The Reality of the 1970's Global Cooling Consensus

[Mithrae]

Measured values still suffer from not being able to fully quantify individual variables. I have still not seen any good studies on the heat island effect affecting meteorological stations, real and urban evaporation cooling chances, or quantifying the solar effects of the oceans. Any help you could give here would be appreciated.

You've been shown those studies time and time again, along with how easy it is to find them and consequently how pathetic your pretense of being unable to really is. Your mind-numbing ignorance is intentional, nothing more. In particular, your highlighted suggestion that a heat island effect is somehow distorting the satellite measurements which I posted is particularly indicative of how low you have to bring yourself to remain in denial.


#####

Here is the abstract from Moller et al 1963,
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JZ068i013p03877

We do not have to compute what he says the warming will be, he says it in his abstract, ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm.

Wow. If only you'd managed to bring yourself to read two sentences further:

New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation effects but not the temperature changes because under cloudy skies larger temperature changes are needed in order to compensate for an equal change in the downward long‐wave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self‐amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case.​

Scientists in the early 1960s understood the distinction between the temperature response to CO2 radiative forcing and the temperature response after possible positive and negative feedback effects or countervailing changes are considered (Moller also notes the theoretical possibility of other variables reducing the climatic impacts of doubling CO2 to zero): But in Longview's desperate bit to find low climate sensitivity in everything he reads, he shows himself apparently ignorant of that utterly basic concept and incapable of reading long enough to even see it :roll:



Well done chaps, two more posts which really deserve to be showcased as proof that there's no such thing as a 'sceptic' or even contrarian any more, just hardcore dyed-in-the-wool deniers.

 

[Jack Hays]

You've been shown those studies time and time again, along with how easy it is to find them and consequently how pathetic your pretense of being unable to really is. Your mind-numbing ignorance is intentional, nothing more. In particular, your highlighted suggestion that a heat island effect is somehow distorting the satellite measurements which I posted is particularly indicative of how low you have to bring yourself to remain in denial.


#####




Wow. If only you'd managed to bring yourself to read two sentences further:

New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation effects but not the temperature changes because under cloudy skies larger temperature changes are needed in order to compensate for an equal change in the downward long‐wave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self‐amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case.​

Scientists in the early 1960s understood the distinction between the temperature response to CO2 radiative forcing and the temperature response after possible positive and negative feedback effects or countervailing changes are considered (Moller also notes the theoretical possibility of other variables reducing the climatic impacts of doubling CO2 to zero): But in Longview's desperate bit to find low climate sensitivity in everything he reads, he shows himself apparently ignorant of that utterly basic concept and incapable of reading long enough to even see it :roll:



Well done chaps, two more posts which really deserve to be showcased as proof that there's no such thing as a 'sceptic' or even contrarian any more, just hardcore dyed-in-the-wool deniers.

Low climate sensitivity and the coming many years of cooling will compel even the most ardent AGW advocates to reevaluate their claims.

 

[longview]

This is simply wrong.

What you do not understand is that CO2 has a meta stable energy state at E₂ (01^1 0).
This state is one of the lowest and is roughly 667 cm-1 or 15 um, and takes several tens of milliseconds
to spontaneously decay on it's own.
At normal atmospheric pressures collisions occur in roughly a microsecond time frame,
more than 1000 times faster than the spontaneous emission time.
Energy moves both ways exciting and de energizing the CO2 energy states.
Some photons could slip in, but most of the activity is vibrational energy transfers.

 

[longview]

You've been shown those studies time and time again, along with how easy it is to find them and consequently how pathetic your pretense of being unable to really is. Your mind-numbing ignorance is intentional, nothing more. In particular, your highlighted suggestion that a heat island effect is somehow distorting the satellite measurements which I posted is particularly indicative of how low you have to bring yourself to remain in denial.


#####




Wow. If only you'd managed to bring yourself to read two sentences further:

New calculations give ΔT = + 1.5° when the CO2 content increases from 300 to 600 ppm. Cloudiness diminishes the radiation effects but not the temperature changes because under cloudy skies larger temperature changes are needed in order to compensate for an equal change in the downward long‐wave radiation. The increase in the water vapor content of the atmosphere with rising temperature causes a self‐amplification effect which results in almost arbitrary temperature changes, e.g. for constant relative humidity ΔT = +10° in the above mentioned case.​

Scientists in the early 1960s understood the distinction between the temperature response to CO2 radiative forcing and the temperature response after possible positive and negative feedback effects or countervailing changes are considered (Moller also notes the theoretical possibility of other variables reducing the climatic impacts of doubling CO2 to zero): But in Longview's desperate bit to find low climate sensitivity in everything he reads, he shows himself apparently ignorant of that utterly basic concept and incapable of reading long enough to even see it :roll:

