Evidence that the climate scam is collapsing

[George50]

I guess you can go either way there. Consider that the forcing had to be determined before the constant for the forcing equation. Therefore, the 3.71 would have been determined first.

Again, what I was not agreeing with was the statement:

“The 5.35 log multiplier comes from the assumption that 2XCO2 = 3.708 W m-2.
That assumption is based on the assumption that CO2 accounts for 20% of the total 150 W m-2 greenhouse effect”

The paper does not show their work or math, just their results. I will normally look at the supplement information, but didn't even look top see if a supplemental was attached.

Some of the calculations are described in the references. There is no “attachment” that I am aware of.

Not 100%, I skimmed over it.

And to calculate the constant, they needed a result of the model first. Right?

Yes, the model described in Myhre and Stordal, 1997.

 

[longview]

You cherry-pick and ignore data all the time.

Here is a good example of a study about the CERES satellite data that you used to cite quite frequently until it was pointed out that the data doesn't fit your narrative and that the authors of it directly refute your claims in the main text and conclusion. Here is a graph from that study:

View attachment 67579791

Now, a quick explanation for anyone not familiar with this graph... Figures 2a and 2d are of Absorbed Solar Radiation(ASR) and represent the energy coming from the sun and its changes to how it is being absorbed by the Earth. 2b and 2e are of Outgoing Longwave radiation(OLR) and describe the changes in how the Earth sheds heat out into space. Now, the increase in OLR is represented as a negative number because the increase is helping to cool the planet. And 2c and 2f are the combination of ASR and OLR.

Where longview is cherry-picking is when he only looks at the totals. He does this constantly, using several different studies. And then he ignores the part where this study breaks down the individual components of the changes. One thing longview has been claiming lately is that the increase in ASR is mostly due to the clearing of aerosols from the atmosphere. But Figure 2d shows this increase in clearing as 'AER', and that amount is very small. According to this data, most of the increase in ASR is due to the decrease in cloud cover(Clouds) and less reflectance of the surface of the Earth(SFC), which is mostly due to the melting of snow and ice. Most of the decrease in clouds and the melting of snow and ice is a feedback of AGW. And then longview ignores the breakdown of OLR by constantly claiming that GHGs are no longer causing warming when Figure 2d clearly shows that GHGs(Other) and increasing water vapor(WV) are both causing more warming.

This has all been explained to longview several times. He is just intellectually dishonest and can't stop himself from lying about the satellite data.

Nobody should believe anything longview says.

Sorry Buzz you are wrong and do not know why.
The point is that the only way for greenhouse gases to add to Earth's energy imbalance is via the longwave spectrum,
by reducing the Net longwave flux, and that is not happening.

 

[longview]

Here we go again with the bogus and unscientific comparison between surface measurements of surface insolation and tropopause calculations of warming due to GHGs.

I have pointed out to longview several times that this is an intellectually dishonest comparison, but he seems not to care.

Here are a few choice quotes from a study of Global dimming and brightening that seem to be directly addressing longview's intellectual dishonesty:




Global dimming and brightening: A review

This is just more proof that longview is intellectually dishonest and should not be believed.

Buzz you know the surface insolation measurement is only one aspect, we also have the CERES satellite
instruments telling us that all of the observed energy imbalance is happening in the shortwave spectrum,
The longwave spectrum is loosing energy and offsetting the increase in the shortwave spectrum.

 

[longview]

Again, what I was not agreeing with was the statement:

“The 5.35 log multiplier comes from the assumption that 2XCO2 = 3.708 W m-2.
That assumption is based on the assumption that CO2 accounts for 20% of the total 150 W m-2 greenhouse effect”


Some of the calculations are described in the references. There is no “attachment” that I am aware of.


Yes, the model described in Myhre and Stordal, 1997.

