Fall Nights Are Warming in Our Changing Climate

[Lord of Planar]

Here are the authors of the Chapter of AR5 on FORCING. Please tell us which author is responsible for these bogus calculations.

Chapter 8: Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing
121 Myhre Gunnar Center for International Climate and Environment (CICERO) Norway 8 CLA I
122 Shindell Drew National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) United States of America 8 CLA I
123 Breon Francois-Marie Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE) France 8 LA I
124 Collins William Met Office Hadley Centre United Kingdom 8 LA I
125 Fuglestvedt Jan Center for International Climate and Environmental Research
(CICERO)
Norway 8 LA I
126 Huang Jianping Lanzhou University China 8 LA I
127 Koch Dorothy U.S. Department of Energy United States of America 8 LA I
128 Lamarque Jean-Francois National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) United States of America 8 LA I
129 Lee David Manchester Metropolitan University United Kingdom 8 LA I
130 Mendoza Blanca Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico Mexico 8 LA I
131 Nakajima Teruyuki University of Tokyo Japan 8 LA I
132 Robock Alan Rutgers University United States of America 8 LA I
133 Stephens Graeme NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory United States of America 8 LA I
134 Takemura Toshihiko Kyushu University Japan 8 LA I
135 Zhang Hua China Meteorological Administration China 8 LA I
136 Jacob Daniel Harvard University United States of America 8 RE I
137 Ravishankara A. R. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) United States of America 8 RE I
138 Shine Keith University of Reading United Kingdom 8 RE I

https://ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

By all means, show me where they do. I can't show you something that doesn't exist.

Does this quote elude you?

1 Change in net downward radiative flux at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, while holding surface and tropospheric temperatures and state variables fixed at the unperturbed values.
​

 

[Media_Truth]

By all means, show me where they do. I can't show you something that doesn't exist.

Does this quote elude you?

1 Change in net downward radiative flux at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, while holding surface and tropospheric temperatures and state variables fixed at the unperturbed values.
​

Be specific, and explain what is wrong with the statement. Which author made that statement? AR5 is broken down very nicely. It would be easy for you to link to this exact statement, so it could be analyzed in context. Please do so...

Also, originally you mentioned calculations - there are no calculations in this statement.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Be specific, and explain what is wrong with the statement. Which author made that statement? AR5 is broken down very nicely. It would be easy for you to link to this exact statement, so it could be analyzed in context. Please do so...

Also, originally you mentioned calculations - there are no calculations in this statement.

I have explained this before. You just don't comprehend, so why explain it again?

 

[Media_Truth]

I have explained this before. You just don't comprehend, so why explain it again?

DODGE alert!

 

[Threegoofs]

I have explained this before. You just don't comprehend, so why explain it again?

Yes.
We know you’re busy on three different screens, just trying to keep up with supporting the denier agenda to have time to actually, you know, explain the denier agenda.

 

[Quaestio]

Be specific, and explain what is wrong with the statement. Which author made that statement? AR5 is broken down very nicely. It would be easy for you to link to this exact statement, so it could be analyzed in context. Please do so...

Also, originally you mentioned calculations - there are no calculations in this statement.

There is nothing 'wrong' with the sentence LOP quoted as he hysterically claims. It's from the section where the definitions of the concepts of 'radiative forcing' and 'effective radiative forcing' and their limitations are explained. Perhaps he had't bothered to read it in context as shown here starting on page 664:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

"In this section, we present the various definitions of RF used in this chapter, and discuss the utility and limitations of RF."

Looks like a classic 'climate truther' case of poor comprehension due to lack of knowledge in the relevant fields of science and jumping to false and hysterical conclusions due to extreme ideological confirmation bias.

 

[Media_Truth]

There is nothing 'wrong' with the sentence LOP quoted as he hysterically claims. It's from the section where the definitions of the concepts of 'radiative forcing' and 'effective radiative forcing' and their limitations are explained. Perhaps he had't bothered to read it in context as shown here starting on page 664:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

"In this section, we present the various definitions of RF used in this chapter, and discuss the utility and limitations of RF."