So what is the evidence that self‐amplification effect actually exists?
The forcing level for 2XCO2 is now down to 1.1°C, and the water vapor feedback, still has an uncertainty of sign, much less level.
The observed diurnal asymmetry, could be the best evidence, of these feedbacks, but that
would mean that extra clouds block daytime energy input, while slowing evening cooling.
This somewhat agrees with what the IPCC says about clouds.
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter07_FINAL.pdf

7.2.1.2 Effects of Clouds on the Earth’s Radiation Budget
The effect of clouds on the Earth’s present-day top of the atmosphere
(TOA) radiation budget, or cloud radiative effect (CRE), can be inferred
from satellite data by comparing upwelling radiation in cloudy and
non-cloudy conditions (Ramanathan et al., 1989). By enhancing the
planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual shortwave
cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and,
by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect
(LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less
between published satellite estimates (Loeb et al., 2009). Some of the
apparent LWCRE comes from the enhanced water vapour coinciding
with the natural cloud fluctuations used to measure the effect, so the
true cloud LWCRE is about 10% smaller (Sohn et al., 2010). The net
global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling
effect of clouds on the current climate.

If clouds are a net –20 W m–2, adding more clouds, increases the negative number.

 

[Surface Detail]

What you do not understand is that CO2 has a meta stable energy state at E₂ (01^1 0).
This state is one of the lowest and is roughly 667 cm-1 or 15 um, and takes several tens of milliseconds
to spontaneously decay on it's own.
At normal atmospheric pressures collisions occur in roughly a microsecond time frame,
more than 1000 times faster than the spontaneous emission time.
Energy moves both ways exciting and de energizing the CO2 energy states.
Some photons could slip in, but most of the activity is vibrational energy transfers.

What you don't appear to understand is basic thermodynamics. When a gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium, the population of the available energy states diminishes with the energy required to reach that state. The state corresponding to the 15 um wavelength is somewhere near the middle of the energy distribution curve, which means that, at any given time, some small proportion of the molecules will be in this excited state. Not 99.9%!

 

[longview]

What you don't appear to understand is basic thermodynamics. When a gas is in thermodynamic equilibrium, the population of the available energy states diminishes with the energy required to reach that state. The state corresponding to the 15 um wavelength is somewhere near the middle of the energy distribution curve, which means that, at any given time, some small proportion of the molecules will be in this excited state. Not 99.9%!

I am sorry, but meta stable energy states do exists, and build population inversions.
Several such states exists for CO2.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You've been shown those studies time and time again, along with how easy it is to find them and consequently how pathetic your pretense of being unable to really is.

That's total BS and you know it, or you didn't read and understand them yourself.

You have linked studies that speak of the topics, but not the specifics I say are not addressed.

I cannot find my concerns, and none of your links addressed them either!!!

Your mind-numbing ignorance is intentional, nothing more.

You are the one being ignorant here.

In particular, your highlighted suggestion that a heat island effect is somehow distorting the satellite measurements which I posted is particularly indicative of how low you have to bring yourself to remain in denial.

I never made that claim. I specified ground stations. Satellites have their own inaccuracies, and I don't trust adjustments made to them. I believe they are adjusted to reflect known ground station areas, which is no help for actual data.

 

[Surface Detail]

I am sorry, but meta stable energy states do exists, and build population inversions.
Several such states exists for CO2.
View attachment 67244954

Population inversions can exist in lasers, which are devices specially build to create them. They cannot exist in a gas that is at thermodynamic equilibrium, such as the atmosphere (with the exception of the tenuous outer layers where intermolecular collisions are too infrequent to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium). What on Earth makes you think this isn't so?

 

[longview]

Population inversions can exist in lasers, which are devices specially build to create them. They cannot exist in a gas that is at thermodynamic equilibrium, such as the atmosphere (with the exception of the tenuous outer layers where intermolecular collisions are too infrequent to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium). What on Earth makes you think this isn't so?

Population inversions can exists at almost every level, albeit less so at higher pressures because of lower mean free paths,
This does not change the spontaneous decay times, only the likely hood that the molecule will be de energized from contact,
but that same contact can also energize the molecule.
The point is that the basis for AGW the increase in downwelling radiation, is not likely to happen,
The excited CO2 molecule is never at the right energy state long enough to spontaneously emit many photons.
The reality is that we do not have a good understanding of the basic mechanisms, upon which this concepts rests.

 

[Mithrae]

The reality is that we do not have a good understanding of the basic mechanisms, upon which this concepts rests.

The proven fact is that you are ignorant and/or willfully blind to many relatively basic concepts which even I, with my high school education, can grasp. So when it comes to stuff that I'd have to spend a few hours researching, I'd be willing to bet at least a hundred dollars that Surface Detail is on the mark far more than you are... and even moreso that you are pathetically and laughably incorrect in your claim that the scientists don't understand it.