You do realize that your quoted study says 2XCO2 = 3.708 W m-2 is based on HITRAN-96, which means it is limited
to the limits of that database.
I have seen some references to later HITRAN models adjusting for collusion and population inversions,
I wonder when they will get back to what Angstrom observed, that changing the CO2 level only caused minimal changes
on the IR energy passing through a tube.
This would match my understanding of how CO2 would react.
A beam of 15 um light at say 100 mW would decrease for a few microseconds after the CO2 level was doubled,
but them quickly return to about 99% of the initial amount.
This is because an excited CO2 molecule is transparent to the 15 um photons, and after the initial introduction of new
molecules (2X the level), most of the time the molecules are in an excited state.
That lonely 010 near the bottom is the 15 um dipole moment, and it takes a long time to decay on it's own (Spontaneous emission).

 

[Volunteer]

What I do see is the Oil companies phasing out oil as the feedstock for the fuels they sell, as the price of oil climbs.

When oil and gas industry is required to refrain from poisoning the air, waters, and lands, the costs of that will be passed on to we consumers, prices will rise, and demand will fall. However, societal forces for that are not there yet. Mainstream media does not expose the environmental and health damages, we do not heed the warnings of doctors and scientists, consumers love the artificially low prices at the pump, and politicians accept industry money for their campaigns. So...the lung diseases and deaths will increase with continued drillbabydrill policies and the resulting environmental degradation will continue probably for many more decades. Choices for remedy are limited to personal behavioral changes and local efforts to keep their communities clean.

 

[longview]

When oil and gas industry is required to refrain from poisoning the air, waters, and lands, the costs of that will be passed on to we consumers, prices will rise, and demand will fall. However, societal forces for that are not there yet. Mainstream media does not expose the environmental and health damages, we do not heed the warnings of doctors and scientists, consumers love the artificially low prices at the pump, and politicians accept industry money for their campaigns. So...the lung diseases and deaths will increase with continued drillbabydrill policies and the resulting environmental degradation will continue probably for many more decades. Choices for remedy are limited to personal behavioral changes and local efforts to keep their communities clean.

Do you understand that the study about health damages was mostly about burning coal, and diesel engines?
By the way Government mandates have nothing to do with the market conditions that will drive the oil companies away from oil.
It is simply the price of oil. The price of oil will keep raising, because the remaining supply cost more to extract.
The price of making their feedstock from scratch will keep declining as storage efficiency improves and the grid
adapts to massive swings in surplus from the alternative sources (Wind and Solar).
I think the cutoff for oil is about $96 a barrel sustained. Above that level there will be greater profits for the
refineries to make their own feedstock, vs purchasing oil.

 

[Volunteer]

Do you understand that the study about health damages was mostly about burning coal, and diesel engines?

Yes. Scientists and doctors believe that burning coal and diesel fuels are even more deadly than burning gasoline.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes. Scientists and doctors believe that burning coal and diesel fuels are even more deadly than burning gasoline.

I think that is pretty much proven to be true.

 

[longview]

Yes. Scientists and doctors believe that burning coal and diesel fuels are even more deadly than burning gasoline.

That is what the study said.
Global mortality from outdoor fine particle pollution generated by fossil fuel combustion: Results from GEOS-Chem

The burning of fossil fuels – especially coal, petrol, and diesel – is a major source of airborne particulate matter (PM) and ground-level ozone, which have both been implicated as key contributors to the global burden of mortality and disease

As for the source of this particulate matter, consider this WHO report?
Particulate Matter: The Overview
Places with modern car emission systems have much lower levels.
More coal, More diesel, or gasoline without a catalytic converter, produces much higher levels.

 

[George50]

You do realize that your quoted study says 2XCO2 = 3.708 W m-2 is based on HITRAN-96, which means it is limited
to the limits of that database.

Yes.

I have seen some references to later HITRAN models adjusting for collusion and population inversions,
I wonder when they will get back to what Angstrom observed, that changing the CO2 level only caused minimal changes
on the IR energy passing through a tube.

I don’t think we will be going back to something that resulted in conclusions that were later proven to be incorrect.

This would match my understanding of how CO2 would react.
A beam of 15 um light at say 100 mW would decrease for a few microseconds after the CO2 level was doubled,
but them quickly return to about 99% of the initial amount.
This is because an excited CO2 molecule is transparent to the 15 um photons, and after the initial introduction of new
molecules (2X the level), most of the time the molecules are in an excited state.
That lonely 010 near the bottom is the 15 um dipole moment, and it takes a long time to decay on it's own (Spontaneous emission).

