What, me worry?

[longview]

Then use one of the many others.

Oh wait. It’s not that you don’t like the methods... you don’t like the results!

You seemed to ignored both Cook's consensus statement and the title on you chart!
"Studies into scientific agreement on human-caused global warming"
and
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. "
Strange how the consensus statements do not often include anything about the observed warming being catastrophic, or even bad.

 

[longview]

Damn longview... how many times do I have to point out that you are using a surface measurement to calculate a top of atmosphere(TOA) result? Even Feldman states in his study that surface measurements are not directly comparable to TOA measurements.

It would be like if you used a thermometer located inside of your house to determine what temps were outside.

Seriously long... when are you going to quit pushing this unscientific and intentionally misleading BS?

You fail to see that the two numbers have to be the same because of the first law of thermodynamics,
not to mention that the number matches Hansen's 1997 prediction for the top of the atmosphere.

Notice 2XCO2 TOA 2.62 Wm-2!
Do you find it strange that in 1997 Hansen predicted that 2XCO2 would produce a TOA imbalance of 2.62 Wm-2,
and then in 2016 Feldman actually measured a change in downwelling radiation that works out to nearly the same amount (2.52 Wm-2)?

 

[longview]

“I Cook et al,2013 there is one complete sentence in the abstract that supports my statement.”

If there is a statement from an authority that supports why you say, why don’t you quote it? You give me a link that I guess I have to read through and find and guess is what you say. My software filters the link as a possible virus. When I paste-copy on the web it shows as “error not found”.

“Also it was only among those papers who Cook determined the abstract expressed an opinion, 64% of the abstracts were not even counted.”

All the numbers were provided to know how many had an opinion of one or another and how many gave no opinion. To say that “64% of the abstracts were not even counted” is entirely misleading. They certainly can't be counted as "Agree" or "Disagree". What are they supposed to be other than having given no opinion?

“Actually a poorly done study.”

If you base such opinion on your misleading statement, then you’ve drawn a poor conclusion. Other than that, you don't say why.

The reason Cook's study is a poor one is that most technical papers do not express an opinion on the topic being discussed.
Since the topic of the search of cooks study was,
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the
peer-reviewedscientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climatechange’ or ‘global warming’. "
So all 11,944 papers were on the topic of global warming or global climate change,
yet by Cook's criteria, they choose to only evaluate 4,013 of the 11,944 papers resulting from the search.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The reason Cook's study is a poor one is that most technical papers do not express an opinion on the topic being discussed.
Since the topic of the search of cooks study was,
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the
peer-reviewedscientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climatechange’ or ‘global warming’. "
So all 11,944 papers were on the topic of global warming or global climate change,
yet by Cook's criteria, they choose to only evaluate 4,013 of the 11,944 papers resulting from the search.

They don't understand cherry picking yet.

 

[bluesmoke]

The reason Cook's study is a poor one is that most technical papers do not express an opinion on the topic being discussed.
Since the topic of the search of cooks study was,
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the
peer-reviewedscientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climatechange’ or ‘global warming’. "
So all 11,944 papers were on the topic of global warming or global climate change,
yet by Cook's criteria, they choose to only evaluate 4,013 of the 11,944 papers resulting from the search.

Scientific papers are not limited to only the technical portion. A scientist, through critique, can bring perspective to a scientific report that is then peer reviewed. It happens all the time. In this case, it's nothing more than a survey. How else can you get a yes or no as to whether AGW is the major cause of GW or not if you don’t ask them?

The reason for choosing those 4,013 was, as stated a couple of times before, that those are the ones that took a position as to whether AGW was the was the major contributor to GW or not. That was their criteria. What would you have suggested otherwise?

You haven’t even bothered to tell me the statement in question you would not give that your link did not work for. Now that I brought that fact up, you still refuse to even tell me what that “all-telling” sentence was.

So, what is that sentence? That’s the only thing you’ve got left.

 

[Buzz]

You fail to see that the two numbers have to be the same because of the first law of thermodynamics,

Oh for God sakes, would you stop it with the first law of thermodynamics BS?? Look at this graphic of the Earth's energy budget. Note how the two numbers are very different. At this point, you not knowing this is just willful ignorance!!

not to mention that the number matches Hansen's 1997 prediction for the top of the atmosphere.
View attachment 67262965
Notice 2XCO2 TOA 2.62 Wm-2!
Do you find it strange that in 1997 Hansen predicted that 2XCO2 would produce a TOA imbalance of 2.62 Wm-2,and then in 2016 Feldman actually measured a change in downwelling radiation that works out to nearly the same amount (2.52 Wm-2)?

