• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The IPCC's hot model problem

Lord of Planar said:
I have explained the mechanism, and that's my point. Papers do not address the indirect effects of the sun.
Click to expand...
What indirect effects?
Lord of Planar said:
The sun heats the surface, right?
Click to expand...
Yes... this is a direct effect of the sun's energy being absorbed by the Earth.
Lord of Planar said:
Changes in solar output
Click to expand...
Are a forcing and is another direct effect.
Lord of Planar said:
and atmospheric opacity change the surface heating from the sun, right?
Click to expand...
Atmospheric opacity changes are mostly caused by things like changes in aerosols and clouds. And any changes caused by the sun would also be a direct effect.
Lord of Planar said:
The upward IR from the surface changes with the surface heating, right?
Click to expand...
Yeah... another direct effect.
Lord of Planar said:
The greenhouse effect increases or decreases ad the upward IR changes, right?
Click to expand...
Nope! The greenhouse effect stays the same. It is just the amount of upward IR that is absorbed by the atmosphere and the amount that escapes out into space that changes. Another direct effect.
Lord of Planar said:
This effect cannot be disputed. Why is it ignored?
Click to expand...
You haven't given us even one indirect effect of the sun. Not to mention that you have forgotten all about any feedbacks from the sun that you claim everyone is ignoring.

 
Whatever. The fact of the matter, that you can't refute, is that if the Earth slows its absorption of CO2 then yearly increases of CO2 levels could dramatically increase making equivalent CO2 levels at or above 1370ppm by 2100 entirely possible.
Look, long... saying that people will likely benefit from reducing emissions today is not the same as saying that all heating from emissions will be done in about 10 years. Especially when the studies are about modeling a pulse with no more emissions after the pulse.

Now, I am getting sick of this stupid argument. So... buck up or shut up and show us any legitimate scientists or scientific studies that interpret those 2 studies the way you do. So far you can't cite anything. All while you ignore the fact that the IPCC and many of its authors believe as I do.
 
Wow.

Do you really not understand? And here I thought you have been messing with me all along.

I'm sorry. You claim to understand these sciences better than I do. You obviously don't.

Let's take this one. I said:

"The greenhouse effect increases or decreases with the upward IR changes, right?"​

You replied with:

"Nope! The greenhouse effect stays the same. It is just the amount of upward IR that is absorbed by the atmosphere and the amount that escapes out into space that changes. Another direct effect."​

So.... If the greenhouse effect is say, 250 W/m^2, the total of H2O, CO2, and other greenhouse gasses combined, and the sun was snuffed out and couldn't heat the surface, would the greenhouse effect still be 250 W/m^2? That seems to be what you are saying.

We usually see the earth energy balance images using numbers in W/m^2. However, the earth system treats it as percentages. If the sun increases by say, 0.2%, all the numbers in the earth system change. The sun's energy to the surface is only about 168 W/m^2. However, the total energy warming the earth surface is around 500 W/m^2. When we see someone claim the sun only increased warming by 0.12 W/m^2 since 1750 like the AR4 does, this is low-balling its effect. This is only 0.07%. However, if you apply that 0.07% to the entire 500 W/nm^2 at the surface, the change is 0.36 W/m^2.

I don't see how anyone can assume the low numbers, considering the average of several reputable solar studies place the increases more like 0.24%. More than three times higher than the IPCC is willing to give credit. Assuming the 0.24%, the actual increase to the earth surface would be even more than the simple math. The linear extrapolation would place the increase at 1.2 W/m^2. I wouldn't expect the change top be exactly linear, but its not going to be very far off.
 
Buzz said:
Whatever. The fact of the matter, that you can't refute, is that if the Earth slows its absorption of CO2 then yearly increases of CO2 levels could dramatically increase making equivalent CO2 levels at or above 1370ppm by 2100 entirely possible.
Click to expand...
OK, so if the earth increased by 3 ppm per year, if we start at 415 ppm, then it would take 318 years.

To get to 1370 ppm by 2020, we would have to add about 12 ppm per year.

That "if" you propose is a very, very weak "if" especially since it is the oceans absorbing most the CO2, and it circulates in the neighborhood of 1,200 years.

Just what mechanism do you propose would slow the absorption? Can you explain to us the hypothesis please? Do you even understand it?

There is another problem to your what you hypothesize. As the partial pressure if CO2 increases farther away from where it is in equilibrium with the partial pressure of the ocean, the velocity of absorption will increase.

This is true in any part of science. Velocity increases as pressure differences increase.

Do you by chance have any material to link regarding this? I would like to see if they have an explanation I didn't consider.
 
Buzz, current emissions are 4.5 ppm per year, of which almost half is absorbed, leaving growth of 2.74 ppm per year.
Even if there were no carbon uptake, 4.5 ppm per year would only produce 351 ppm in the next 78 years,
416+351=767 ppm by 2100, and that assumes we do not reduce CO2 emissions any.

Buzz all the studies are about emitting pulses, TCR emits 1% pulse increases annually, ECS emits the one large one
with no pulses after that. These two studies used the same climate models to evaluate a single small pulse by itself.
Both studies show that maximum warming is reached very quickly (~10 years) for smaller pulses,
so saying people alive today will benefit from reducing emissions, is saying that there is no long term warming in the pipeline.

The two groups who ran the studies are legitimate scientists, and showed their findings.
Because the maximum warming for small pulses is reached in about 10 years, so is the maximum
warming for our much smaller annual pulses.
 
In all fairness, I can see the global CO2 emissions doubling in 20 years.
 
Lord of Planar said:
In all fairness, I can see the global CO2 emissions doubling in 20 years.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but I think the trends are moving in the other direction.
On the otherhand, as the global economy expands, people will want a better lifestyle, and I am not sure
higher CO2 levels will be their first concern
 
longview said:
Possibly, but I think the trends are moving in the other direction.
Click to expand...
Sure, in first world nation they are. Asia is increasing emissions dramatically year by year.
longview said:
On the otherhand, as the global economy expands, people will want a better lifestyle, and I am not sure
higher CO2 levels will be their first concern
Click to expand...
Only those indoctrinated by fearmongering agenda driven AGW charlatans are worried.

I agree. People want a better life over reducing CO2. Asia has really been dominating the increase in CO2 emissions as they grow into the 21st century. We have no control over their actions, so the pundits want us to reduce the quality of our lifestyles.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…