View attachment 67579921

Unfortunately for us we are not dealing with a beam of light that is 15um. We are dealing with a much broader spectrum and while the exact 15um may get saturated other parts of the broader spectrum are nowhere near so.

The article below explains very clearly why things get worse via the familiar log function up to 2xCO2 but if we pass through about 800 ppm things get worse even faster because concentrations are high enough that other bands that were not significant contributors before become dominant.

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf

The graphic below shows various concentrations of CO2 and the change to the fluxes relative to our current situation. You can see the saturation increase around 15 um but how other wavelengths become dominant as concentrations increase:



The graphic below shows the actual fluxes that the above chart is based on:

 

[longview]

Yes.



I don’t think we will be going back to something that resulted in conclusions that were later proven to be incorrect.



Unfortunately for us we are not dealing with a beam of light that is 15um. We are dealing with a much broader spectrum and while the exact 15um may get saturated other parts of the broader spectrum are nowhere near so.

The article below explains very clearly why things get worse via the familiar log function up to 2xCO2 but if we pass through about 800 ppm things get worse even faster because concentrations are high enough that other bands that were not significant contributors before become dominant.

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf

This shows various concentrations of CO2 and the change to the fluxes relative to our current situation. You can see the saturation increase around 15 um but how other wavelengths become dominant as concentrations increase:

View attachment 67579997

This shows the actual fluxes that the above chart is based on:

View attachment 67579998

The people who make that argument are ONLY talking about CO2 molecules at ground state.
An excited CO2 molecule is transparent to all of the infrared.
and atmospheric CO2 could spend the vast majority of it's time in an excited state.

 

[Bullseye]

Why would I follow a link to read tweets by some denier dumbass? I've already seen plenty of the most insanely arrogant idiocy right here in DP's environment subforum; a group of sorry sods so desperate to feel superior that they pretend they can read a few blogs by uninformed and misinformed bretheren and then *just know* better than the combined results of tens of thousands of scientists who dedicated their lives to studying various systems involved in AGW over decades.

There's no more reason to them than to flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, and the "sure, we built huge rockets that we saw launch, we have all the schematics, we have tens of thousands of sattelites orbiting earth, and it would have cost more to do everything we did but then film a fake moon landing at home, but the moon landing was fake while everything else about space is real!" tits.

No small irony that your directionless blather makes you sound exactly the way you characterize those "deniers". Do you even realize how idiotic it is to label those that actually DON'T deny climate change? A huge portion of us acknowledge the warming, but look at actual data, rather than politically crafted "give me billions and I promise the Earth won't burn us all to death". Most of us see the minuscule 1-1.5℃ increase in over a century and a half.

 

[George50]

The people who make that argument are ONLY talking about CO2 molecules at ground state.

Of course.

An excited CO2 molecule is transparent to all of the infrared.

Of course.

and atmospheric CO2 could spend the vast majority of it's time in an excited state.

Very unlikely.

Even if that were true you are missing the point. With 2xCO2 or 32xCO2 there are 2 or 32 times more CO2 molecules to add fuel to the fire.

Bottom line is that the people making the argument in this article know what they are talking about.

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf

 

[longview]

Of course.

Of course.

Very unlikely.

Even if that were true you are missing the point. With 2xCO2 or 32xCO2 there are 2 or 32 times more CO2 molecules to add fuel to the fire.

Bottom line is that the people making the argument in this article know what they are talking about.

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf

The delta between 1XCO2 and 2XCO2 with a Y axis scale of less than 0.1 W m-2, looks like less than the predicted 3.71 W m-2!

 

[George50]

No small irony that your directionless blather makes you sound exactly the way you characterize those "deniers". Do you even realize how idiotic it is to label those that actually DON'T deny climate change? A huge portion of us acknowledge the warming, but look at actual data, rather than politically crafted "give me billions and I promise the Earth won't burn us all to death". Most of us see the minuscule 1-1.5℃ increase in over a century and a half.

First, your numbers are wrong. 1.5 degrees C is with the most aggressive mitigation. With your approach it’s 4 degrees C plus. Also, it’s in 75 years not 150.

