Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

[donald]

I've never said I know anything, or even 'sufficient', about climate. And I have never sought to imply it. Show me one statement to that effect. I've asked questions where there are discrepancies, and if the foundation of your own acceptance of AGW is sufficiently shaky (I guess you aren't 'climate science' experts either) that just a few raised concerns and questions over the data cause you to attack me (attack is easier than defence, after all) then that is a very destructive dialogue and you've done your argument no benefit.

I was asked to give examples where temperature has gone up with decreasing CO2. I did, but I was then told that was solar variation. I was asked to give an example of dropping temperatures with rising CO2. I did, 1890-1920 and 1940-1980, and no-one here offered an explanation for that. I was asked to describe just one natural mechanism for global climate change and I offered the instability of glacier regression. It was suggested that this would only be the case if temperature ramps were typically of the order of degrees over 200 years, which I then showed were typical temperature ramps by providing ice core data.

As for recanting stuff I have been fed, it is ridiculous. I don't believe anyone 'til they can prove something, and I don't believe anyone has yet proved anything beyond 'not implausible'. But I'm happy to go with a working hypothesis and unlike certain 'sides' in this debate I agree CO2 induces global warming and I have no reason yet to reject the AGW hypothesis, which is not at all 'what I have been fed', but I want to understand a) the degree, and b) the natural mitigations to those increases. This is because solar variation needs to change by a mere 0.1% to swamp CO2 forcing, yet IPCC themselves say it is 'very uncertain', so if they are very uncertain about solar variation how can they be so sure it is less than 0.1%?

If you were to give a thousand statisticians 10,000 temperature points around the planet and asked them to come up with an 'average temperature' I bet their answers would vary by more than 0.1%. Some might just do a straight average. Some might cut the globe up into parts and limit the samples from each area. Some might add a factor to decide if it is near built up areas. Some might handle night and day temperatures differently, one might justify the diurnal average others might pick the peak. I can't see how different people would use the same method to come up with an answer consistent to 0.1%, so I can't see how solar variation can be excluded as possibly being the largest factor which would swamp 'systemic' variations in the data.

Just covering what you think I have said, please give me one example where I have put myself in a position where I suggest or imply I know anything about climate science? Everything I've put are questions based on facts or observations I have, mostly, referenced as stated by others. That you have thrown this at me several times, it does not make it the truer for simply repeating it.

 

[WetEV]

Climate is chaotic.

Not just in inter-glacial times, but all the time, as climate is filtered weather, and weather is chaotic.

Chaotic, may be, but the question is the rate of change of climate. The rate of change is much higher in interglacials because the system is critically unstable with receding glaciers.

Still waiting for a source for this amazing statement.

 

[WetEV]

I've never said I know anything, or even 'sufficient', about climate. And I have never sought to imply it. Show me one statement to that effect.

The rate of change is much higher in interglacials because the system is critically unstable with receding glaciers.

You seem to be "skeptical" about climate science, but not skeptical about climate "skeptics".

 

[klapauzius]

Just covering what you think I have said, please give me one example where I have put myself in a position where I suggest or imply I know anything about climate science? Everything I've put are questions based on facts or observations I have, mostly, referenced as stated by others. That you have thrown this at me several times, it does not make it the truer for simply repeating it.

Donald,

Time and again we have pointed you to the extensive scientific literature. But apparently you didnt read it.

Your questions and critique of current climate science is about 50 years too late. We have tried to answer some of it, using common sense, as none of us is a climate scientist, but I think you did not bother a bit to understand these answers as well.

Do you seriously think that all the doubts you voiced about climate science are novel and new?

Do you really expect now someone would say "gee, I haven't thought of the interglacial variation, all the research we did over the decades involving thousands of people and millions of dollars was just BS"???

Before you came up with all these questions, did you do a literature review to check, how many have been addressed already?

You are like the student who didnt do his homework, got an F and now blames the teachers for it.

Now you say you didnt question AGW, and yes you are all for renewables, but out of ignorance, not well founded knowledge, you still think the whole theory behind it is BS. What kind of message do you think is that?

People have been trying very hard to give a well founded answer to one of the most difficult problems we as a global civilization face and for the first time in human history, there are high hopes that this can be solved in a civilized manner and not with bloodshed (which has been the historical norm to settle differences of opinion or solve problems like this).

There are people, who try to torpedo the well being of future generations, for the most base, selfish reasons, by delaying any meaningful implementation of a solution through sowing doubt and lies.