So What?? Do you seriously think that a 22-year-old prediction matching a surface measurement proves anything? I don't.

And another fact you keep blocking out your mind is the fact that both Feldman and Hansen's paper specifically point out that surface numbers are different than TOA. Hansen even warns against doing exactly what you are doing here!

Damn long... how many times does this have to be drilled into your head before you quit pushing this BS?

 

[longview]

Oh for God sakes, would you stop it with the first law of thermodynamics BS?? Look at this graphic of the Earth's energy budget. Note how the two numbers are very different. At this point, you not knowing this is just willful ignorance!!



So What?? Do you seriously think that a 22-year-old prediction matching a surface measurement proves anything? I don't.

And another fact you keep blocking out your mind is the fact that both Feldman and Hansen's paper specifically point out that surface numbers are different than TOA. Hansen even warns against doing exactly what you are doing here!

Damn long... how many times does this have to be drilled into your head before you quit pushing this BS?

You simply do not get that all the numbers must add up, that is where the first law of thermodynamics comes in.
If the TOA is missing energy existing, then all of that energy must be accounted for.
Feldman’s downwelling almost exactly matches the predicted imbalance.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[longview]

Scientific papers are not limited to only the technical portion. A scientist, through critique, can bring perspective to a scientific report that is then peer reviewed. It happens all the time. In this case, it's nothing more than a survey. How else can you get a yes or no as to whether AGW is the major cause of GW or not if you don’t ask them?

The reason for choosing those 4,013 was, as stated a couple of times before, that those are the ones that took a position as to whether AGW was the was the major contributor to GW or not. That was their criteria. What would you have suggested otherwise?

You haven’t even bothered to tell me the statement in question you would not give that your link did not work for. Now that I brought that fact up, you still refuse to even tell me what that “all-telling” sentence was.

So, what is that sentence? That’s the only thing you’ve got left.

A Scientist could bring perspective, but Cook was not a Scientist, and his evaluation was only if a paper supported
that Humans are causing some amount climate change, without qualifications.
Almost everyone would agree that Human activity is causing some climate change, the question that is not usually asked
is how much, and will catastrophic consequences result?
Also the sentence was quoted in post #201, but since you did not understand it, here it is again.
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. "
It only finds agreement that Humans are causing global warming, it does not even mention if the warming is from CO2.

 

[Surface Detail]

A Scientist could bring perspective, but Cook was not a Scientist, and his evaluation was only if a paper supported
that Humans are causing some amount climate change, without qualifications.
Almost everyone would agree that Human activity is causing some climate change, the question that is not usually asked
is how much, and will catastrophic consequences result?
Also the sentence was quoted in post #201, but since you did not understand it, here it is again.
"Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. "
It only finds agreement that Humans are causing global warming, it does not even mention if the warming is from CO2.

When we talk about AGW, it pretty much goes without saying that we mean AGW as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. While humans may affect the climate in other ways, such as through land use changes and aerosol emissions, these are insignificant compared to GHG emissions, CO2 being the main GHG.

 

[longview]

When we talk about AGW, it pretty much goes without saying that we mean AGW as a result of greenhouse gas emissions. While humans may affect the climate in other ways, such as through land use changes and aerosol emissions, these are insignificant compared to GHG emissions, CO2 being the main GHG.

If that is what they meant that is how they should have qualified the statement, They choose not to!
We could build a list of things assumed, and as the list grows so does the uncertainty.
People use the word climate change, and assume everyone understands Climate change caused from Human activity,
when the climate is more than capable of changing without Humans being around.
You mention AGW, and assume they mean warming from Human emission of CO2, yet we really do not
understand what percentage of recent warming is actually from CO2 or other GHGs, aerosol reduction,
or natural.
We are told that Earth is 33 C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent.
Of that 33 C, CO2 is said to account for 20%, or 6.6 C,
If we start ZERO CO2 as 1 ppm, it took 8 doubling s of CO2 to get to 256 ppm,
so that 6.6 C is a result of 8 doubling s of the CO2 level, or 6.6/8= .825 C per doubling.

 

[Surface Detail]

If that is what they meant that is how they should have qualified the statement, They choose not to!
We could build a list of things assumed, and as the list grows so does the uncertainty.
People use the word climate change, and assume everyone understands Climate change caused from Human activity,
when the climate is more than capable of changing without Humans being around.
You mention AGW, and assume they mean warming from Human emission of CO2, yet we really do not
understand what percentage of recent warming is actually from CO2 or other GHGs, aerosol reduction,
or natural.
We are told that Earth is 33 C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent.
Of that 33 C, CO2 is said to account for 20%, or 6.6 C,
If we start ZERO CO2 as 1 ppm, it took 8 doubling s of CO2 to get to 256 ppm,
so that 6.6 C is a result of 8 doubling s of the CO2 level, or 6.6/8= .825 C per doubling.

