Can the atmosphere really warm? Atmospheric gas retention.

[donald]

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.

Sure.

Solar radiance is the objective, specific measure of radiative power reaching the earth.

Solar irradiation is the effect that this has on the atmosphere. The variation of one is not a direct function of the other. How that solar radiation is absorbed by the earth is a complex and uncertain process. For example, more radiation might drive clouds away which would then mean the albedo drops and the earth absorbs more of the radiated power than at lower radiances. That's a short-term effect, or there are longer term effects like the receding glacier mechanism. The 'leverage' of extra solar radiation towards more absorbed radiated power is the question. I'm not saying it has any effect, I only pointed out that if that absorption mechanism were to vary by 0.12% then it would equal the stated CO2 forcing.

Now, that variation might be positive. It might mean that CO2 and solar irradiation together contribute 3 W/m^-2 rather than 1.6. All I am saying is that I have not seen that mere 0.1% handled in a convincing way.

The spectral output of the sun's radiance is also reported to vary, as I am sure you are aware, and I am lead to believe the variation is a higher than normal UV contribution at the moment. The contribution increase only has to be 0.12% of the total received radiation, and that is an extremely fine value that I would tend to lack confidence in any numerical models, I'd want to see measurements of the stratospheric absorption processes and consequent direct heating and re-radiation, and I've not seen that there are any good established ways of determining the UV albedo of the stratosphere.

I'm not saying any of this has an effect. I'm saying that if there were just a 0.12% variation in the way solar radiation was absorbed, then it would compare with the stated CO2 forcing, and that sort of change needs to be very carefully teased apart because that requires a very high confidence level of knowing what's happening before wiping away the possibility of a 0.12% variation in a hand-wave.

 

[WetEV]

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.

I see you can't document your assertions and want to change the subject. Oh well.

To have two sides requires two clear positions. Looks to me like you don't have one.

I'm very biased over a lot of subjects. Maxwell's equations. Relativity. Gravity. A rounded Earth. 2+2=4 Various theorems of geometry. And yes, climate science.

Sorry to break the news to you, but I prefer reality. Now, you can tell me I'm biased, and I'll reply with "so?"

If you don't prefer reality, then just remember, reality can bite.

Even if you refuse to be convinced.

 

[klapauzius]

I'm not saying any of this has an effect. I'm saying that if there were just a 0.12% variation in the way solar radiation was absorbed, then it would compare with the stated CO2 forcing, and that sort of change needs to be very carefully teased apart because that requires a very high confidence level of knowing what's happening before wiping away the possibility of a 0.12% variation in a hand-wave.

I think you overlooked an important fact here, which i was trying to point out in my previous posts:

Solar irradiation in the last 50 years has not varied by 0.12%.

Lets use the 1366 W/m^2 (your number) as the basis.

The 11 year solar cycle has had an amplitude of ~ 0.5 W/m^2 or 0.036%, if you want to put that in relation to the total (mean) output.

The random variation, i.e. the part of solar output that cannot be described by a simple law or might come from the measurement uncertainty is 0.1759 W/m^2 or 0.013% of the total output.

Compared to these, 0.12% is a very high number and would be impossible (like less than 1 in a million)to occur 'naturally'.

So, here, very transparently we have wiped away the possibility of a natural 0.12% variation.
It isnt

just

0.12%.
0.12 % is a huge number in this context.

If you want to check for yourself, just download the irradiation numbers, they are freely available.
I have posted the links in this thread earlier.

I hope this puts the 'just a 0.12% variation' comment to rest.

I couldnt help but note that you dont know very basic things, so tell me again, what do you think qualifies you to be skeptical or critical of this very complex hypothesis?

 

[donald]

I think you overlooked an important fact here, which i was trying to point out in my previous posts:

Solar irradiation in the last 50 years has not varied by 0.12%.

Total solar radiation has not varied much. But certain parts of the spectrum have, specifically UV. And the mechanisms for UV heating of the stratosphere is the 'uncertain' thing I'm asking about.

 

[RegGuheert]

There seem to be a lot of non-sequitur arguments that permeate the alarmist way of thinking:

"Water vapor is a greenhouse gas, therefore adding water vapor to the atmosphere must lead to a temperature rise."