Looks like a classic 'climate truther' case of poor comprehension due to lack of knowledge in the relevant fields of science and jumping to false and hysterical conclusions due to extreme ideological confirmation bias.

Thanks for looking up that section of AR5. It really shows the detail and level of analysis that these scientists employ. i found this quite interesting ---

With every extra degree of air temperature,
the atmosphere can retain around 7% more water
vapour (see upper-left insert in the FAQ 8.1, Figure
1). This increase in concentration amplifies the greenhouse
effect, and therefore leads to more warming.
This process, referred to as the water vapour feedback,
is well understood and quantified.

This is evidence that Climate Change isn't just CO2. The warming feeds on itself to make the Earth even warmer. We are close to a 1 deg C anomaly. This statement would also imply that the air can currently hold 6-7% more water, making storms, hurricanes, and flooding more severe.

 

[longview]

Thanks for looking up that section of AR5. It really shows the detail and level of analysis that these scientists employ. i found this quite interesting ---

With every extra degree of air temperature,
the atmosphere can retain around 7% more water
vapour (see upper-left insert in the FAQ 8.1, Figure
1). This increase in concentration amplifies the greenhouse
effect, and therefore leads to more warming.
This process, referred to as the water vapour feedback,
is well understood and quantified.

This is evidence that Climate Change isn't just CO2. The warming feeds on itself to make the Earth even warmer. We are close to a 1 deg C anomaly. This statement would also imply that the air can currently hold 6-7% more water, making storms, hurricanes, and flooding more severe.

The IPCC is bootstrapping the concept from earlier studies which did the same thing.
The actual amount of forcing from a change in CO2 level becomes challenging as stated by the IPCC themselves.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Implicit in the concept of RF is the proposition that the change in net
irradiance in response to the imposed forcing alone can be
separated from all subsequent responses to the forcing. These are not in fact
always clearly separable and thus some ambiguity exists in what may
be considered a forcing versus what is part of the climate response.

Also interesting is this section,

8.1.1.1
Defining Radiative Forcing
Alternative definitions of RF have been developed, each with its own
advantages and limitations. The instantaneous RF refers to an instantaneous change in net
(down minus up) radiative flux (shortwave plus longwave; in W m–2) due to an imposed change.

The change in energy imbalance is almost instantaneous, no latency.
If we look at papers about measuring the flux it becomes even more questionable.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JAMC2246.1

Even with the noted discrepancies, both LW models A and B produce surface fluxes that easily
satisfy the instantaneous flux tolerances of ±20 W m−2 that were established for the CERES project.

For those keeping track the amount of CO2 imbalance should be 5.35 X ln(408/280)= 2.014 Wm-2 since about 1880,
but we are measuring with ±20 W m−2 devices.
Even more recent papers show the uncertainty is greater than the measurement.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0208.1

We estimate the uncertainty in 1° × 1° latitude–longitude regional monthly mean all-sky TOA flux to be 3 W m−2 (1σ) for the Terra-only
period and 2.5 W m−2 for the Terra–Aqua period both for SW and LW. For clear sky, uncertainties are larger owing primarily to the
need to use a cloud mask to distinguish between clear and cloudy regions.

 

[Into the Night]

This recently-introduced interactive graphic allows the user to enter the US city of choice and see the Fall temperature anomaly. Climate Central tends to use NOAA data as it's source for temperatures.

Fall Nights Are Warming in Our Changing Climate | Climate Central

View attachment 67243668

Fall is a season of transition and big swings in weather; snow has already fallen in the Front Range of the Rockies, while warm and humid conditions hung over the East Coast as recently as last week. As the climate changes, fall is not as cool as it used to be, and cooler weather is being delayed until later in the season. This change affects the growing season, the allergy season, the insect population, and fall foliage. We expanded our previous October low temperature analysis to include the entire fall season and found that for the 244 cities in the U.S., 83 percent have average fall low temperatures on the rise.

Random numbers.