Out of ignorance (or ill will) you are tooting their horn, which might explain the somewhat hostile response you got.

 

[donald]

Climate is chaotic.

Not just in inter-glacial times, but all the time, as climate is filtered weather, and weather is chaotic.

Chaotic, may be, but the question is the rate of change of climate. The rate of change is much higher in interglacials because the system is critically unstable with receding glaciers.

Still waiting for a source for this amazing statement.

2/3rds way down page 13 shows the rate of change to be in the order degrees in 200 years. That's the only relevance of any rate-terms in an interglacial, that the rate of change seen recently is not out of the ordinary.

 

[donald]

Now you say you didnt question AGW, and yes you are all for renewables, but out of ignorance, not well founded knowledge, you still think the whole theory behind it is BS. What kind of message do you think is that?

Where have I ever said any of this? This is the image-creation you have composed in your own mind of me, merely because I dare point to things like CO2 forcing to be no greater than a 0.1% solar variation, and you see such a comment as a 'threat' than one for which there should be an answer.

And, yes, I went to look at the IPCC document and ALL IT CONCLUDED on solar variation is that it was 'very uncertain'. Very uncertain on a number that only has to vary by 0.1% to swamp the CO2 figure? I'm sorry, I do not find that persuasive and I have not yet seen any argument to show how this 'very uncertain' thing can still be presumed to vary by less than 0.1%.

 

[WetEV]

Where have I ever said any of this? This is the image-creation you have composed in your own mind of me, merely because I dare point to things like CO2 forcing to be no greater than a 0.1% solar variation, and you see such a comment as a 'threat' than one for which there should be an answer.

Please provide a creditable source for the "CO2 forcing to be no greater than a 0.1% solar variation" claim.

I'd skeptical. Are you?

 

[klapauzius]

And, yes, I went to look at the IPCC document and ALL IT CONCLUDED on solar variation is that it was 'very uncertain'. Very uncertain on a number that only has to vary by 0.1% to swamp the CO2 figure? I'm sorry, I do not find that persuasive and I have not yet seen any argument to show how this 'very uncertain' thing can still be presumed to vary by less than 0.1%.

Keep gnawing at that bone....until you find another one.

We all make our own reality and so you are free to make yours, even if this prevents you from getting the big picture.
Enjoy being the only reasonable person, who knows the truth, in a society of fools. You will still find a few like minded spirits, albeit their number is dwindling, as the facts will become too obvious over time to be ignored.

Here are some other theories for you to question:

- The world is round
- particles can be waves
- space time isnt absolute
- Lady Di died in a car crash in '97
- The earth is billions of years old
- we have evolved from cute little rodents

 

[WetEV]

Climate is chaotic.

Not just in inter-glacial times, but all the time, as climate is filtered weather, and weather is chaotic.

Chaotic, may be, but the question is the rate of change of climate. The rate of change is much higher in interglacials because the system is critically unstable with receding glaciers.

Still waiting for a source for this amazing statement.

2/3rds way down page 13 shows the rate of change to be in the order degrees in 200 years. That's the only relevance of any rate-terms in an interglacial, that the rate of change seen recently is not out of the ordinary.

Page 13? of what document?

Still waiting for a creditable source for this amazing statement.

 

[donald]

Climate is chaotic.

Not just in inter-glacial times, but all the time, as climate is filtered weather, and weather is chaotic.

Chaotic, may be, but the question is the rate of change of climate. The rate of change is much higher in interglacials because the system is critically unstable with receding glaciers.

Still waiting for a source for this amazing statement.

2/3rds way down page 13 shows the rate of change to be in the order degrees in 200 years. That's the only relevance of any rate-terms in an interglacial, that the rate of change seen recently is not out of the ordinary.

Page 13? of what document?

Still waiting for a creditable source for this amazing statement.

Of this thread.

Source stated and linked - NOAA.

 

[donald]

Where have I ever said any of this? This is the image-creation you have composed in your own mind of me, merely because I dare point to things like CO2 forcing to be no greater than a 0.1% solar variation, and you see such a comment as a 'threat' than one for which there should be an answer.

Please provide a creditable source for the "CO2 forcing to be no greater than a 0.1% solar variation" claim.

I'd skeptical. Are you?

The latest IPCC report.

The summary table says that the CO2 forcing factor is equivalent to 1.68W.m-2.

As solar irradiance is around 1366W.m-2 ..

OK, so it is 0.12%. I've exaggerated! OOps!

 

[donald]

Didn't get around to addressing this comment...

