Evidence that the climate scam is collapsing

[longview]

Not a single item on that OP list has anything to do with science.

The entire concept of added CO2 causing catastrophic warming has very little to do with science!
It is all just castles in the sky!
There is almost no empirical evidence that added CO2 causes any warming, much less the catastrophic warming
some people predict.

 

[George50]

But it doesn’t agree with the total of 0.5 you mentioned, which means if that is what they measured over the time period imbalance per decade, then they were including bands not in the bands stated!

They did not include just the 710-720 band. They stated which bands were included in the study and how much each contributed. The screen shot below shows this information.



The observed changes are due to increasing CO2, CH4, and N2O concentrations inducing: (a) an IRF that decreases emission in the CO2 wings, CH4, and N2O bands (−0.21 Wm−2 decade−1), (b) stratospheric cooling that decreases emission in the O3 band and center of the CO2 band (−0.10 Wm−2 decade−1), and (c) a warmer planet that increases emission across the infrared spectrum and in particular the H2O rotational and window bands (0.45 Wm−2 decade−1).

So we have a change in ERF of -0.21 -0.10 = -0.31 Wm-2 decade-1. In the supplement they show this as -0.30 (rounding of -0.21 and -0.10 I expect) and compare to IPCC which was -0.34.

Note that this is per decade. We had 1.8 decades resulting in total ERF of 1.8 x -0.31 = -0.56 Wm-2.

Now let's consider what a decrease of -0.0167 W m-2 from 2003 to 2021 means about the climate sensitivity
of the greenhouse gases studied?

The -0.0167 is per decade not from 2003 to 2021 and only for 710 to 720 cm-1.

NOAA AGGI says that the CO2-eq of the greenhouse gases increased from 463 ppm in 2003 to 526 ppm in 2021.
The measured decrease in the bands studied was -0.0167 W m-2.
The formula would be 0.0167/ ln(526/463) = .13090, So a doubling of those gases would cause
a decrease in those bands of 0.13090 X ln(2) = 0.09 W m-2.
Even if we use the IPCC's unrealistic ratio of 3C/3.71 W m-2 = 0.808 C per W m-2,
the resulting warming would be 0.09 X 0.808 = 0.073 C per doubling
I am sorry but this is so far down in the noise as to be counted as zero.

Your calculations above are based on an incorrect assumption.

Perhaps if you read the study it would make more sense.

 

[longview]

They did not include just the 710-720 band. They stated which bands were included in the study and how much each contributed. The screen shot below shows this information.

View attachment 67582719

The observed changes are due to increasing CO2, CH4, and N2O concentrations inducing: (a) an IRF that decreases emission in the CO2 wings, CH4, and N2O bands (−0.21 Wm−2 decade−1), (b) stratospheric cooling that decreases emission in the O3 band and center of the CO2 band (−0.10 Wm−2 decade−1), and (c) a warmer planet that increases emission across the infrared spectrum and in particular the H2O rotational and window bands (0.45 Wm−2 decade−1).

So we have a change in ERF of -0.21 -0.10 = -0.31 Wm-2 decade-1. In the supplement they show this as -0.30 (rounding of -0.21 and -0.10 I expect) and compare to IPCC which was -0.34.

Note that this is per decade. We had 1.8 decades resulting in total ERF of 1.8 x -0.31 = -0.56 Wm-2.


The -0.0167 is per decade not from 2003 to 2021 and only for 710 to 720 cm-1.


Your calculations above are based on an incorrect assumption.

Perhaps if you read the study it would make more sense.

Sorry we wondered down different rabbit holes.
Related to the study, this is the graphic I am talking about, and it is total for the period not per decade.
Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Feedback Signatures Identified in Hyperspectral Infrared Satellite Observations

The 710 to 720 cm-1 band saw a decrease from +0.015 to -0.015 W m-2 a delta of - 0.03 W m-2, for CO2 total of - 0.03 W m-2.
The 1279 to 1280 cm-1 CH4/N2O band decreased from +0.004 to - 0.003 W m-2 a delta of -0.007 W m-2.
Combined the total measured decline was -.037 W m-2 for the entire period 2003 to 2021.
This combined with the statement in the abstract,

Here we show that continuous, stable, global, hyperspectral infrared satellite measurements (2003–2021) display decreases in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) in the CO2, CH4, and N2O absorption bands and increases in OLR in the window band and H2O absorption bands.