 

[Into the Night]

From NOAA's website:

About the Analyses
DATA SOURCE: River Forecast Centers ~5000 stations per day, including ~1500 stations from the Hydrologic Automated Data System (except above 5km altitude), and Climate Assessment Data Base ~several hundred stations per day. Climatologies used to calculate the anomalies were updated to use the 1981-2010 climatology dataset as of August 5, 2011.

RESOLUTION: 0.5 degree x 0.5 degree

DOMAIN: 20N - 60N; 140W - 60W

FORMAT: The format is sequential 32-bit IEEE floating point created on a big_endian platform (e.g. cray, sun, sgi and hp). The undefined (missing) value is 9999.

WINDOW: Day 1 analysis is valid for the window from 12Z on day 0 to 12Z on day 1; because of report receipt timing, daily minima are available 1 day earlier than the maxima and the means.

ANALYSIS SCHEME: Modified Cressman (1959) scheme (Glahn et al. 1985; Charba et al. 1992). Minimum stations for analysis: 350. If the number of stations is fewer than the minimum, the analysis is not performed for that day.

QUALITY CONTROL: Climatological standard deviation check. If a reported value is more than 4 standard deviations removed from the historical distribution, the value is omitted from the analysis.

Nowhere near enough stations to measure a global temperature, and these thermometers are not in Phoenix.

 

[Visbek]

Let's look at the IPCC's support, AR5
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

but there is a foot note,

Wow that does not cite any scholarly papers.

That's it? THAT is your complaint? They used a footnote for a purpose other than to indicate the referring paper? That chapter alone has 10 pages of references (i.e. around 500 references). And that's just a collection of recent articles that they use as a basis for their claims.

You're cherry-picking an 82 page document, and ignoring everything it has to say, because of... a footnote. I'd call it a ludicrous argument, but it's not even an argument. It's just an absurdly fallacious attempt at a criticism.

 

[longview]

That's it? THAT is your complaint? They used a footnote for a purpose other than to indicate the referring paper? That chapter alone has 10 pages of references (i.e. around 500 references). And that's just a collection of recent articles that they use as a basis for their claims.

You're cherry-picking an 82 page document, and ignoring everything it has to say, because of... a footnote. I'd call it a ludicrous argument, but it's not even an argument. It's just an absurdly fallacious attempt at a criticism.

Follow the references, there are all sorts of topics, but few actually address how the level of 2XCO2 forcing is determined.
They all reference earlier references, or some type of simulation like MODTRAN.
If you look at the earlier references, they bootstrap the basic concepts from yet earlier work.
It looks like the basics have not been looked at since the 1930's to 1950's.
The IPCC simply assumes the selected earlier work is correct, but primary contributors like Callendar
held that 2CO2 would have an ECS of about 2C.
FYI, simulation of how the atmosphere will respond to added CO2, are not empirical evidence of how it will actually respond,
but rather a collection of assumptions modeled on a computer. If the assumptions are off, so is the results.

 

[Media_Truth]

Follow the references, there are all sorts of topics, but few actually address how the level of 2XCO2 forcing is determined.
They all reference earlier references, or some type of simulation like MODTRAN.
If you look at the earlier references, they bootstrap the basic concepts from yet earlier work.
It looks like the basics have not been looked at since the 1930's to 1950's.
The IPCC simply assumes the selected earlier work is correct, but primary contributors like Callendar
held that 2CO2 would have an ECS of about 2C.
FYI, simulation of how the atmosphere will respond to added CO2, are not empirical evidence of how it will actually respond,
but rather a collection of assumptions modeled on a computer. If the assumptions are off, so is the results.

Trying to play Climatologist again? It seems like you cut and paste this same paragraph on multiple threads. Last time, when we mentioned that rising temperatures, due to CO2 warming, can cause the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, a greenhouse gas, you got real quiet. Your pseudoscience doesn't take that into consideration. The facts - a 1 deg C rise in temperature, and the atmosphere can hold 7% more water vapor.