As you've said, we are in between glacial periods. Barring 'un-natural' forcings, the planet should be cooling and we should be headed for the next glacial period.

We are in a period of receding glaciers, not advancing. In interglacials they may be coming or going. In fact, it is the definition of an interglacial that glaciers are unstable and they are either advancing or receding at any given moment.

The whole system is critically unstable. That's why ice ages like the one we're in are an uncommon scenario for the planet, simply because the whole system tends towards the warmer and more stable 'no perennial ice'.

All you know in an interglaicial is that glaciers are either receding or advancing. They appear to be receding at the moment, do you not agree?

When the glaciers are going, you get warming. Cause and effect are merged because one perpetuates the other. Glaciers go, the planet warms which further aggravates glacial recession.

We've come out of a recent minor glaciation, i.e. getting warmer. This is also in part why sea levels are changing in the northern hemisphere, some up some down, due to continental plate uplift as the glaciations have melted.

 

[klapauzius]

The summary table says that the CO2 forcing factor is equivalent to 1.68W.m-2.

As solar irradiance is around 1366W.m-2 ..

OK, so it is 0.12%. I've exaggerated! OOps!

And the random variance of the observed natural solar cycle over the past 50 years is ~ 0.1759 W/m^2, so the human CO2 forcing is just a mere 9 sigma.

Or , if your prefer the amplitude of the natural cycle as a reference, that is ~ 0.5 W/m^2, so we are only three times over that. Nothing an engineer would worry about...

...Next?

 

[WetEV]

Climate is chaotic.

Not just in inter-glacial times, but all the time, as climate is filtered weather, and weather is chaotic.

Chaotic, may be, but the question is the rate of change of climate. The rate of change is much higher in interglacials because the system is critically unstable with receding glaciers.

Still waiting for a source for this amazing statement.

2/3rds way down page 13 shows the rate of change to be in the order degrees in 200 years. That's the only relevance of any rate-terms in an interglacial, that the rate of change seen recently is not out of the ordinary.

Page 13? of what document?

Still waiting for a creditable source for this amazing statement.

Of this thread.

Source stated and linked - NOAA.

Except that the graph doesn't come from NOAA, and some of the data isn't in the linked page. The red line comes from some different source... And that graph doesn't show global temperature, in any case, so it doesn't show what you are saying it does.

 

[WetEV]

Where have I ever said any of this? This is the image-creation you have composed in your own mind of me, merely because I dare point to things like CO2 forcing to be no greater than a 0.1% solar variation, and you see such a comment as a 'threat' than one for which there should be an answer.

Please provide a creditable source for the "CO2 forcing to be no greater than a 0.1% solar variation" claim.

I'd skeptical. Are you?

The latest IPCC report.


The summary table says that the CO2 forcing factor is equivalent to 1.68W.m-2.

As solar irradiance is around 1366W.m-2 ..

OK, so it is 0.12%. I've exaggerated! OOps!

No, you failed. Solar irradiance is not the same as solar variation.

 

[donald]

No, you failed. Solar irradiance is not the same as solar variation.

hehe... no, that is the response to "And the random variance of the observed natural solar cycle over the past 50 years is ~ 0.1759 W/m^2", not the justification for it.

Yes, solar radiance has not varied by much, that is measured. But the way in which solar irradiance affects the atmosphere is the unknown part of it, not so much the solar radiance itself.

The IPCC say the mechanisms of solar irradiance are 'very uncertain'. Again, I am only repeating stuff from elsewhere. THE IPCC SAY THE MECHANISMS OF SOLAR IRRADIANCE ARE VERY UNCERTAIN, not me.

I think we're at a point here where you see the whole issue of AGW as a two-sided affair, accepters and deniers. You are on one side and I am evidently not at the same point you are, ergo you figure I must be on the 'other' side....

Nope. I'm only ever on my side. I've got no problem with CO2 as a forcing factor. I've looked at other, and surely not all, but some of the other mechanisms and I can find scant material proving these are not significant. So on the one hand CO2 forcing appears a perfectly valid mechanism towards global warming, and on the other, other mechanisms also look valid. I understand what you are saying that the things you point to show these other things do not have an effect. I'm sorry, I do not agree with you. I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying I don't agree with you. That doesn't make me a 'skeptic' or a 'denier', it makes me a person that doesn't agree with you.

So, thanks for all your links, but I'm not persuaded they show what you suggest they show.

 

[klapauzius]

No, you failed. Solar irradiance is not the same as solar variation.

hehe... no, that is the response to "And the random variance of the observed natural solar cycle over the past 50 years is ~ 0.1759 W/m^2", not the justification for it.