"Total solar irradiance does not change very much over a solar cycle or between solar cycles, therefore the sun cannot affect the temperature of the planet."

Both the statements "Water vapor is a greenhouse gas" and "Total solar irradiance does not change very much" are very much true, so what is wrong with the above conclusions? They ignore the fact that there are other characteristics which could, and in fact do, make these conclusions completely false. And, in both cases, clouds are involved.

In the case of water vapor, it ignores the fact that water vapor is the primary building block of clouds. If water vapor content in the atmosphere is low, then you will tend to have fewer clouds and you will have more warming. This is borne out by the fact that locations at the same latitude that have higher concentrations of water vapor in the air are COOLER than those with less water vapor. In other words, if you want to live in a cooler place, then go live somewhere with a higher greenhouse effect due to water vapor.

Those of you who think adding water vapor heats the planet should go live where there is very little water vapor to cool off: the desert. :roll:

In the case of the sun, TSI is only one measurement of how the sun might impact the Earth. There are two other characteristics which vary widely and likely have a significant impact on the amount of cloud cover over the Earth: geomagnetic field strength and ultraviolet light.

The geomagnetic field strength at the peak of the current solar cycle (24) was just 1/3 of the value that we saw two solar cycles ago (22):

The strength of the geomagnetic field strength is important because that means that the sun will not block as many cosmic rays from making it to the Earth. In fact, during this solar cycle the peak magnetic field strength only brought cosmic ray count down to the average value over the entire instrument record:

During the minimum between solar cycles 23 and 24, the cosmic ray count was the highest ever recorded in the instrument record. It seems likely that it will go even higher during the next solar minimum.

And I have linked repeatedly to the research that indicates that cosmic rays can and do create aerosols in our atmosphere which can and do result in additional cloud cover after a few days. More clouds means a cooler climate.

Regarding ultraviolet radiation from the sun, research shows that ultraviolet radiation from the sun can vary by as much as 100% in a single solar cycle and that it is highly correlated with the global temperature. Does that mean that UV affects the temperature of the Earth? No, but it says that the Sun might. But there has been an effort to try to understand how the amount of UV could impact the Earth's climate. One particularly interesting one involves the impact of UV on ozone and how that affects the gulf stream and therefore the amount of cloud cover over the Earth.

So, no, repeating the above non-sequitur arguments ad nauseum does not change the fact that those arguments completely ignore significant characteristics of our atmosphere and the Sun that have a real bearing on the climate of our planet.

 

[klapauzius]

I think you overlooked an important fact here, which i was trying to point out in my previous posts:

Solar irradiation in the last 50 years has not varied by 0.12%.

Total solar radiation has not varied much. But certain parts of the spectrum have, specifically UV. And the mechanisms for UV heating of the stratosphere is the 'uncertain' thing I'm asking about.

Oh my, we cant destroy your arguments fast enough, you come up with new ones right away...

So why where you raising this issue of the 0.12% variation, when you really wanted to ask about UV?

So, what about UV?
Can you educate us for a change?
To start, why dont you give as an introduction on the contribution of UV to warming (in W/m^2) vs. total irradiance?

Here is a link where you might find some useful information
http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/sorce/science/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[klapauzius]

Regarding ultraviolet radiation from the sun, research shows that ultraviolet radiation from the sun can vary by as much as 100% in a single solar cycle and that it is highly correlated with the global temperature.

Reg, please cite the original research article. hockeyschtick.blogspot.com is not the original source for this claim, and they dont give a full citation.

Still cannot find a credible source, can you?
In the end, it will be the invisible pink elephants that drive the climate....

 

[RegGuheert]

Reg, please cite the original research article. hockeyschtick.blogspot.com is not the original source for this claim, and they dont give a full citation.

The link is right in the article. The title of the paper is a hyperlink: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/2041-210X.12168/abstract" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Still cannot find a credible source, can you?

You mean sources that don't contradict all of the observations? No, my sources agree with the data.

In the end, it will be the invisible pink elephants that drive the climate....

Yep, that's pretty much equivalent to saying that a 400 ppm concentration of CO2 does it...and then insisting that it really, really does after virtually all the predictions fail to come true.

 

[donald]

Oh my, we cant destroy your arguments fast enough, you come up with new ones right away...