Means that the other bands saw an increase in OLR. This means that there is no positive forcing happening in the longwave spectrum.

Again we are warming because more of the available sunlight is reaching the surface, a portion of the spectrum that the greenhouse gases
do not have a direct affect.

 

[longview]

They did not include just the 710-720 band. They stated which bands were included in the study and how much each contributed. The screen shot below shows this information.

View attachment 67582719

The observed changes are due to increasing CO2, CH4, and N2O concentrations inducing: (a) an IRF that decreases emission in the CO2 wings, CH4, and N2O bands (−0.21 Wm−2 decade−1), (b) stratospheric cooling that decreases emission in the O3 band and center of the CO2 band (−0.10 Wm−2 decade−1), and (c) a warmer planet that increases emission across the infrared spectrum and in particular the H2O rotational and window bands (0.45 Wm−2 decade−1).

So we have a change in ERF of -0.21 -0.10 = -0.31 Wm-2 decade-1. In the supplement they show this as -0.30 (rounding of -0.21 and -0.10 I expect) and compare to IPCC which was -0.34.

Note that this is per decade. We had 1.8 decades resulting in total ERF of 1.8 x -0.31 = -0.56 Wm-2.


The -0.0167 is per decade not from 2003 to 2021 and only for 710 to 720 cm-1.


Your calculations above are based on an incorrect assumption.

Perhaps if you read the study it would make more sense.

As for the Supporting Information,
supporting information
Lets consider the findings a total decrease of the greenhouse gas bands of -.021 W m-2 per decade, or 0.378 W m-2 for the entire period.
Now we know that the AGGI increased in that period from 463 ppm to 526 ppm, so the hypothetical doubling forcing would be 2.08 W m-2.
and the greenhouse gas ratio of imbalance to warming published by NASA is 33C/150 W m-2 = 0.22C per W m-2 ,
so the potential warming from a doubling of the CO2 level would be 2.08 X 0.22 = 0.45C.
The observed data is not looking like a crisis!

[td width="48pt"]

​

[/td]​

 

[Lord of Planar]

Sorry we wondered down different rabbit holes.
Related to the study, this is the graphic I am talking about, and it is total for the period not per decade.
Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Feedback Signatures Identified in Hyperspectral Infrared Satellite Observations
View attachment 67582789
The 710 to 720 cm-1 band saw a decrease from +0.015 to -0.015 W m-2 a delta of - 0.03 W m-2, for CO2 total of - 0.03 W m-2.
The 1279 to 1280 cm-1 CH4/N2O band decreased from +0.004 to - 0.003 W m-2 a delta of -0.007 W m-2.
Combined the total measured decline was -.037 W m-2 for the entire period 2003 to 2021.
This combined with the statement in the abstract,

Means that the other bands saw an increase in OLR. This means that there is no positive forcing happening in the longwave spectrum.

Again we are warming because more of the available sunlight is reaching the surface, a portion of the spectrum that the greenhouse gases
do not have a direct affect.

I wonder why the study is so obscure with the data. They only present enough information to show trends that are meaningless. The 10 cm range trends for example are a joke.

I suspect of the properly analyzed the data collected, their paper would have never been accepted as it wouldn't support the high sensitivity the agenda wants. And if it was accepted, the author might risk never getting grant money again.

 

[Lord of Planar]

As for the Supporting Information,
supporting information
Lets consider the findings a total decrease of the greenhouse gas bands of -.021 W m-2 per decade, or 0.378 W m-2 for the entire period.
Now we know that the AGGI increased in that period from 463 ppm to 526 ppm, so the hypothetical doubling forcing would be 2.08 W m-2.
and the greenhouse gas ratio of imbalance to warming published by NASA is 33C/150 W m-2 = 0.22C per W m-2 ,
so the potential warming from a doubling of the CO2 level would be 2.08 X 0.22 = 0.45C.
The observed data is not looking like a crisis!