Second, you are ceding the future to China. They are now the world leader in renewable power generation and EVs. Your policies are designed to put us even further behind the rest of the world.

Third, you don’t realize that the Chinese are not embracing what you scorn because they are altruistic. They are doing it because they understand that it will not only put them in the forefront of technology but also save them money over time.

 

[Bullseye]

First, your numbers are wrong. 1.5 degrees C is with the most aggressive mitigation. With your approach it’s 4 degrees C plus. Also, it’s in 75 years not 150.

Sorry no. My numbers are correct.

Second, you are ceding the future to China. They are now the world leader in renewable power generation and EVs. Your policies are designed to put us even further behind the rest of the world.

Assuming they're moving forward.

Third, you don’t realize that the Chinese are not embracing what you scorn because they are altruistic. They are doing it because they understand that it will not only put them in the forefront of technology but also save them money over time.

I don't think so.

 

[George50]

The delta between 1XCO2 and 2XCO2 with a Y axis scale of less than 0.1 W m-2, looks like less than the predicted 3.71 W m-2!

You missed the legend in the prior graphic. The Y axis is not in W m-2. Here’s the way it looks in W m-2 from later in the article:

 

[George50]

Sorry no. My numbers are correct.

Your numbers are for extreme mitigation. That being the 1.5 scenario in 75 years, not 150. We were in the Current policies category until Trump took over. With your approach we move up to the without climate policies category.

Assuming they're moving forward.

There is no assuming required. They are already way ahead of us. Most Americans have no clue.

I don't think so.

So you think the Chinese are just that altruistic?

 

[Lord of Planar]

First, your numbers are wrong. 1.5 degrees C is with the most aggressive mitigation. With your approach it’s 4 degrees C plus. Also, it’s in 75 years not 150.

I challenge you to show those alleged increases are correct. I do not believe they will be that large. This is more that falls in line with unproven hypothesis and if those pushing the agenda stopped cherry picking and stopped using unethical silencing of other scientists, i would be more apt to believe such numbers.

Second, you are ceding the future to China. They are now the world leader in renewable power generation and EVs. Your policies are designed to put us even further behind the rest of the world.

Unlikely. Remember they have more than four times the population. look at it from a per-capita perspective.

Third, you don’t realize that the Chinese are not embracing what you scorn because they are altruistic. They are doing it because they understand that it will not only put them in the forefront of technology but also save them money over time.

No. They need the power, and are still building coal plants as well.

 

[longview]

You missed the legend in the prior graphic. The Y axis is not in W m-2. Here’s the way it looks in W m-2 from later in the article:

View attachment 67580034

Sorry it is difficult for my old eyes to look at things like this on my phone.
Reading this on the computer makes me think something is being inferred that may not be there.
These two graphics are the ones I think matter.

In this panel the positive radiative flux causes warming, the O ppm to 389 ppm (1XCO2)shows a large positive peak and almost no negative.
On the 2XCO2 -1XCO2 there is both positive and negative values (warming and cooling), and it looks like slightly more negative.
This would match the observed data from the CERES instruments.

The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR) that is partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).

As CO2 levels increased the Negative forcing increased more than the positive forcing, partially offsetting the positive
forcing happening in the shortwave ASR.
I was concerned that I might be confusing myself and the negative on the graph was in fact warming as it is a subtraction graph,
but were that the case the 0 ppm - the 389 ppm, would be all negative, and it is all positive.

While you are correct that Figure 5 Y axis is not in W m-2, it is in W m-2/cm-1 your Figure 6 does not support a lot of forcing.

Figure 6. (a) Instantaneous Radiative Forcing of CO2 (relative to the present-day concentration)

Let's consider what they are saying with that graph, because it looks like ZERO is at about +500 ppm above 389 ppm.
which would mean they are not expecting any positive forcing until CO2 levels reach 889 ppm.

 

[Volunteer]

Unlikely. Remember they have more than four times the population. look at it from a per-capita perspective.

From your per capita perspective, China emits only half the greenhouse gas emissions that the U.S. emits.

 

[longview]

Of course.

Of course.

Very unlikely.

Even if that were true you are missing the point. With 2xCO2 or 32xCO2 there are 2 or 32 times more CO2 molecules to add fuel to the fire.