So why where you raising this issue of the 0.12% variation, when you really wanted to ask about UV?

I'm sorry, I don't think you're reading my posts any more. Take a look again at the post at the top of this 'page' of the thread.

The spectral output of the sun's radiance is also reported to vary, as I am sure you are aware, and I am lead to believe the variation is a higher than normal UV contribution at the moment. The contribution increase only has to be 0.12% of the total received radiation, and that is an extremely fine value that I would tend to lack confidence in any numerical models, I'd want to see measurements of the stratospheric absorption processes and consequent direct heating and re-radiation, and I've not seen that there are any good established ways of determining the UV albedo of the stratosphere.

Similarly to WetEV who has asked a couple of times now about the data showing multi-degree changes in 200 year spans in recent times. I put that up already.

per the data : http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/pale" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... ey2000.txt

This is what interglacials do, temperature-wise. The little peak in the last 200 years can be seen to be a ramp-rate of temperature that is not at all out of the ordinary.

 

[donald]

I think one take-away from Reg's discussion is that there are possible proxies and other data sets that do track the ups-and-downs of global temperature in the 20th century, and which correlate with the two cooling periods.

One of the data sets that doesn't track the ups-and-downs of global temperature is CO2 levels, which only goes up.

I'm not making any point with that observation. It's simply a fact. But you ask me why I would question the AGW hypothesis when I do not claim to be any expert, and that is the reason why I would question it (Nota Bene: 'question', not 'doubt', 'speculate', 'refute' or any other words that you have contrived to believe I mean. Question.)

 

[klapauzius]

Still cannot find a credible source, can you?

You mean sources that don't contradict all of the observations? No, my sources agree with the data.

In the end, it will be the invisible pink elephants that drive the climate....

Yep, that's pretty much equivalent to saying that a 400 ppm concentration of CO2 does it...and then insisting that it really, really does after virtually all the predictions fail to come true.

Great, I found it! Unfortunately its a pay-to-view article. The data is free though.

From what I could get from the abstract, this work doesn't deal with climate change directly..

Macroecology has prospered in recent years due in part to the wide array of climatic data, such as those provided by the WorldClim and CliMond data sets, which has become available for research. However, important environmental variables have still been missing, including spatial data sets on UV-B radiation, an increasingly recognized driver of ecological processes.

Maybe they something about the ecology of pink elephants?

And no, it wont be the pink elephants, as there is solid evidence that it is the CO2, documented by a vast body of literature and public data.

You and Donald (and the whole denier club) seem to be grasping at straws, trying to come up with ever more obscure reasons why it should not be the CO2, without even understanding the most basic science.

 

[klapauzius]

The spectral output of the sun's radiance is also reported to vary, as I am sure you are aware, and I am lead to believe the variation is a higher than normal UV contribution at the moment. The contribution increase only has to be 0.12% of the total received radiation, and that is an extremely fine value that I would tend to lack confidence in any numerical models, I'd want to see measurements of the stratospheric absorption processes and consequent direct heating and re-radiation, and I've not seen that there are any good established ways of determining the UV albedo of the stratosphere.

I am sure you read a paper like this (1) http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.0885" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
Or this (2) http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/jcli-d-11-00571.1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
Or this (3) http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-4348-9_3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They all talk about the role of the sun and how well we can measure the UV part of the spectrum. (1) claims to be pretty accurate (less than 0.12% of total). (2) says there were problems with the measurements and this needs to be re-examined.

(3) discusses Radiative Forcing (RF), i.e. the cumulative effect of the sun on the climate extensively.

The constant of proportionality, called the “climate sensitivity parameter”,
lambda, has a value estimated to be in the range 0.4–1.2 K W/m^2 with a best
estimate of 0.6 K W/m^2 (see e.g. Le Treut 2012) indicating that the equilibrated
response of the global mean surface temperature to an RF of 1 W/m^2 would be 0.6 K.

...

...only about 70% of solar radiation is absorbed with the other 30% reflected back to space. Thus a
1 W/m^2 increase in TSI implies a RF of only 0.7/4 = 0.175 W/m^2 and (taking
lambda= 0.6 K W/m^2) a global mean surface temperature increase of about 0.1 K

...

