• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

When will Earth's energy imbalance, turns from warming to cooling?

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
29,336
Reaction score
9,997
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Earth's energy imbalance has been in a downward trend for are long as the CERES Satellites have been active (~Year 2000).
While the imbalance is still not zero, it is trending in that direction.
Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance
" The EEI shows a trend of −0.16 ± 0.03 (1 σ) W/m2dec. If the RSR ageing correction uncertainty (Section 4)
is taken into account the uncertainty becomes ±0.11 W/m2dec. This means that the EEI seems to have a decreasing trend. "

remotesensing-11-00663-g014-550.jpg

A quick calculation says that the .8 W m-2 of imbalance would drop to zero is about 50 years, if the trend from the last 20 years continues.
In the interim, we have to consider that warming is tied directly to Earth's energy imbalance, so at some point reducing the energy retained,
will move temperatures in the other direction.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
44,052
Reaction score
12,858
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Earth's energy imbalance has been in a downward trend for are long as the CERES Satellites have been active (~Year 2000).
While the imbalance is still not zero, it is trending in that direction.
Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance
" The EEI shows a trend of −0.16 ± 0.03 (1 σ) W/m2dec. If the RSR ageing correction uncertainty (Section 4)
is taken into account the uncertainty becomes ±0.11 W/m2dec. This means that the EEI seems to have a decreasing trend. "

remotesensing-11-00663-g014-550.jpg

A quick calculation says that the .8 W m-2 of imbalance would drop to zero is about 50 years, if the trend from the last 20 years continues.
In the interim, we have to consider that warming is tied directly to Earth's energy imbalance, so at some point reducing the energy retained,
will move temperatures in the other direction.
There are too many uncertainties related to the absolute calibration of satellite data. Keep in mind that such data is corrected data, and no more than a SWAG (scientific wild ass guess.)

We simply don't know what the real imbalance is, or its trend. Satellite instrumentation also has a calibration drift, which cannot be accurately calibrated without a shuttle mission or similar taking a calibration standard into orbit.

On the assumption this is a correct trend, it would dispel the high degree of positive feedback from CO2.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
44,052
Reaction score
12,858
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The trend is probably correct. I just wouldn't risk my reputation on claiming so. The paper shows a decreasing solar component from the sun, and an increasing outgoing longwave:

1616789233627.png

This would be in line with the reduce solar activity and greater cloud cover. However, we don't know what this new solar cycle will bring with any certainty. So claiming a 50 year change to balance is a real stretch using the short term trend.
 

Loulit01

Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2021
Messages
357
Reaction score
230
Location
I'm right here on the left.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You've all seen the famous paint of Washington crossing the Delaware. The only accurate detail in that painting is the ice in the river.

Parts of NY Harbor became thick ice back then. You could skate from Manhattan to NJ.

The earth warms and the earth cools. The sun does what it will and there's nothing we can do about it. We do know that despite these fluctuations rising CO2 levels will kill us all. Deal.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,812
Reaction score
33,897
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The trend is probably correct. I just wouldn't risk my reputation on claiming so. The paper shows a decreasing solar component from the sun, and an increasing outgoing longwave:

View attachment 67325049

This would be in line with the reduce solar activity and greater cloud cover. However, we don't know what this new solar cycle will bring with any certainty. So claiming a 50 year change to balance is a real stretch using the short term trend.

Hmm, decreasing solar radiation and yet the energy imbalance is still positive. This implies a planet that is still getting warmer. What other factor could be reversing this would-be move towards equilibrium?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
44,052
Reaction score
12,858
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hmm, decreasing solar radiation and yet the energy imbalance is still positive. This implies a planet that is still getting warmer. What other factor could be reversing this would-be move towards equilibrium?
The energy balance probably still is positive.

Were you asleep when we discussed what affects the energy balance?

Do you have a point?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,812
Reaction score
33,897
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The energy balance probably still is positive.

Were you asleep when we discussed what affects the energy balance?

Do you have a point?

My point is that clearly there is a factor causing the earth to continue warming and that is clearly CO2.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
44,052
Reaction score
12,858
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
My point is that clearly there is a factor causing the earth to continue warming and that is clearly CO2.
It is not clearly CO2. Those who understand the variables involved understand it is complicated enough not to be settled. Yes, CO2 plays a factor. It is yet to be determined how much it does, and it's even possible the indirect effects of CO2 like increased cloud cover might actually have a net cooling effect.

Why do you deny the science?

There are variables we have addressed that are more easily understood that detract from the forcing of CO2. The net forcing caused by CO2 is speculative. We start with what the spectral absorption calculates out to, but from there, we only have speculation of the quantification of how this interacts with the other variables.

The other factors have been repeatedly discussed. Why do you deny the science?
 

Loulit01

Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2021
Messages
357
Reaction score
230
Location
I'm right here on the left.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It is not clearly CO2. Those who understand the variables involved understand it is complicated enough not to be settled. Yes, CO2 plays a factor. It is yet to be determined how much it does, and it's even possible the indirect effects of CO2 like increased cloud cover might actually have a net cooling effect.

Why do you deny the science?

There are variables we have addressed that are more easily understood that detract from the forcing of CO2. The net forcing caused by CO2 is speculative. We start with what the spectral absorption calculates out to, but from there, we only have speculation of the quantification of how this interacts with the other variables.