The reality is that you do not have a good understanding of... well... basically anything that conflicts with your preconceptions, the last year or two seem to indicate.

 

[Quaestio]

Population inversions can exist in lasers, which are devices specially build to create them. They cannot exist in a gas that is at thermodynamic equilibrium, such as the atmosphere (with the exception of the tenuous outer layers where intermolecular collisions are too infrequent to maintain thermodynamic equilibrium). What on Earth makes you think this isn't so?

The proven fact is that you are ignorant and/or willfully blind to many relatively basic concepts which even I, with my high school education, can grasp. So when it comes to stuff that I'd have to spend a few hours researching, I'd be willing to bet at least a hundred dollars that Surface Detail is on the mark far more than you are... and even moreso that you are pathetically and laughably incorrect in your claim that the scientists don't understand it.

The reality is that you do not have a good understanding of... well... basically anything that conflicts with your preconceptions, the last year or two seem to indicate.

As I recall, he's been saying the same silly **** for years based on some random website he found about CO2 lasers, and naively assumed it could be be applied to the atmosphere. It's been pointed out to him before but he still keeps repeating it.

 

[Quaestio]

Alternatively, as knowledge has advanced and uncertainties have decreased, the conclusions which have been increasingly cemented are ones which your ideology forces you to reject as deceptive and biased.

Posted by Lord of Planar
Something else significant. Though the report caims a probable overestimate for the 25% increase of 0.6 to 4C at the surface, it also gives a probable 4C cooling in the stratosphere, just above the tropopause. This could easily balance out to near zero as the atmosphere mixes.

Sure, because after the past four billion years, the stratosphere and troposphere are bound to reach a uniform equilibrium in the next few decades :roll: Observations have confirmed the warming troposphere/cooling stratosphere, one of the distinctive indications of a predominant role of GHGs in the current warming. If the major variable were solar activity for example, we'd expect it to warm the stratosphere as well as the troposphere; instead, what we see is 'something' apparently retaining energy lower in the atmosphere. As long as that 'something' continues to contain energy in the lower atmosphere, your notion that they should automatically 'balance out' is nothing more than wishful thinking.

But good on you for being sometimes able to recognize when others are not driven by bias

Wow. He makes a really stupid gaf like that, yet he believes he is an "expert"? I guess he never found some random internet page or blog post on atmospheric stratification? :roll:

By the way, have you noticed how you can't even name the 'something' because he has an hysterical reaction at the mere mention of it.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wow. He makes a really stupid gaf like that, yet he believes he is an "expert"? I guess he never found some random internet page or blog post on atmospheric stratification? :roll:

By the way, have you noticed how you can't even name the 'something' because he has an hysterical reaction at the mere mention of it.

And once again, you prove you have no concept that "words have meaning."

My use of words is no different than the way scientists word their peer reviewed papers. I implied an idea without making any explicit remarks to say it's true. You read into my words with your confirmation bias.

You have a serious lack of word comprehension.

 

[Quaestio]

And once again, you prove you have no concept that "words have meaning."

My use of words is no different than the way scientists word their peer reviewed papers. I implied an idea without making any explicit remarks to say it's true. You read into my words with your confirmation bias.

You have a serious lack of word comprehension.

No, you can't bluff your way out of that rather serious gaf. What you suggested is ludicrous and completely un-physical. It's an example of the large gaps in your self-taught 'knowledge'.

 

[longview]

The proven fact is that you are ignorant and/or willfully blind to many relatively basic concepts which even I, with my high school education, can grasp. So when it comes to stuff that I'd have to spend a few hours researching, I'd be willing to bet at least a hundred dollars that Surface Detail is on the mark far more than you are... and even moreso that you are pathetically and laughably incorrect in your claim that the scientists don't understand it.

The reality is that you do not have a good understanding of... well... basically anything that conflicts with your preconceptions, the last year or two seem to indicate.

And yet they still cannot explain the diurnal and seasonal asymmetry.

 

[Lord of Planar]

No, you can't bluff your way out of that rather serious gaf. What you suggested is ludicrous and completely un-physical. It's an example of the large gaps in your self-taught 'knowledge'.

I'm in fine company. I make my posts like scientists write peer reviewed papers. If you understood word definitions, and actual read peer reviewed climate papers, you would see that.

 

[Quaestio]

I'm in fine company. I make my posts like scientists write peer reviewed papers. If you understood word definitions, and actual read peer reviewed climate papers, you would see that.

Delusional narcissistic thinking doesn't help you get away from making such a serious gaf either.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Delusional narcissistic thinking doesn't help you get away from making such a serious gaf either.

You are the delusional one. It's obvious you don't read peer reviewed climate papers.

 

[Quaestio]

You are the delusional one. It's obvious you don't read peer reviewed climate papers.

"Projecting" also won't deflect from the fact that you made a serious gaf.