A record of TSI may thus be used to indicate the role of the Sun in climate history,
at least in a global average equilibrated context. A fundamental issue then
is to establish the TSI record and, as discussed in Sect. 3.2, this is controversial.
As an example, plausible estimates given for the difference between the Maunder
Minimum and the present probably lie in the range 0.8–3.0 W/m^2, suggesting
a solar-driven global temperature increase in the range 0.08 to 0.30 K since the
17th century. The observed temperature difference is estimated at around 1 K
so, on this basis, the Sun may have contributed 8–30% of the warming.

I changed some special characters, so this shows in the forum. You can look at the original text using the link.

So, lets put the sun to rest, unless you can do better than these guys.

 

[donald]

...only about 70% of solar radiation is absorbed with the other 30% reflected back to space.

Worries me they would say 'about 70%'. We should know this more accurately than to 0.12%. What is the exact figure?

 

[RegGuheert]

You and Donald (and the whole denier club) seem to be grasping at straws, trying to come up with ever more obscure reasons why it should not be the CO2, without even understanding the most basic science.

There's nothing obscure here. Walk outside on a partially cloudy day. Wait for a cloud to pass over. See how it affects the temperature.

Now, ask yourself if it makes sense to model the Earth's climate without including ALL of the causes of cloud formation. Of course it doesn't! So why don't they do it? Because cloud formation is extremely poorly understood. So the models simply ignore it.

But the data tell the real story, not the models.

Simply put, the GHE MOVES IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION OF TEMPERATURE on this planet. I have given you many lines of evidence to show that. As a result, it is very clear that the response of adding more water vapor to the atmosphere is to lower the temperature, which is a negative feedback to any temperature rise which might be caused by the addition of CO2. Without the imagined positive feedback from water vapor, CO2 is no threat, but rather is simply a beneficial addition to our biosphere.

Once you know that temperature rise on Earth are associated with a reduction in the GHE, then you can move on and use actual scientific reasoning to try to figure out important things like what causes the cloud cover to change, etc.

 

[WetEV]

Walk outside on a partially cloudy day. Wait for a cloud to pass over. See how it affects the temperature.

Now, stay outside at night when clouds are expected to clear. See how that affects temperature.

Or wait for a day with high, very thin clouds. Notice how hot it is.

Or go to Venus, with continuous cloud cover, and boil away. Reality bites, you should know. Venus absorbs less heat from the Sun than the Earth does, due to the very reflective clouds of Venus.

This is an energy balance problem, and just looking at the daytime and one type of cloud at one location doesn't give you the whole picture.

So the models simply ignore it.

You know that all of the models ignore clouds because:

1) You have read the code of all of the models, and can reference this statement with lines of code?
2) You have read the papers for all the major models in scientific journals, and the papers all say that they ignore clouds?
3) A university level textbook?
4) Wikipedia?
5) Written on the wall of stall number three in the bathroom?
6) Came to you in a dream?
7) Cheech and Chong's "good s#!t, man?"
8) Some random blog posting written by a message therapist?
9) Some random blog posting by a fake member of the House of Lords?
10) Other?

 

[RegGuheert]

Walk outside on a partially cloudy day. Wait for a cloud to pass over. See how it affects the temperature.

Now, stay outside at night when clouds are expected to clear. See how that affects temperature.

Or wait for a day with high, very thin clouds. Notice how hot it is.

Or go to Venus, with continuous cloud cover, and boil away. Reality bites, you should know. Venus absorbs less heat from the Sun than the Earth does, due to the very reflective clouds of Venus.

This is an energy balance problem, and just looking at the daytime and one type of cloud at one location doesn't give you the whole picture.

We do not live on Venus. I specified this planet, which is dominated by the characteristics of water. Perhaps you did not pay attention to the clear evidence that supports my position. Here it is again:

1) Global diurnal temperature range was going UP during the "big" temperature rise at the end of the 20th century:

2) It is hotter in dry places on Earth than in wet places at the same latitude and altitude:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2K1uHvfaek[/youtube]

As pointed out in the video, additional water vapor in the atmosphere is the major reason for the following:
- Dallas is cooler than Phoenix
- Knoxville is cooler than Las Vegas
- Huntsville is cooler than Death Valley
- Bogra is cooler than Riyadh

Again: Increasing temperatures are inevitably associated with decreasing GHE on this planet.

