Earth's tilt influences climate change

[Poor Debater]

Warming alone, does not qualify, I have never said it is not warming,

Congratulations on moving from Denial Stage 1 all the way into Denial Stage 2.

we are talking about isolating the portion of the warming
that could have an anthropological component from the natural warming, and from the weather.

Easily done, and the verdict is in. In fact, it's been in for a long, long time.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...rch-2016-a-post1065789286.html#post1065789286
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...rch-2016-a-post1065789288.html#post1065789288

Compare that with the sum total of all the evidence indicating that the late 20th century warming is less than 80% anthropogenic. Which amounts to a blog posting written by a cranky old guy in his pajamas.

The very first step would be eliminate the warming caused from known weather events like an El Nino.

Been there, done that. You do realize that El Niño doesn't create heat, it just moves it around ... Or don't they teach that at Denierstan U?

Secondly, it would be good to know what the normal warming is, so as to isolate that which is abnormal.

That's been done too. See my graph at post #99 on this thread. There's absolutely NOTHING "normal" about the current warming.

 

[longview]

That's been done.

Anthropogenic causes are responsible for roughly 110% of the warming we are seeing today.

And that comes from the IPCC, and your past posts indicate that you hold those authors in high regard!

You really need to learn how to cite things you post.
Also they attributed the graph with "Best guess" because an entire load of assumptions were included.

 

[Russell797]

You have a lot of gall calling anyone else's comments 'smug' after the one you left me. That sort of high-brow elitist crap won't fly here newbie.

You mean this one?:

Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
Apparently like so many other things that don't jive with the agenda, it's been left out of the calculations and projections.

Yes, for the simple reason that a 41,000 year cycle will have essentially zero impact on a century long time frame. No offence intended, but you are very ignorant of the simplest explanations. You make yourself look silly.

What's the saying? Better to remain silent and be suspected of being ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!

---------------------

That's not smug, it's the truth. There is nothing about this study which contradicts any agenda or the findings of other scientists. There is nothing about the study which has been left out of any calculations. You simply have no clue. If you are going to attack scientists like you did in your post, you had better have a little understanding of what is being discussed.

 

[longview]

Congratulations on moving from Denial Stage 1 all the way into Denial Stage 2.



Easily done, and the verdict is in. In fact, it's been in for a long, long time.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...rch-2016-a-post1065789286.html#post1065789286
http://www.debatepolitics.com/envir...rch-2016-a-post1065789288.html#post1065789288

Compare that with the sum total of all the evidence indicating that the late 20th century warming is less than 80% anthropogenic. Which amounts to a blog posting written by a cranky old guy in his pajamas.




Been there, done that. You do realize that El Niño doesn't create heat, it just moves it around ... Or don't they teach that at Denierstan U?




That's been done too. See my graph at post #99 on this thread. There's absolutely NOTHING "normal" about the current warming.

Did you actually read any of those abstracts you linked to?
Take this for example,
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3329.1

These observed climate changes are very unlikely to be due only to natural internal climate variability, and they are consistent with the responses to anthropogenic and natural external forcing of the climate system that are simulated with climate models. The evidence indicates that natural drivers such as solar variability and volcanic activity are at most partially responsible for the large-scale temperature changes observed over the past century, and that a large fraction of the warming over the last 50 yr can be attributed to greenhouse gas increases. Thus, the recent research supports and strengthens the IPCC Third Assessment Report conclusion that “most of the global warming over the past 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gases.”

This only says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, with a somewhat accepted sensitivity.
The direct response warming that could result from doubling the CO2 level varies a little, but most accept somewhere between the 1 and 1.2 C figure.
but that warming was never predicted to cause catastrophic results.

At least the paper maintained some semblance of Scientific integrity, by mentioning the areas of question.
Many open questions remain, for example, the role of forcings not yet fully included in CGCM simulations, such as land use change or forcing by black carbon and nonsulfate aerosols.
Also, because of poor signal-to-noise ratios and model uncertainty, anthropogenic rainfall changes cannot presently be detected even on a global scale,
although a volcanic signal is detectable in global mean land rainfall. It will remain to be investigated whether projections of future changes in the
hydrological cycle can, in part, be constrained by the apparent rainfall response to natural forcing, and the possibility that change in intense precipitation may be more detectable.

This paper was published in 2005, such heresy would not be allowed today!

 

[Threegoofs]

You really need to learn how to cite things you post.
Also they attributed the graph with "Best guess" because an entire load of assumptions were included.

I guess specifically noting the figure in the IPCC it was derived from isn't enough for you. I guess it's because you want to dismiss the source so badly.

Actually, 'best guess' is to inform the scientifically illiterate what the bell curve was trying to tell you.

The graphic itself comes from Gavin Schmidt, Director of GISS at NASA.

RealClimate » Blog Archive » IPCC attribution statements redux: A response to Judith Curry

 

[Lord of Planar]

I guess specifically noting the frigate in the IPCC it was derived from isn't enough for you.