1) AGW is by definition not natural.
2) 0.825 C per doubling isn't far off the estimated value of 1 C, so for once you agree with the experts

 

[Jack Hays]

1) AGW is by definition not natural.
2) 0.825 C per doubling isn't far off the estimated value of 1 C, so for once you agree with the experts

If you're going to claim 1C per doubling then that puts you firmly in the skeptic camp.

Climate models provide a wide range of climate sensitivity estimates. The CMIP5 models featured in the most recent IPCC report have ECS values ranging from 2.1C to 4.7C per doubling, with an average sensitivity of 3.1C.Jun 19, 2018

[h=3]Explainer: How scientists estimate climate sensitivity - Carbon Brief
[/h]
[url]https://www.carbonbrief.org › explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensi...
[/URL]

 

[Surface Detail]

If you're going to claim 1C per doubling then that puts you firmly in the skeptic camp.

Climate models provide a wide range of climate sensitivity estimates. The CMIP5 models featured in the most recent IPCC report have ECS values ranging from 2.1C to 4.7C per doubling, with an average sensitivity of 3.1C.Jun 19, 2018

[h=3]Explainer: How scientists estimate climate sensitivity - Carbon Brief
[/h]
[url]https://www.carbonbrief.org › explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensi...
[/URL]

We're talking about just the direct effect of CO2, not including water vapour feedback (which amplifies the 1C to around 3C). Please try to keep up, Jack.

 

[longview]

1) AGW is by definition not natural.
2) 0.825 C per doubling isn't far off the estimated value of 1 C, so for once you agree with the experts

If the actual 2XCO2 imbalance is 3.71 Wm-2 then the forcing would be ~1.1 C.
What is in question is how they arrived at the 3.71 Wm-2.
Interesting enough the .825 C per 2XCO2 is much closer to the 2.52 Wm-2 measured empirically.
2.52 Wm-2 works out to a 2XCO2 forcing warming of .76 C a difference of only .065,
much smaller than the difference to the calculated level of 1.1C.

 

[Surface Detail]

If the actual 2XCO2 imbalance is 3.71 Wm-2 then the forcing would be ~1.1 C.
What is in question is how they arrived at the 3.71 Wm-2.
Interesting enough the .825 C per 2XCO2 is much closer to the 2.52 Wm-2 measured empirically.
2.52 Wm-2 works out to a 2XCO2 forcing warming of .76 C a difference of only .065,
much smaller than the difference to the calculated level of 1.1C.

Oh give it a rest, longview. I've already explained countless times why your calculation is incorrect, but it just seems to go in one ear and out the other. Once again, you cannot simply neglect thermal inertia :roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

We're talking about just the direct effect of CO2, not including water vapour feedback (which amplifies the 1C to around 3C). Please try to keep up, Jack.

BS backtracking. Your #211 references AGW. Please try to rise above your customary dishonesty.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You fail to see that the two numbers have to be the same because of the first law of thermodynamics,
not to mention that the number matches Hansen's 1997 prediction for the top of the atmosphere.

In balance, yes. The idea is that the imbalance warms or cools the earth until equilibrium is reached... when the incomming and outgoing is equal.

View attachment 67262965
Notice 2XCO2 TOA 2.62 Wm-2!
Do you find it strange that in 1997 Hansen predicted that 2XCO2 would produce a TOA imbalance of 2.62 Wm-2,
and then in 2016 Feldman actually measured a change in downwelling radiation that works out to nearly the same amount (2.52 Wm-2)?

What else is confusing is sometimes in a paper, they use the 3.71 W/m^2 for doubling at the troposphere, and sometimes at the tropopause. I am inclined to go with Hansen's number in a static system, for the 2.62 W/m^2 in the troposphere and the 3.71 W/m^2 in the tropopause. Now in reality, if the 2.62 W/m^2 at the TOA is accurate, and we look at a linear relationship, the surface would see an increase of 3.88 W/m^2. ((163.3+340.3)/340.4 x 2.62 = 3.876). With Feldman stating the surface change would be 2.52 W/m^2 instead, that shows the feedback is a net negative. Not positive.

I used the numbers from the graph linked in post 206.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We're talking about just the direct effect of CO2, not including water vapour feedback (which amplifies the 1C to around 3C). Please try to keep up, Jack.

Impossible, and laughable that anyone propagates that.

