocean currents move there is heat being transferred from the south to the north. Not to mention that oceans are absorbing more heat than the land.

Face it, long... your insistence on using the Southern Hemisphere as some kind of control is a joke!! Just like your calculations of climate sensitivity are also a joke when you don't take into consideration the cooling effects of aerosols.
 
O.K... let's...

And every way you come up with has serious flaws. Again and again... for years now.

So What? Not stating how much aerosol cooling I think exists doesn't negate the fact that you keep leaving aerosol cooling out of your calculations when it is essential to such a calculation.

While most aerosol cooling has happened in the Northern Hemisphere the IPCC numbers are for the whole planet.

Which would be fine if they were a mirror image of each other... but they are not and are, in fact, very different.

The Northern Hemisphere has about twice as much land as well as about half the ocean of the Southern Hemisphere. Do you really understand what a control group is and how it is used in science? Your insistence on using the Southern Hemisphere as such suggests that you don't.

You are citing one instance of anecdotal weather of mostly the Pacific ocean that includes clouds to make declarative statements about the whole planet. This is just fundamentally wrong. The graphic I cited in post #88 is not based on 1 instance of the weather and is much more relevant to this discussion and shows that there are significant differences.

Again... you are citing anecdotal weather. Have you forgotten that pointing at a specific instance of the weather doesn't prove anything?

And you are still blowing off the fact that the way the ocean currents move there is heat being transferred from the south to the north. Not to mention that oceans are absorbing more heat than the land.

Face it, long... your insistence on using the Southern Hemisphere as some kind of control is a joke!! Just like your calculations of climate sensitivity are also a joke when you don't take into consideration the cooling effects of aerosols.
Buzz, unless a value, an actual amount of aerosol cooling is assigned, then climate sensitivity will stay an unknown.
The IPCC's best estimate temperature already accounts for the aerosol cooling.
As I have shown, near the CO2 sensitive wavelengths, there is almost no difference between land and ocean emissions.
The GOES satellite band 16 shows there is a difference between clouds and no clouds, but almost no difference between
land and ocean. Remember only the wavelengths around 15 um are affected by CO2 for much of the atmosphere.

Perhaps the idea of using the Southern Hemisphere as a control group is not the best option, but unless you have a better one,
it is what we have.
You seem ready to criticize, but without any suggested corrections.
 
At least he's advocating for a good cause. The real scum are the Covid deniers and purveyors of bullshit cures. When they die, it's justice.

Those who disdain this just take an incredibly cynical view of politics.
 
Buzz, unless a value, an actual amount of aerosol cooling is assigned, then climate sensitivity will stay an unknown.
Yeah... at least in your mind since you act like your methodology is the only methodology. I hate to break it to you but it isn't. And I have shown you some of those different methodologies many times.

And never mind that your calculations never take into consideration the error ranges of factors like aerosols. Since you don't have a solid number you think it is legitimate to just pretend that they have no effect and that we can just ignore them when attempting to quantify climate sensitivity. And that is just fundamentally wrong.
The IPCC's best estimate temperature already accounts for the aerosol cooling.
Yes, I know... I have only been pointing this out to you for years now. And if the temperatures include the cooling for aerosols then your calculations of climate sensitivity should include the cooling effects of aerosols as well. Why do I have to keep pointing this out to you? Are you really unable to understand this?
As I have shown, near the CO2 sensitive wavelengths, there is almost no difference between land and ocean emissions.

The GOES satellite band 16 shows there is a difference between clouds and no clouds, but almost no difference between
land and ocean.
You have not shown anything other than the difference in one instance of the planet's weather. Do I really need to go back to climate science 101 levels of education and explain why citing instances of weather is bad science?
Remember only the wavelengths around 15 um are affected by CO2 for much of the atmosphere.
Which has little to do with explaining why the Northern Hemisphere is drastically different than the Southern Hemisphere.
Perhaps the idea of using the Southern Hemisphere as a control group is not the best option, but unless you have a better one, it is what we have.
No! It is not all that we have. And this is likely why most legitimate climate scientists don't use the Southern hemisphere as a control group. At least not without some consideration of the differences between the two.
You seem ready to criticize, but without any suggested corrections.
Without any suggested corrections? Are you serious? I have only been suggesting that you include aerosols in your calculations for a long time now.

And it is not my problem that you don't know how to do this.
 
Yeah... at least in your mind since you act like your methodology is the only methodology. I hate to break it to you but it isn't. And I have shown you some of those different methodologies many times.

And never mind that your calculations never take into consideration the error ranges of factors like aerosols. Since you don't have a solid number you think it is legitimate to just pretend that they have no effect and that we can just ignore them when attempting to quantify climate sensitivity. And that is just fundamentally wrong.

Yes, I know... I have only been pointing this out to you for years now. And if the temperatures include the cooling for aerosols then your calculations of climate sensitivity should include the cooling effects of aerosols as well. Why do I have to keep pointing this out to you? Are you really unable to understand this?

You have not shown anything other than the difference in one instance of the planet's weather. Do I really need to go back to climate science 101 levels of education and explain why citing instances of weather is bad science?

Which has little to do with explaining why the Northern Hemisphere is drastically different than the Southern Hemisphere.

No! It is not all that we have. And this is likely why most legitimate climate scientists don't use the Southern hemisphere as a control group. At least not without some consideration of the differences between the two.

Without any suggested corrections? Are you serious? I have only been suggesting that you include aerosols in your calculations for a long time now.

And it is not my problem that you don't know how to do this.
If one were attempting to determine how sensitive the climate is to added CO2, the Scientific method would dictate,
that past warming be evaluated compared to past CO2 increases, less other causes of warming, and considering factors that may have caused cooling. On the warming side we have natural warming like increased solar activity, and the warming from added greenhouse gas forcing.
on the cooling side we have aerosols, that appear to have mostly been a Northern Hemisphere event.
The IPCC says the amount of aerosol cooling is anywhere between 0.0C and -0.8C, and the total observed warming is 1.07C.
Which means that they think the actual warming is between 1.07C and 1.87C without aerosol cooling.
The basis of the assumption of aerosol cooling are what simulations of ECS tell them the actual warming should be, not something
that someone can measure, it is purely subjective!

Now about the Southern Hemisphere, CO2 only has an available absorption band at 15 um, the higher energy bands,
are overlapped by the much more common water vapor. For the purposes of evaluating 15 um emissions from the earth,
there is no real difference between land and ocean, which is the major difference between hemispheres,
and the several GOES satellite band 16 images verify little difference between land and ocean.
At 15 um, Earth is nearly a even emitter everywhere, so the Southern Hemisphere could be used as a control group
for the changes from aerosols in the Northern hemisphere.
 
Back
Top Bottom