Actually, 'best guess' is to inform the scientifically illiterate what the bell curve was trying to tell you.

Facts make statistics.

Only a fool thinks statistics makes facts.

 

[Russell797]

So Russel. What do you think of the solar/ocean/atmospheric coupling? In one of James Hansen's papers, he describes an average lag for CO2 equalization with the ocean of 100 years for a 70% equalization. Doesn't it stand to reason that solar changes have a similar or longer equalizing time? If I apply such equalization to the TSI changes, I get this, from the same data used for the graph in post 158:

Now given that 100% of the shortwave striking the ocean is poorly absorbed at the surface, and takes more than 100 meters for much of the spectra to be completely absorbed, shouldn't the solar/ocean/atmospheric lag be greater in time than the CO2 IR/ocean/atmospheric lag, considering the IR is all absorbed in the few microns of depth and readily radiated back out? Maybe only 5% of it actually changing the ocean heat, whereas 100% of the shortwave penetrating the water changes the ocean heat?

The totally equalized state will require hundreds of years to play out regardless of the radiative forcing source. Lots of ice to melt and sea water at depth to be exposed to the surface. A radiative forcing takes place at the radiative boundary between Earth and space...typically given as the tropopause. It's simply a shift away from a balance between incoming and outgoing radiative energy measured in watts per square meter, radiation being the only means of energy exchange possible.

Again, the downward infrared radiation emanating from the atmosphere does not warm the surface. The Sun warms the surface, some of which is absorbed directly to some depth below the water surface. When melting ice, the phase transition from solid to liquid results in no temperature change.

The energy radiated by the surface, mostly in the infrared, is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature difference. As the temperature of the surface rises so will the total energy the surface radiates away. It's a balance, an equilibrium. CO2 and other greenhouse gases merely slow the loss of energy to space. Additional greenhouse gases upset the radiative balance. Changes in solar radiance upset the balance. The watt is a measure of power and is independent of it's source. I see no reason why the lag should differ between solar and greenhouse gas forcing.

Does this mean that warming is still occurring due to increasing TSI from 50 years back and earlier? I suspect that is the point you wish to make.

 

[Threegoofs]

Facts make statistics.

Only a fool thinks statistics makes facts.

Deflection and pithy sayings are for pundits.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The totally equalized state will require hundreds of years to play out regardless of the radiative forcing source.

That's why the 100 years for 70% equalization is given instead of several thousand years for 99,99999% equalization.

Lots of ice to melt and sea water at depth to be exposed to the surface. A radiative forcing takes place at the radiative boundary between Earth and space...typically given as the tropopause.

No, the forcing is present in all layers of the atmosphere. It's at the TOA we measure the imbalance. It's at the lower troposphere that affects surface air temperatures.

The tropopause is the point between the troposphere and the stratosphere, which is highly irregular, and primarily changes altitude with latitude..

That's OK. I have forgotten alot since 1974 as well.

It's simply a shift away from a balance between incoming and outgoing radiative energy measured in watts per square meter, radiation being the only means of energy exchange possible.

Well, there is some conduction going on between atmospheric molecules exchanging heat as well.

Again, the downward infrared radiation emanating from the atmosphere does not warm the surface.

Actually, it does to a small extent.

The Sun warms the surface, some of which is absorbed directly to some depth below the water surface.

The ocean waters are actually very opaque to IR and very transparent to visible light and UV. That is why the IR forcing is limited to the first few microns of the water and why more than half the solar energy reaching the surface continues to travel in some cases, hundreds of meters before being fully absorbed. By 1,000 meters, nearly all light is absorbed, but not completely until you get to about 4,000 meters. Then, there is no visible light from the surface. Energy fluxes are deep enough, they take additional time to equalize to any given percentage.

When melting ice, the phase transition from solid to liquid results in no temperature change.

Yes, I think most here discussing this issue do understand the enthalpy of fusion. Of course there are a few who don't.

The energy radiated by the surface, mostly in the infrared, is proportional to the 4th power of the temperature difference. As the temperature of the surface rises so will the total energy the surface radiates away. It's a balance, an equilibrium. CO2 and other greenhouse gases merely slow the loss of energy to space. Additional greenhouse gases upset the radiative balance. Changes in solar radiance upset the balance. The watt is a measure of power and is independent of it's source. I see no reason why the lag should differ between solar and greenhouse gas forcing.

The lag is different because at the solid surface, the forcing to heat a solid, to re-emission of upward IR is often in the milliseconds. Surface water from IR warming is only marginally longer. However, water heated by shortwave changes take a comparatively rather long time for the convection processes to take the imbalance back to the surface.

Does this mean that warming is still occurring due to increasing TSI from 50 years back and earlier? I suspect that is the point you wish to make.