Others have mentioned, that as the permafrost melts in the Artic, Alaska, and Greenland; that more CO2 and methane is released into the atmosphere. Your pseudoscience also doesn't factor this in.

IPCC models are extremely thorough, and you are a novice. If you were really sincere, you would pursue an accredited degree in Climatology.

 

[longview]

Trying to play Climatologist again? It seems like you cut and paste this same paragraph on multiple threads. Last time, when we mentioned that rising temperatures, due to CO2 warming, can cause the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, a greenhouse gas, you got real quiet. Your pseudoscience doesn't take that into consideration. The facts - a 1 deg C rise in temperature, and the atmosphere can hold 7% more water vapor.

Others have mentioned, that as the permafrost melts in the Artic, Alaska, and Greenland; that more CO2 and methane is released into the atmosphere. Your pseudoscience also doesn't factor this in.

IPCC models are extremely thorough, and you are a novice. If you were really sincere, you would pursue an accredited degree in Climatology.

What you are missing is that it does not matter how thorough the IPCC models are, if the assumptions used in those models are incorrect.
The models mostly start with the forcing imbalance from added CO2 being 3.71 Wm-2, yet there is no evidence that this number is correct.
The models then assume that feedbacks like additional water vapor, will cause more forcing and a high feedback factor,
again without any empirical evidence that such feedbacks exists at the levels necessary for the upper end of the range.
The bottom line is that the change in energy imbalance would be seen within seconds of the increase in CO2 level.
Yet Satellites like CERES, put up to observe this effect have shown inconclusive results.

The change is LW TOA clear sky, should be decreasing, as CO2 is re emits some energy back towards earth. (Less than 50%)
At a minimum we should have seen the TOA LW decrease by .49 Wm-2 from 2000 to 2017,
and if added water vapor blocks even more of the LW spectra, the decrease should have been greater.
It is possible that the IPCC has the range of water vapor correct, but the sign of the feedback wrong,
so CO2 adds to the imbalance but water vapor causes an increase in clouds which reflect daytime sunlight, but slowdown nighttime cooling.

 

[Media_Truth]

What you are missing is that it does not matter how thorough the IPCC models are, if the assumptions used in those models are incorrect.
The models mostly start with the forcing imbalance from added CO2 being 3.71 Wm-2, yet there is no evidence that this number is correct.
The models then assume that feedbacks like additional water vapor, will cause more forcing and a high feedback factor,
again without any empirical evidence that such feedbacks exists at the levels necessary for the upper end of the range.
The bottom line is that the change in energy imbalance would be seen within seconds of the increase in CO2 level.
Yet Satellites like CERES, put up to observe this effect have shown inconclusive results.

The change is LW TOA clear sky, should be decreasing, as CO2 is re emits some energy back towards earth. (Less than 50%)
At a minimum we should have seen the TOA LW decrease by .49 Wm-2 from 2000 to 2017,
and if added water vapor blocks even more of the LW spectra, the decrease should have been greater.
It is possible that the IPCC has the range of water vapor correct, but the sign of the feedback wrong,
so CO2 adds to the imbalance but water vapor causes an increase in clouds which reflect daytime sunlight, but slowdown nighttime cooling.

Nothing but guesswork on your part. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Your statements imply that you lack an understanding of that concept. Perhaps the aforementioned Climatology education is a good idea?

 

[Visbek]

Follow the references, there are all sorts of topics, but few actually address how the level of 2XCO2 forcing is determined.

Somehow, I seriously doubt that you actually read any of the references, let alone all the drafts, and summaries of discussions, and previous versions.

To put it another way: You can't be bothered to do the work to understand how the IPCC came to its conclusions, and you're not qualified to understand most of it anyway. Devastating! Oh, wait....

 

[longview]

Nothing but guesswork on your part. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Your statements imply that you lack an understanding of that concept. Perhaps the aforementioned Climatology education is a good idea?