And, yes, clouds are the key factor in that.

And, guess what? Adding CO2 to that atmosphere results in enhanced plant growth, which helps to keep more moisture in the atmosphere, which helps to cool the planet. A negative feedback.

So the models simply ignore it.

You know that all of the models ignore clouds because:

1) You have read the code of all of the models, and can reference this statement with lines of code?
2) You have read the papers for all the major models in scientific journals, and the papers all say that they ignore clouds?
3) A university level textbook?
4) Wikipedia?
5) Written on the wall of stall number three in the bathroom?
6) Came to you in a dream?
7) Cheech and Chong's "good s#!t, man?"
8) Some random blog posting written by a message therapist?
9) Some random blog posting by a fake member of the House of Lords?
10) Other?

Straw man argument.

Because the physics of cloud formation is not currently understood. And even if it were, it would not be possible to model it in a bottom-up fashion in our lifetimes using current computer technology.

BTW, that is also true for bottom-up climate models even without clouds involved. On top of that, even the MATH to solve the equations evolved in bottom-up climate models does not exist today. You can win a $1,000,000 prize if you can come up with the solution to the Navier-Stokes equation:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvhipLNeda4[/youtube]
Edit: Fixed quoting.

 

[klapauzius]

...only about 70% of solar radiation is absorbed with the other 30% reflected back to space.

Worries me they would say 'about 70%'. We should know this more accurately than to 0.12%. What is the exact figure?

Not needed. The paper I cited says the influence of the sun is at most 30%.

 

[RegGuheert]

Not needed. The paper I cited says the influence of the sun is at most 30%.

And they are continuing to use the assumption that only the irradiance of the Sun is what matters. They have shown no knowledge about how clouds are affected by the Sun, nor have they shown that clouds are NOT affected by the Sun.

As Donald has stated, it's impossible to prove a negative, but many seem to believe that clouds are NOT affected by the Sun in spite of the evidence to the contrary. If that were true, how would you prove it? Answer: You cannot. It is merely an article of faith on your part and the part of any scientists who ignore those effects.

 

[klapauzius]

And they are continuing to use the assumption that only the irradiance of the Sun is what matters. They have shown no knowledge about how clouds are affected by the Sun, nor have they shown that clouds are NOT affected by the Sun.

As Donald has stated, it's impossible to prove a negative, but many seem to believe that clouds are NOT affected by the Sun in spite of the evidence to the contrary. If that were true, how would you prove it? Answer: You cannot. It is merely an article of faith on your part and the part of any scientists who ignore those effects.

No it is not "impossible" to prove a negative in science. You merely have to show the irrelevance. Yes, the Luminiferous aether could still exist, but nobody cares, since its impact on reality is immeasurable.
"Proofs" like this have been done many times, so you and Donald are clearly wrong on this.

The two of you are hardly revolutionary thinkers, geniuses which came up with something radically new. Do you really think nobody has looked into this?

On the sun (even the UV part) you can find a lot of publications, probably on the clouds too. Apparently from all that research the consensus has emerged, that they are NOT the driving factor in the currently observed global climate change.

Apparently, similar to the ether, clouds and solar irradiance, seem to have small (or negligible) contributions to global temperature, as compared to human induced CO2 concentration changes.

Where is the broad consensus that cloud formation and/or the sun are responsible for the current climate change?

Show us the scientific studies, published in respected journals, by people with impeccable reputation in the climate sciences.

If it is "real", it cannot be that hard to find?

 

[donald]

So, what does the consensus say about Reg's point - for two like areas at the same altitude and latitude, why does water vapour in one lead to a cooler environment than a lack of water vapour in the other. I mean, we're talking about some deserts that are truly huge environments and are not significantly affected by local matter at the edge within the time-scale of a few diurnal cycles. A strong wind would take days to cross some of these areas, so clearly there is more to just locality. Why are deserts hot with no water vapour above it, but get cool with it?

Are there such areas in the middle of large oceans that could be considered a more 'controlled' environment? Do we have humidity and temperature data to determine trends at mid-points in the oceans at like latitudes?