• 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!

CO2 and coincidences in data.

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,834
Reaction score
13,406
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I keep going back to the Scientific papers looking for support of the claimed CO2 sensitivity,
and something popped up that caught my attention.
In W Zhong - ‎2013, They cover the traditional AGW concept and come up with their table1
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072
Zhong_Fig_1.jpg
Which says that increasing CO2 from zero to 2000 ppm would change the total outgoing energy by -25.5 Wm-2,
and would change the Net (downward – upward) flux change at the tropopause by 38.2 Wm-2.
Where should we measure all the energy entering or leaving the system, at the boundary, or somewhere in the middle?
I.E. the top of the atmosphere or the tropopause?
I calculated the energy imbalance based on the top of atmosphere number, to see what the multiplier would be.
25.2/ln(2000/1)=3.35, and this struck me as close to another multiplier based on an entirely different set of measurements.
Feldman 2015, measured actual down welling infrared over a change in CO2
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
His actual number was .22 Wm-2 as CO2 increased from 369ppm to 392ppm,
so .22/ln(392/369)= 3.63,
The official number is currently 5.35 X ln(CO2high/CO2low), but here we have two completely different ways of measuring
CO2 response, that come up with multipliers that are much closer to each other than to the official number.
If we take the average of the two multipliers (3.63 + 3.35)/2=3.49, and push it into a CO2 doubling, we get,
3.49 X ln(2)=2.41 Wm-2 for a doubling of CO2, or about .73 C.
This lower measured sensitivity could well be the reason the models based on the 2XCO2 assumption of 3.71 Wm-2 are too high!
 

Buzz

Irritant
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 18, 2014
Messages
4,731
Reaction score
962
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I keep going back to the Scientific papers looking for support of the claimed CO2 sensitivity,
and something popped up that caught my attention.
In W Zhong - ‎2013, They cover the traditional AGW concept and come up with their table1
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.2072
View attachment 67248513
Which says that increasing CO2 from zero to 2000 ppm would change the total outgoing energy by -25.5 Wm-2,
and would change the Net (downward – upward) flux change at the tropopause by 38.2 Wm-2.
Where should we measure all the energy entering or leaving the system, at the boundary, or somewhere in the middle?
I.E. the top of the atmosphere or the tropopause?
I calculated the energy imbalance based on the top of atmosphere number, to see what the multiplier would be.
25.2/ln(2000/1)=3.35, and this struck me as close to another multiplier based on an entirely different set of measurements.
Feldman 2015, measured actual down welling infrared over a change in CO2
http://asl.umbc.edu/pub/chepplew/journals/nature14240_v519_Feldman_CO2.pdf
His actual number was .22 Wm-2 as CO2 increased from 369ppm to 392ppm,
so .22/ln(392/369)= 3.63,
The official number is currently 5.35 X ln(CO2high/CO2low), but here we have two completely different ways of measuring
CO2 response, that come up with multipliers that are much closer to each other than to the official number.
If we take the average of the two multipliers (3.63 + 3.35)/2=3.49, and push it into a CO2 doubling, we get,
3.49 X ln(2)=2.41 Wm-2 for a doubling of CO2, or about .73 C.
This lower measured sensitivity could well be the reason the models based on the 2XCO2 assumption of 3.71 Wm-2 are too high!

Damn longview!! Did you even bother to read this study? Because you clearly missed what it was actually measuring.

And when are you going to stop making direct comparisons between top of atmosphere fluxes and surface fluxes? The two are not directly comparable!
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
38,834
Reaction score
13,406
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Damn longview!! Did you even bother to read this study? Because you clearly missed what it was actually measuring.

And when are you going to stop making direct comparisons between top of atmosphere fluxes and surface fluxes? The two are not directly comparable!
The coincidence is that the two types of measurement show an almost equal change one up, one down,
This agrees with the first law of thermodynamics, that energy cannot be created or destroyed,
If the net out at the top of the atmosphere goes down, it must show up somewhere else in the system.
In this case Feldman shows the increase showing up on the ground over a change in CO2,
is very close to the top of atmosphere decrease in outbound energy over a change in CO2.
converting the numbers to the log multipliers, let us see the relative change, since the levels of CO2 change were very different.
What is odd is that neither multiplier agrees with the predicted 2XCO2 imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2,
which would be 3.71/ln(2)= 5.35.
 
Top Bottom