You say I lack understanding of the concept, what do you think I am missing?
The basics concept all starts with 2XCO2 causes a TOA energy imbalance of 3.71 Wm-2,
not much missing there!
The energy imbalance forces the surface troposphere system to warm by roughly 1.1 C.
This is all in the IPCC reports.
Lastly feedbacks acting on the 1.1 C input will produce a ECS between 1.5 and 4.5 C,
with the very large uncertainty mostly coming form our poor understanding of how clouds interact with radiation.
So do we are do we not have empirical data showing a change in energy imbalance over a change in CO2 level,
not simply detection but something that can be linked back to the 3.71 Wm-2?

 

[longview]

Somehow, I seriously doubt that you actually read any of the references, let alone all the drafts, and summaries of discussions, and previous versions.

To put it another way: You can't be bothered to do the work to understand how the IPCC came to its conclusions, and you're not qualified to understand most of it anyway. Devastating! Oh, wait....

It is not as difficult as you suggest, since most of the references are not related to CO2 forcing, but some other aspects of IF the forcing number is correct, THEN!!!!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Trying to play Climatologist again? It seems like you cut and paste this same paragraph on multiple threads. Last time, when we mentioned that rising temperatures, due to CO2 warming, can cause the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, a greenhouse gas, you got real quiet. Your pseudoscience doesn't take that into consideration. The facts - a 1 deg C rise in temperature, and the atmosphere can hold 7% more water vapor.

Others have mentioned, that as the permafrost melts in the Artic, Alaska, and Greenland; that more CO2 and methane is released into the atmosphere. Your pseudoscience also doesn't factor this in.

IPCC models are extremely thorough, and you are a novice. If you were really sincere, you would pursue an accredited degree in Climatology.

And you guys are silent when it is pointed out that the greater water vapor leads to more clouds, and less solar energy heating the surface. Less solar energy heating the surface means less upward IR to create the greenhouse effect.

H2O also has a negative feedback component, but you guys only focus on the positive.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What you are missing is that it does not matter how thorough the IPCC models are, if the assumptions used in those models are incorrect.
The models mostly start with the forcing imbalance from added CO2 being 3.71 Wm-2, yet there is no evidence that this number is correct.
The models then assume that feedbacks like additional water vapor, will cause more forcing and a high feedback factor,
again without any empirical evidence that such feedbacks exists at the levels necessary for the upper end of the range.

The 3.71 number would likely be correct if all other variables were not perturbed by it. Problem is, there is a chain reaction of it changing other variables. Both positive and negative. Some say added CO2 actually has an overall cooling effect. I disagree with that, but do believe that the end result is under 1 W/m^2 forcing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nothing but guesswork on your part. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Your statements imply that you lack an understanding of that concept. Perhaps the aforementioned Climatology education is a good idea?

But it is a condensing greenhouse gas, hence more clouds.

 

[Visbek]

And you guys are silent when it is pointed out that the greater water vapor leads to more clouds, and less solar energy heating the surface. Less solar energy heating the surface means less upward IR to create the greenhouse effect.

H2O also has a negative feedback component, but you guys only focus on the positive.

Riiiiiiight

Climate scientists are well aware of both positive and negative feedbacks. The net result is positive, thus they... wait for it... focus on the positive. (I'd say they are really putting their efforts into reducing the uncertainties, that seems to be the primary focus at this time. Anyway....) A typical example from IPCC AR5, Chapter 7 (60 pages dedicated to discussions of clouds and aerosols):

The net feedback from water vapour and lapse rate changes
combined, as traditionally defined, is extremely likely positive
(amplifying global climate changes). The sign of the net radiative
feedback due to all cloud types is less certain but likely
positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud
feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the
impact of warming on low clouds. We estimate the water vapour
plus lapse rate feedback to be +1.1 (+0.9 to +1.3) W m−2 °C−1 and
the cloud feedback from all cloud types to be +0.6 (−0.2 to +2.0) W
m–2 °C–1. These ranges are broader than those of climate models to
account for additional uncertainty associated with processes that may
not have been accounted for in those models. The mean values and
ranges in climate models are essentially unchanged since AR4, but are
now supported by stronger indirect observational evidence and better
process understanding, especially for water vapour. Low clouds contribute
positive feedback in most models, but that behaviour is not well
understood, nor effectively constrained by observations, so we are not
confident that it is realistic. {7.2.4, 7.2.5, 7.2.6, Figures 7.9 to 7.11}.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Somehow, I seriously doubt that you actually read any of the references, let alone all the drafts, and summaries of discussions, and previous versions.