[td width="48pt"]


[/td]​

And the 0.5 degree area is what i have come to accept for a doubling.

 

[longview]

I wonder why the study is so obscure with the data. They only present enough information to show trends that are meaningless. The 10 cm range trends for example are a joke.

I suspect of the properly analyzed the data collected, their paper would have never been accepted as it wouldn't support the high sensitivity the agenda wants. And if it was accepted, the author might risk never getting grant money again.

I was wondering the same thing, the data was not in their favor, so they put lipstick on the pig!

 

[longview]

And the 0.5 degree area is what i have come to accept for a doubling.

I think it may not be anything positive, but there could be a slight warming.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I was wondering the same thing, the data was not in their favor, so they put lipstick on the pig!

Yep. Dressed it all up in the cherry picked parts they could sell to those who are ignorant.

I see very little of value the way the study is presented.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think it may not be anything positive, but there could be a slight warming.

Like I pointed out before. Figures 3a and 3b are showing an increase in OLR based on the area above and below the zero line. Figure 3a (AIRS) appears to show approximately the same of an OLR increase at some bands as there is an OLR decrease in the CO2 wings.

It appears the total feedback is negative rather than the faith it is positive.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I wonder if these scientists will get any more grants. They are rocking the AGW boat, as in their conclusion they say:

We find that hyperspectral infrared satellite observations during 2003–2021 show decreases in OLR in the CO2,​

CH4, and N2O bands and increases in OLR in the water vapor and window bands. The latter exceeds the former,​

yielding a positive broadband OLR trend.​

I wonder how many hard-core cult leaders are angry at them.

 

[longview]

I wonder if these scientists will get any more grants. They are rocking the AGW boat, as in their conclusion they say:

We find that hyperspectral infrared satellite observations during 2003–2021 show decreases in OLR in the CO2,​

CH4, and N2O bands and increases in OLR in the water vapor and window bands. The latter exceeds the former,​

yielding a positive broadband OLR trend.​

I wonder how many hard-core cult leaders are angry at them.

No they worded it carefully enough to avoid committing heresy.

 

[George50]

I wonder why the study is so obscure with the data. They only present enough information to show trends that are meaningless. The 10 cm range trends for example are a joke.

Obscure? Did you not read the study or are you incapable of understanding it? They showed the trends per decade for the entire spectrum in figure 1c.

I remember you saying you had trouble understanding the legend on that graph. Apparently, you still don’t get it. Figure 1c shows the same data for the entire spectrum by decade as figure 1b shows by year for only one 10 cm range in one of the wings where the majority of the impact is.

I suspect of the properly analyzed the data collected, their paper would have never been accepted as it wouldn't support the high sensitivity the agenda wants.

The paper doesn’t address the kinds of feedbacks that are used to estimate the majority of climate sensitivity.

And if it was accepted, the author might risk never getting grant money again.

What a silly argument.

 

[George50]

Like I pointed out before. Figures 3a and 3b are showing an increase in OLR based on the area above and below the zero line. Figure 3a (AIRS) appears to show approximately the same of an OLR increase at some bands as there is an OLR decrease in the CO2 wings.

It appears the total feedback is negative rather than the faith it is positive.

And like I pointed out before in post 791:

Your assumption that:

If this is supposed to be the feedback from greenhouse gasses,

Is incorrect. It also includes increased radiative response.

 

[George50]

Yep. Dressed it all up in the cherry picked parts they could sell to those who are ignorant.

I see very little of value the way the study is presented.

The study was not written for those who are ignorant. They could follow it. Hell, you are having trouble and I know you are not ignorant.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Obscure? Did you not read the study or are you incapable of understanding it? They showed the trends per decade for the entire spectrum in figure 1c.

And if I am looking at 1c and 1d correctly, the total effect is a reduction of warming due to a negative feedback of H2O.