Hard to say. Most of the numbers and variable changes I have used place the solar peak from 1958 having the lag peaking at 2004, give or take a few years, but this is with solar forcing alone with all other variables stable. Of course, the real world doesn't work that way. If we consider the extra aerosols in the air from about 1940 increasing to 1980, then decreasing again for another two decades with emission regulations around the world, the solar forcing is modulated to the point that the graph is meaningless as is. The peak could easily be as far about as 2060, just from solar changes. However, if we continue to see the sun quieting in the next cycle or two, I suspect we will see the peak much sooner.

 

[Poor Debater]

Did you actually read any of those abstracts you linked to?
Take this for example,
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3329.1

This only says that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, with a somewhat accepted sensitivity.

That's not the "only" thing it says at all. It says:
* Natural drivers are at most partially responsible for the warming.
* A large fraction of the recent warming is due to greenhouse gases.

The direct response warming that could result from doubling the CO2 level varies a little, but most accept somewhere between the 1 and 1.2 C figure.

That number is a zero-feedback number than cannot actually occur on Earth. It could only occur on a planet with no water. Sorry, but the Ayatollahs of Denierstan have deceived you again. On this planet, there are feedbacks.

This paper was published in 2005, such heresy would not be allowed today!

Nonsense. Every single paper in that extensive list is in substantial agreement with the paper you cited.

 

[longview]

That's not the "only" thing it says at all. It says:
* Natural drivers are at most partially responsible for the warming.
* A large fraction of the recent warming is due to greenhouse gases.

Notice they do not quantify any of their numbers, but stick to phrases like more and at most,
like you identified

That number is a zero-feedback number than cannot actually occur on Earth. It could only occur on a planet with no water. Sorry, but the Ayatollahs of Denierstan have deceived you again. On this planet, there are feedbacks.

You clearly do not understand this whole AGW thing.
The Direct response CO2 warming is the input that the feedback uses to amplify or attenuate,
and I assure you it is occurring every day.

Nonsense. Every single paper in that extensive list is in substantial agreement with the paper you cited.

Yes to some level or another they are in agreement, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and has a somewhat
accepted sensitivity.
Simply accounting for the direct response warming would show that more than half of the observed
warming is from the increase in the CO2 level.
While feedbacks exists, they are for the most part open looped, and are difficult to quantify,
and they are not all positive.

 

[WCH]

You mean this one?:



Yes, for the simple reason that a 41,000 year cycle will have essentially zero impact on a century long time frame. No offence intended, but you are very ignorant of the simplest explanations. You make yourself look silly.

What's the saying? Better to remain silent and be suspected of being ignorant than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!

---------------------

That's not smug, it's the truth. There is nothing about this study which contradicts any agenda or the findings of other scientists. There is nothing about the study which has been left out of any calculations. You simply have no clue. If you are going to attack scientists like you did in your post, you had better have a little understanding of what is being discussed.

If those scientists turn out to be charlatans...yes I will continue to disavow their findings.

 

[Russell797]

That's why the 100 years for 70% equalization is given instead of several thousand years for 99,99999% equalization.

No, the forcing is present in all layers of the atmosphere. It's at the TOA we measure the imbalance. It's at the lower troposphere that affects surface air temperatures.

Correct, but the 3.7W/m^2 value is given to be applicable to the tropopause, which of course is not a flat surface. Greenhouse gases while resulting in a warmer surface (they don't add heat) also result in a cooler stratosphere because less outgoing energy passes through that region during the positive imbalance. Warmer surface, cooler stratosphere ( the available energy is more concentrated within the lower troposphere which leaves less available for up high.

The tropopause is the point between the troposphere and the stratosphere, which is highly irregular, and primarily changes altitude with latitude..

Correct and that irregularity, changing slope and altitude with latitude can affect upper tropospheric winds and the jet streams. This is an interesting area of research. The warming Arctic inflates the troposphere which in turn elevates the tropopause and changes it's slope which reduces the thermal gradient responsible for the polar jet stream. This weakened jet then can become more wavy and persistent, creating atmospheric blocking patterns to the south along with deeper excursions of cold air to the south and warm air to the north.

That's OK. I have forgotten alot since 1974 as well.

I try to keep up, but with knowledge growing exponentially it's tough!

Well, there is some conduction going on between atmospheric molecules exchanging heat as well.

That's not a factor at the TOA, unless we consider the affect of the solar wind which infuses the ionosphere with energy causing it to expand.

Actually, it does to a small extent.

The atmosphere radiates at a thermal temperature below that of the surface (on average of course). The colder atmosphere can not warm the already warmer surface to a temperature above that which the Sun does, though it can and does increase the energy absorbed by the surface. The warmer surface is ALWAYS radiating away energy faster than the cooler atmosphere can send energy into it. Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Russell797]

If those scientists turn out to be charlatans...yes I will continue to disavow their findings.

There is no if about it. You regard thousands of scientists as exposed charlatans.