To put it another way: You can't be bothered to do the work to understand how the IPCC came to its conclusions, and you're not qualified to understand most of it anyway. Devastating! Oh, wait....

Just because you are in the position of being too lazy to read it and knowing that you would be utterly unable to understand any of it does not make that true for everybody.

 

[longview]

Riiiiiiight

Climate scientists are well aware of both positive and negative feedbacks. The net result is positive, thus they... wait for it... focus on the positive. (I'd say they are really putting their efforts into reducing the uncertainties, that seems to be the primary focus at this time. Anyway....) A typical example from IPCC AR5, Chapter 7 (60 pages dedicated to discussions of clouds and aerosols):

The net feedback from water vapour and lapse rate changes
combined, as traditionally defined, is extremely likely positive
(amplifying global climate changes). The sign of the net radiative
feedback due to all cloud types is less certain but likely
positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud
feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the
impact of warming on low clouds. We estimate the water vapour
plus lapse rate feedback to be +1.1 (+0.9 to +1.3) W m−2 °C−1 and
the cloud feedback from all cloud types to be +0.6 (−0.2 to +2.0) W
m–2 °C–1. These ranges are broader than those of climate models to
account for additional uncertainty associated with processes that may
not have been accounted for in those models. The mean values and
ranges in climate models are essentially unchanged since AR4, but are
now supported by stronger indirect observational evidence and better
process understanding, especially for water vapour. Low clouds contribute
positive feedback in most models, but that behaviour is not well
understood, nor effectively constrained by observations, so we are not
confident that it is realistic. {7.2.4, 7.2.5, 7.2.6, Figures 7.9 to 7.11}.

I am unfamiliar with the units used in your paste,
+1.1 (+0.9 to +1.3) W m−2 °C−1
What exactly is a "W m-2 °C−1"?

 

[Media_Truth]

Riiiiiiight

Climate scientists are well aware of both positive and negative feedbacks. The net result is positive, thus they... wait for it... focus on the positive. (I'd say they are really putting their efforts into reducing the uncertainties, that seems to be the primary focus at this time. Anyway....) A typical example from IPCC AR5, Chapter 7 (60 pages dedicated to discussions of clouds and aerosols):

The net feedback from water vapour and lapse rate changes
combined, as traditionally defined, is extremely likely positive
(amplifying global climate changes). The sign of the net radiative
feedback due to all cloud types is less certain but likely
positive. Uncertainty in the sign and magnitude of the cloud
feedback is due primarily to continuing uncertainty in the
impact of warming on low clouds. We estimate the water vapour
plus lapse rate feedback to be +1.1 (+0.9 to +1.3) W m−2 °C−1 and
the cloud feedback from all cloud types to be +0.6 (−0.2 to +2.0) W
m–2 °C–1. These ranges are broader than those of climate models to
account for additional uncertainty associated with processes that may
not have been accounted for in those models. The mean values and
ranges in climate models are essentially unchanged since AR4, but are
now supported by stronger indirect observational evidence and better
process understanding, especially for water vapour. Low clouds contribute
positive feedback in most models, but that behaviour is not well
understood, nor effectively constrained by observations, so we are not
confident that it is realistic. {7.2.4, 7.2.5, 7.2.6, Figures 7.9 to 7.11}.

Really shows the pettiness of the analysis these Climatologist-wanna-be's are setting forth. Sixty pages with this kind of detail and analysis - and that's just one topic - Clouds and Aerosols. They discuss the history, the models, the accuracy. They even discuss lack of confidence in certain data, and the reasons behind this. That's what honest, true science is all about.