I remember you saying you had trouble understanding the legend on that graph. Apparently,

I didn't have trouble understanding the legend, but I did not follow their intent on what they presented. I was concerned by how low the numbers were, and even the addition of all the spectral frequencies did not amount to much.

you still don’t get it. Figure 1c shows the same data for the entire spectrum by decade as figure 1b shows by year for only one 10 cm range in one of the wings where the majority of the impact is.

I do undetsnad the nuances. It bothers me the way it is presented. In their supplementary information, they show CO2 in three small band, The center and both wings. i think the total values of that complete range Co2 effects would have been more useful plotted by year, rather than a selected 10 cm slice.

The paper doesn’t address the kinds of feedbacks that are used to estimate the majority of climate sensitivity.

Maybe not, but the area of the graph showing greater OLR is larger than the area of the CO2 reduction of OLR.

What a silly argument.

I am a stickler for details. I am not happy with missing information that may be important. I jump to the conclusion that either the author is incompetent, or hiding something.

 

[George50]

I wonder if these scientists will get any more grants. They are rocking the AGW boat, as in their conclusion they say:

We find that hyperspectral infrared satellite observations during 2003–2021 show decreases in OLR in the CO2,​

CH4, and N2O bands and increases in OLR in the water vapor and window bands. The latter exceeds the former,​

yielding a positive broadband OLR trend.​

I wonder how many hard-core cult leaders are angry at them.

Why would anyone be angry? Everyone knows that OLR is going up. They also know that when longwave radiation from the surface increases greenhouse gases will only trap about 40% of it which will of course usually result in increased OLR.

In this case we had observed changes that are due to increasing CO2, CH4, and N2O concentrations inducing: (a) an IRF that decreases emission in the CO2 wings, CH4, and N2O bands (−0.21 Wm−2 decade−1), (b) stratospheric cooling that decreases emission in the O3 band and center of the CO2 band (−0.10 Wm−2 decade−1), and (c) a warmer planet that increases emission across the infrared spectrum and in particular the H2O rotational and window bands (0.45 Wm−2 decade−1).

This gave us a net increase in OLR of 0.15. However, without the increase in the greenhouse effect which was documented in great detail OLR would have increased by 0.45.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I do not like the way they present information. If we look at the supplemental, Figure F3 is using relative values for OLR, when I thing absolute values would be more meaningful. If not absolute values, at least net OLR from incoming.

If we look at S6, It is showing that CO2 is reducing per decade, yet all they say is AIRS matches calculations closely (R= .93).

 

[Lord of Planar]

What a silly argument.

I don't think so. Respectable scientists that have rocked the boat of the agenda have been attacked professionally, and careers destroyed. the science cannot stand on its own merit, and the agenda maintains strength through force.

there are too many examples of scientists being ostracized for disagreement with the IPCCC.

 

[Lord of Planar]

And like I pointed out before in post 791:

Your assumption that:

If this is supposed to be the feedback from greenhouse gasses,

Is incorrect. It also includes increased radiative response.

Well, it is from the water vapor. Right? Isn't H2O feedback suppose top be from CO2? Right in the conclusions, they say:

We find that hyperspectral infrared satellite observations during 2003–2021 show decreases in OLR in the CO2,​

CH4, and N2O bands and increases in OLR in the water vapor and window bands. The latter exceeds the former,​

yielding a positive broadband OLR trend.​

​

They clearly state here that the OLR is increased in the H2O spectra and exceeds the CO2, CH4, and N2O. The study is about non-condensing greenhouse gasses and H2O feedback.

Why do you think differently?

 

[Lord of Planar]

The study was not written for those who are ignorant. They could follow it. Hell, you are having trouble and I know you are not ignorant.

Again, I do not have difficulty following it. I stated early on, it would be some time before i could do a good reading of it. I did not have time when it was presented.

Why do you make me repeat myself? You are assuming things outside of what I refer to. It appears you are the one having difficulties following it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The study was not written for those who are ignorant.

Sure it is.

They could follow it. Hell, you are having trouble and I know you are not ignorant.

Following it is not the problem.