The other factors have been repeatedly discussed. Why do you deny the science?
No. The problem is CO2.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,812
Reaction score
33,897
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is not clearly CO2. Those who understand the variables involved understand it is complicated enough not to be settled. Yes, CO2 plays a factor. It is yet to be determined how much it does, and it's even possible the indirect effects of CO2 like increased cloud cover might actually have a net cooling effect.

Why do you deny the science?
"Deny science"
What science? Some rando on the internet saying "it's possible CO2 has a net cooling effect!"
Show me the data that supports that. Show me the research indicating the causal mechanism for this totally scientific random speculation of yours.
There are variables we have addressed that are more easily understood that detract from the forcing of CO2. The net forcing caused by CO2 is speculative. We start with what the spectral absorption calculates out to, but from there, we only have speculation of the quantification of how this interacts with the other variables.

The other factors have been repeatedly discussed. Why do you deny the science?
There's tons of evidence supporting the positive temperature forcing caused by CO2 and there's a direct physical proof of the underlying physics of the idea. Both of which you lack.

Why are you denying science?
 

watsup

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
9,016
Reaction score
2,334
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You've all seen the famous paint of Washington crossing the Delaware. The only accurate detail in that painting is the ice in the river.

Parts of NY Harbor became thick ice back then. You could skate from Manhattan to NJ.

The earth warms and the earth cools. The sun does what it will and there's nothing we can do about it. We do know that despite these fluctuations rising CO2 levels will kill us all. Deal.

As regards the sun....but what about the human-produced CO2. Does it increase warming?
 

watsup

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
9,016
Reaction score
2,334
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
It is not clearly CO2. Those who understand the variables involved understand it is complicated enough not to be settled. Yes, CO2 plays a factor. It is yet to be determined how much it does, and it's even possible the indirect effects of CO2 like increased cloud cover might actually have a net cooling effect.

Why do you deny the science?

There are variables we have addressed that are more easily understood that detract from the forcing of CO2. The net forcing caused by CO2 is speculative. We start with what the spectral absorption calculates out to, but from there, we only have speculation of the quantification of how this interacts with the other variables.

The other factors have been repeatedly discussed. Why do you deny the science?

And yet more psychological projection.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
146,187
Reaction score
48,563
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
The energy balance probably still is positive.

Were you asleep when we discussed what affects the energy balance?

Do you have a point?
He is saying something you seem to fail to understand.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
44,052
Reaction score
12,858
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
"Deny science"
What science? Some rando on the internet saying "it's possible CO2 has a net cooling effect!"
Show me the data that supports that. Show me the research indicating the causal mechanism for this totally scientific random speculation of yours.

There's tons of evidence supporting the positive temperature forcing caused by CO2 and there's a direct physical proof of the underlying physics of the idea. Both of which you lack.

Why are you denying science?
Speculation is correct.

Do you have a valid point?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
44,052
Reaction score
12,858
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
He is saying something you seem to fail to understand.
Nope. I understand. I understand which facts we know and which we don't know.

You guys however, seem to think you understand what isn't known yet.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,812
Reaction score
33,897
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Speculation is correct.

Do you have a valid point?

You're accusing me of denying science when what I am actually denying is your unsupported speculation.

Understand now?
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
44,052
Reaction score
12,858
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
You're accusing me of denying science when what I am actually denying is your unsupported speculation.

Understand now?
Denying a hypothesis about science without proving it wrong is denying science.

Why don't you understand that?

To flat out deny a hypothesis is denying science.
 

watsup

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
9,016
Reaction score
2,334
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Denying a hypothesis about science without proving it wrong is denying science.

Why don't you understand that?

To flat out deny a hypothesis is denying science.

It depends, of course, on who is promoting the "hypotheses", a scientist doing actual research in the field or a self-described "expert" in an online chat forum.
 

longview

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
29,336
Reaction score
9,997
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It depends, of course, on who is promoting the "hypotheses", a scientist doing actual research in the field or a self-described "expert" in an online chat forum.
The "who" is irrelevant, science only cares about if the data supports the hypotheses.
For AGW, while it appears that added CO2 causes some warming, that actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty.
 

Lord of Planar

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2012
Messages
44,052
Reaction score
12,858
Location
Portlandia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
The "who" is irrelevant, science only cares about if the data supports the hypotheses.
For AGW, while it appears that added CO2 causes some warming, that actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty.
This is true. Why don't people realize this?
 

watsup

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
9,016
Reaction score
2,334
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The "who" is irrelevant, science only cares about if the data supports the hypotheses.
For AGW, while it appears that added CO2 causes some warming, that actual attribution is not a laboratory tested certainty.

Ummmm—it’s quite ridiculous to think that AGW could somehow be “laboratory tested”, every bit as ridiculous as saying that evolution that has happened over billions of years can be “laboratory tested”. You and Lord don’t know much about science if you think that it only happens in the “laboratory”. Could the atom bomb be tested “in the laboratory” or was it all basically theory until the first one was set off. We’re talking about the ATMOSPHERE here and there are many other scientific methodologies being used other than the “laboratory”. I can’t believe you actually said that.
 
Top Bottom