 

[longview]

Oh give it a rest, longview. I've already explained countless times why your calculation is incorrect, but it just seems to go in one ear and out the other. Once again, you cannot simply neglect thermal inertia :roll:

Actually you have not explained why the calculation are incorrect, you have only stated that they cannot be correct.
Again there is only minimal thermal inertia to heat the air, which is the basis of the global temperature record.
Increasing the energy in a volume of gas, also increases it's temperature.
This all goes back to some basic Physics,
Ideal gas law - Wikipedia

 

[longview]

In balance, yes. The idea is that the imbalance warms or cools the earth until equilibrium is reached... when the incomming and outgoing is equal.


What else is confusing is sometimes in a paper, they use the 3.71 W/m^2 for doubling at the troposphere, and sometimes at the tropopause. I am inclined to go with Hansen's number in a static system, for the 2.62 W/m^2 in the troposphere and the 3.71 W/m^2 in the tropopause. Now in reality, if the 2.62 W/m^2 at the TOA is accurate, and we look at a linear relationship, the surface would see an increase of 3.88 W/m^2. ((163.3+340.3)/340.4 x 2.62 = 3.876). With Feldman stating the surface change would be 2.52 W/m^2 instead, that shows the feedback is a net negative. Not positive.

I used the numbers from the graph linked in post 206.

I think if the imbalance is at the top of the atmosphere, the difference must be accounted for somewhere in the atmosphere.
If Feldman actually recorded the entire imbalance as downwelling IR radiation at ground level, then not much is happening
within the atmosphere. If the only warming from added CO2 is the forcing warming, then CO2 is not much to be concerned over.

 

[Surface Detail]

Actually you have not explained why the calculation are incorrect, you have only stated that they cannot be correct.
Again there is only minimal thermal inertia to heat the air, which is the basis of the global temperature record.
Increasing the energy in a volume of gas, also increases it's temperature.
This all goes back to some basic Physics,
Ideal gas law - Wikipedia

I have explained this countless times, but you simply won't listen. For a system to be in equilibrium (you know, the "E" in ECS), the whole system has to have reached its final temperature, regardless of where you measure the temperature. Equilibrium is reached only when the land and oceans have warmed to their final temperature, not just the air. And that takes years. Please try to understand this.

Edit: And why the bizarrely random link to ideal gases? WTF has that got to do with it?

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think if the imbalance is at the top of the atmosphere, the difference must be accounted for somewhere in the atmosphere.
If Feldman actually recorded the entire imbalance as downwelling IR radiation at ground level, then not much is happening
within the atmosphere. If the only warming from added CO2 is the forcing warming, then CO2 is not much to be concerned over.

The imbalance is at time of change. To see the imagined 3.71 W/m^2 imbalance at the TOS, it would have to be a doubling all at once with no equalization time.

The heat of the earth will increase or decrease as needed, to attempt balance. The graph linked in post 206 shows an imbalance of 0.6 W/m^2, where the earth is emitting less heat than it receives. This is where the heating comes from that increases temperature.

Now of course, that's assuming the graph is correct. If all variables like CO2, solar, albedo, etc. stop changing, these will eventually come to equilibrium, and the earth will stop increasing in heat. Until that time though, warming occurs.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have explained this countless times, but you simply won't listen. For a system to be in equilibrium (you know, the "E" in ECS), the whole system has to have reached its final temperature, regardless of where you measure the temperature. Equilibrium is reached only when the land and oceans have warmed to their final temperature, not just the air. And that takes years. Please try to understand this.

Edit: And why the bizarrely random link to ideal gases? WTF has that got to do with it?

Heat does not necessarily mean temperature you know...

 

[Threegoofs]

I have explained this countless times, but you simply won't listen. For a system to be in equilibrium (you know, the "E" in ECS), the whole system has to have reached its final temperature, regardless of where you measure the temperature. Equilibrium is reached only when the land and oceans have warmed to their final temperature, not just the air. And that takes years. Please try to understand this.

Edit: And why the bizarrely random link to ideal gases? WTF has that got to do with it?

It’s like someone trying to do high level physics who’s only had Chem 101.

 

[longview]

I have explained this countless times, but you simply won't listen. For a system to be in equilibrium (you know, the "E" in ECS), the whole system has to have reached its final temperature, regardless of where you measure the temperature. Equilibrium is reached only when the land and oceans have warmed to their final temperature, not just the air. And that takes years. Please try to understand this.

Edit: And why the bizarrely random link to ideal gases? WTF has that got to do with it?

You are ignoring how we measure the air temperature. The feedbacks could take a long time to respond,
but the air temperatures response to a change in energy level, is almost instantaneous.
If you do not understand the relationship between the energy in a volume of gas, and the temperature
of that volume of gas, why are you attempting to participate in this conversation?