 

[George50]

And if I am looking at 1c and 1d correctly, the total effect is a reduction of warming due to a negative feedback of H2O.

The vast majority of the reduction in warming is via the “window” band (800-1200 cm-1), not H2O. That would be expected when we have more radiation coming from the surface due to a warming planet since there is nothing to stop it in that band.

There is also some smaller reduction in warming in the rotational band of H2O (160-560). However, H2O is absolutely NOT well-mixed so especially in geographical areas where water vapor is scarce increased radiation coming from the surface will get through.

I didn't have trouble understanding the legend, but I did not follow their intent on what they presented. I was concerned by how low the numbers were, and even the addition of all the spectral frequencies did not amount to much.

They added it all up and came up with -0.30 W m-2 per decade and compared it to the IPCC’s -0.34.

I do undetsnad the nuances. It bothers me the way it is presented. In their supplementary information, they show CO2 in three small band, The center and both wings. i think the total values of that complete range Co2 effects would have been more useful plotted by year, rather than a selected 10 cm slice.

That might have been nice, but it is irrelevant to the results. They did split out CO2 and others giving a total change per decade for each.

Maybe not, but the area of the graph showing greater OLR is larger than the area of the CO2 reduction of OLR.

Yes, because of increased radiation coming from the surface. Figure 2b shows the impact of that increased radiation in yellow.

I am a stickler for details. I am not happy with missing information that may be important. I jump to the conclusion that either the author is incompetent, or hiding something.

What is missing?

There is more data than most studies. There are no studies where you could not say I would like to see something else.

If someone wants more data or a different presentation they give links to the data that they used. The idea that they are hiding something is not credible, nor is the idea that they are incompetent.

 

[George50]

Well, it is from the water vapor. Right? Isn't H2O feedback suppose top be from CO2?

H2O feedback is supposed to come from an increase in temperature from any source.

Right in the conclusions, they say:

We find that hyperspectral infrared satellite observations during 2003–2021 show decreases in OLR in the CO2,​

CH4, and N2O bands and increases in OLR in the water vapor and window bands. The latter exceeds the former,​

yielding a positive broadband OLR trend.​

​

They clearly state here that the OLR is increased in the H2O spectra and exceeds the CO2, CH4, and N2O. The study is about non-condensing greenhouse gasses and H2O feedback.

Why do you think differently?

What I was saying was an incorrect assumption was your comment regarding Figure 3a that:

There is a huger area of increased OLR in that 800 to 1200 range. If this is supposed to be the feedback from greenhouse gasses, it appears the feedback is far more negative than positive.

My comment was that it includes increased radiative response due to a warming planet. Many feedbacks are positive on the ASR side like for example melting ice and snow, we also know that decreases in clouds (this may or may not be a feedback to warming) and fewer aerosols also were important additions to ASR in the 21st century. Anything that adds to ASR will end up increasing OLR but the increase in ASR will generally be greater than the increase in OLR (because greenhouse gases will stop about 40% of surface radiation) so the net effect is warming.

800-1200 is the window band, not water vapor which is on the low and higher ends of the spectrum. Figure 2b shows the radiative response in yellow.

 

[Lord of Planar]

H2O feedback is supposed to come from an increase in temperature from any source.

True enough. I don't recall what the study said about it, and I would have to post and search again. I wonder where they consider the cut-off at since CO2 covers all the spectra.

My comment was that it includes increased radiative response due to a warming planet. Many feedbacks are positive on the ASR side like for example melting ice and snow, we also know that decreases in clouds (this may or may not be a feedback to warming) and fewer aerosols also were important additions to ASR in the 21st century. Anything that adds to ASR will end up increasing OLR but the increase in ASR will generally be greater than the increase in OLR (because greenhouse gases will stop about 40% of surface radiation) so the net effect is warming.

Yes, this is true. What you rarely ever see people speak of however is the the forcing of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere is a feedback of the solar heating the earth to start with.

800-1200 is the window band, not water vapor which is on the low and higher ends of the spectrum. Figure 2b shows the radiative response in yellow.

It is a low point in the SpectralCalc image.