Bottom line is that the people making the argument in this article know what they are talking about.

https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/global-change-debates/Sources/CO2-saturation/more/Zhong-Haigh-2013.pdf

While I can envision the population inversion I think may be happening with CO2 in my mind, I am trying to think
of an analogy a layman would understand.
Imagine a multi level mall with escalators going up and elevators going down.
They have 1000 people to move millions of bricks from the ground floor to the top level. (One person per brick per cycle)
The escalators can take 1000 people per hour up, but the elevators can only bring 200 people per hour down.
In the first hour they move 1000 bricks to the top, but then 800 people are stuck on the top, and only 200 bricks are moved
in the second and all subsequent hours. This is called a population inversion, and happens in a CO2 laser, where
the molecules are not at ground state to receive any additional energy (Bricks) so the output becomes limited.
Adding new people will temporarily increase brick movement, but it will quickly drop back to the 200 per hour rate.

 

[George50]

Sorry it is difficult for my old eyes to look at things like this on my phone.
Reading this on the computer makes me think something is being inferred that may not be there.
These two graphics are the ones I think matter.
View attachment 67580060
In this panel the positive radiative flux causes warming, the O ppm to 389 ppm (1XCO2)shows a large positive peak and almost no negative.
On the 2XCO2 -1XCO2 there is both positive and negative values (warming and cooling), and it looks like slightly more negative.
This would match the observed data from the CERES instruments.

As CO2 levels increased the Negative forcing increased more than the positive forcing, partially offsetting the positive
forcing happening in the shortwave ASR.
I was concerned that I might be confusing myself and the negative on the graph was in fact warming as it is a subtraction graph,
but were that the case the 0 ppm - the 389 ppm, would be all negative, and it is all positive.

You are correct, it can be very confusing especially depending on what they put on each side of the minus sign. In this graph they are comparing a low concentration to a higher one. I look at it as the graph showing “if we change from 0 to 1x co2 we get a big amount of warming”:


You can also see the same thing here with the fluxes. With the 1xCO2 we see a big decrease in OLR compared to 0 CO2 (thus warming because ASR - OLR is now a bigger number because OLR is smaller):



In this next graph it’s easy to get confused because now instead of comparing a low concentration to a higher one, they are comparing a higher concentration to a lower one (2xCO2 to 1xCO2). Again, I look at it as “if we change from 2x to 1x we get cooling”:

While you are correct that Figure 5 Y axis is not in W m-2, it is in W m-2/cm-1 your Figure 6 does not support a lot of forcing.

Let's consider what they are saying with that graph, because it looks like ZERO is at about +500 ppm above 389 ppm.
which would mean they are not expecting any positive forcing until CO2 levels reach 889 ppm.
View attachment 67580067

Remember in figure 6 (see below) we are looking at relative to today (when the study was done). Zero is actually set at 389 ppm (1xCO2) and is designated with a little circle and star. The next circle and star is at 2xCO2, after that 3x. Additional positive forcing relative to today occurs immediately when ppm is > 389.

 

[George50]

Figure 6:

 

[longview]

You are correct, it can be very confusing especially depending on what they put on each side of the minus sign. In this graph they are comparing a low concentration to a higher one. I look at it as the graph showing “if we change from 0 to 1x co2 we get a big amount of warming”:

View attachment 67580178
You can also see the same thing here with the fluxes. With the 1xCO2 we see a big decrease in OLR compared to 0 CO2 (thus warming because ASR - OLR is now a bigger number because OLR is smaller):

View attachment 67580182

In this next graph it’s easy to get confused because now instead of comparing a low concentration to a higher one, they are comparing a higher concentration to a lower one (2xCO2 to 1xCO2). Again, I look at it as “if we change from 2x to 1x we get cooling”:

View attachment 67580193



Remember in figure 6 (see below) we are looking at relative to today (when the study was done). Zero is actually set at 389 ppm (1xCO2) and is designated with a little circle and star. The next circle and star is at 2xCO2, after that 3x. Additional positive forcing relative to today occurs immediately when ppm is > 389.

It still shows that 2XCO2 -1XCO2 as having both positive and negative forcing, with more negative.