Yes, solar radiance has not varied by much, that is measured. But the way in which solar irradiance affects the atmosphere is the unknown part of it, not so much the solar radiance itself.

Care to elaborate? You seem to be jumping from one issue to the next.
If you subtract out the cycle average, 0.159 W/m^2 is the residual variance of the random part of the signal. Sorry, again I was assuming that you would understand that.

 

[WetEV]

Solar irradiance is not the same as solar variation.

hehe... no, that is the response to "And the random variance of the observed natural solar cycle over the past 50 years is ~ 0.1759 W/m^2", not the justification for it.

Please provide a creditable source for the "CO2 forcing to be no greater than a 0.1% solar variation" claim.

Yes, solar radiance has not varied by much, that is measured. But the way in which solar irradiance affects the atmosphere is the unknown part of it, not so much the solar radiance itself.

The IPCC say the mechanisms of solar irradiance are 'very uncertain'. Again, I am only repeating stuff from elsewhere. THE IPCC SAY THE MECHANISMS OF SOLAR IRRADIANCE ARE VERY UNCERTAIN, not me.

Oh, yet another statement without any way to verify it. Please provide a source for the IPCC saying "THE MECHANISMS OF SOLAR IRRADIANCE ARE VERY UNCERTAIN", hopefully in normal case rather than shouting. Google, for example, said this; {No results found for "mechanisms of solar irradiance are 'very uncertain'".} Oh, try Bing. {No results found for "mechanisms of solar irradiance are 'very uncertain'".}

In other words, Google and Bing don't know about that exact phrase, so it looks like you are the originator of it. Not the IPCC. If you are going to quote, then quote.

Here is an exact quote from the IPCC WG1AR5 Chapter 8 page 662.

Natural Forcing

Satellite observations of total solar irradiance (TSI) changes
from 1978 to 2011 show that the most recent solar cycle min-
imum was lower than the prior two. This very likely led to a small
negative RF of –0.04 (–0.08 to 0.00) W m–2 between 1986 and 2008.
The best estimate of RF due to TSI changes representative for the 1750
to 2011 period is 0.05 (to 0.10) W m–2. This is substantially smaller
than the AR4 estimate due to the addition of the latest solar cycle
and inconsistencies in how solar RF has been estimated in earlier IPCC
assessments. There is very low confidence concerning future solar forc-
ing estimates, but there is high confidence that the TSI RF variations
will be much smaller than the projected increased forcing due to GHG
during the forthcoming decades. {8.4.1, Figures 8.10, 8.11}

In my words, high confidence that solar variation will be much smaller than increased forcing due to greenhouse gases. I think that is very clear. Do you disagree?

I think we're at a point here where you see the whole issue of AGW as a two-sided affair, accepters and deniers. You are on one side and I am evidently not at the same point you are, ergo you figure I must be on the 'other' side....

Actually I don't see things as "two sided". There is a body of thought centered about climate science, with a little variation, and a wild, wacky and wonderful spectrum of deniers, holding multiple and incompatible ideas as to why climate science is wrong. Most of the ideas don't even rise to the level of being wrong. The interesting debate isn't really about climate science but rather what to do about what we know...And in many ways, that debate is stalled by the wild and wacky deniers.

 

[donald]

Actually I don't see things as "two sided". There is a body of thought centered about climate science, with a little variation, and a wild, wacky and wonderful spectrum of deniers, holding multiple and incompatible ideas as to why climate science is wrong. Most of the ideas don't even rise to the level of being wrong. The interesting debate isn't really about climate science but rather what to do about what we know...And in many ways, that debate is stalled by the wild and wacky deniers.

Exactly. You see it as two sides. Your side, and 'wild and wacky'. You don't appear to be able to imagine a 'body of thought' that disagrees with your 'body of thought', and you appear to hold the conclusions you agree with sufficiently dear that you can't see an alternative other than 'wild and wacky'. The very pejorative language reveals your bias, I regret to point out.

 

[klapauzius]

You don't appear to be able to imagine a 'body of thought' that disagrees with your 'body of thought', and you appear to hold the conclusions you agree with sufficiently dear that you can't see an alternative other than 'wild and wacky'. The very pejorative language reveals your bias, I regret to point out.

For a "body of thought" on the other side, a little more substance is required.

The only reason that the nonsense on the denier side gets so much attention is the fact that they serve very real and substantial monetary interest, plus denial just feels better for some.