New Study: Land Use the reason for Kilimanjaro's Missing ice, Not Global Warming

[Snow_Miser]

This is yet another study that shows that Global Warming is not the cause of the melting snows on Kilimanjaro.

“Glacier recession on Kilimanjaro has been linked to reduction in precipitation and cloudiness largely because of large‐scale changes in tropical climate. Prior studies show that local changes in land cover can also impact orographic cloudiness, precipitation, and terrain‐generated circulation patterns. This study uses the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System to simulate dry season orographic cloudiness, rainfall, and orographic flow patterns over Kilimanjaro for current deforested and reforested land cover scenarios. The simulations for current land cover show satisfactory performance compared to surface meteorology and satellite‐observed cloudiness. Clouds occur less frequently in response to deforestation, with the magnitude of decrease increasing with deforestation. On the windward side, cloud liquid water path (LWP) and precipitation both show decreases at lower elevations (∼1000–2000 m) and increases at higher elevations (2000–4000 m) in response to deforestation. This pattern is caused by decreased aerodynamic resistance, leading to enhanced wind speeds and convergence at higher elevations. On the lee regions, LWP deficits found in deforested simulations coincide with regions of reduced moisture while precipitation increased slightly at lower elevations (1000–1800 m) and decreased at higher elevations (1800–4000 m). Kilimanjaro offers less obstruction to background airflow, and reduced moisture transport to the lee side is found for deforested conditions, causing reduced LWP and rainfall. However, land use change has little effect on cloudiness and rainfall at elevations in excess of 4000 m and is not expected to impact glaciers in the summit zone of Kilimanjaro during the dry season. The effect in other seasons requires further investigation.”

Fairman, J. G., Jr., U. S. Nair, S. A. Christopher, and T. Mölg (2011),

Land use change impacts on regional climate over Kilimanjaro

, J. Geophys. Res., 116, D03110, doi:10.1029/2010JD014712

[BethesdaWX]

I don't think this theory is "new" at all.

[skierinvermont]

old news

[Clifford]

Old news?

it is a 2011 article.

It is a sign of the risk of reducing our climate assessments down to a single number.

In a recent topic, I asked whether forests increased or decreased the Radiative Forcing.

The IPCC stance was that destruction of forestland increases "albedo" or the reflectivity of the area, and thus has a NET BENEFIT in terms of Global Warming.

My point was that the forests have significant climate feedback including hydrological mechanisms.

If this is just a basic input/output question, then the glaciers will eventually reach a new equilibrium, although overall river flow could be decreased in a time when there is increasing pressure on water resources.

The tropical rainforests are particularly susceptible to human activities.

[skierinvermont]

Old news?

it is a 2011 article.

It is a sign of the risk of reducing our climate assessments down to a single number.

In a recent topic, I asked whether forests increased or decreased the Radiative Forcing.

http://www.americanw...iative-forcing/

The IPCC stance was that destruction of forestland increases "albedo" or the reflectivity of the area, and thus has a NET BENEFIT in terms of Global Warming.

My point was that the forests have significant climate feedback including hydrological mechanisms.

If this is just a basic input/output question, then the glaciers will eventually reach a new equilibrium, although overall river flow could be decreased in a time when there is increasing pressure on water resources.

The tropical rainforests are particularly susceptible to human activities.

Yes it is is old news. There have been many many many studies/articles/blog posts on this over the years. This is simply repetitive and you would have to have been living under a rock not to have heard this before.

As for your post about cutting down forest and albedo... the IPCC DOES include the hydrological and localized effects of deforestation. And they are correct that it increases albedo.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the models before making statements as to what's wrong with them..

[Snow_Miser]

By "new study" to clear up confusion- it means another paper that has just been published. This theory has been long around.

[aslkahuna]

This is why Global Warming as a descriptive term is outmoded-the correct term should Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.

Steve

[WeatherRusty]

This is why Global Warming as a descriptive term is outmoded-the correct term should Anthropogenic Global Climate Change.

Steve

Both terms are useful and both are acceptable but they are not exactly interchangeable terms. Humanity's activities can cause a global warming. That warming will change climate as reflected by it's many weather elements other than temperature..

[WeatherRusty]

Old news?

it is a 2011 article.

It is a sign of the risk of reducing our climate assessments down to a single number.

In a recent topic, I asked whether forests increased or decreased the Radiative Forcing.

http://www.americanw...iative-forcing/

The IPCC stance was that destruction of forestland increases "albedo" or the reflectivity of the area, and thus has a NET BENEFIT in terms of Global Warming.

My point was that the forests have significant climate feedback including hydrological mechanisms.

If this is just a basic input/output question, then the glaciers will eventually reach a new equilibrium, although overall river flow could be decreased in a time when there is increasing pressure on water resources.

The tropical rainforests are particularly susceptible to human activities.

Your poll asked specifically the impact of deforestation on Radiative Forcing. Radiative forcing does not involve climate feedback in any way, including that of the hydrological cycle. The various feedback mechanisms affect the net climate sensitivity to the radiative forcing. I answered your poll question specifically in regard to radiative forcing in isolation as that is what I thought you were asking.

[Clifford]

Your poll asked specifically the impact of deforestation on Radiative Forcing. Radiative forcing does not involve climate feedback in any way, including that of the hydrological cycle. The various feedback mechanisms affect the net climate sensitivity to the radiative forcing. I answered your poll question specifically in regard to radiative forcing in isolation as that is what I thought you were asking.

True,

I didn't cover glaciers.

But... as far as radiative forcing. Water has strong IR absorption in both visible light and IR frequencies.

Clouds can block the incoming sunlight during the day, and insulate at night.

The trees and forests have built-in water management, and to a large extent, temperature management.

Energy being absorbed for the purpose of photosynthesis may eventually cause a reaction that will generate heat. However, it can't be equated to energy being absorbed by green colored rock.

If the Kilimanjaro glaciers affect the albedo of sub-Saharan Africa, then it is part of the overall radiative forcing, but it would be a minor component.

The potential of desertification in sub-Saharan Africa may be beyond the scope of the albedo/radiative forcing, but should not be ignored as a potential effect of mismanagement of forestland. It still needs to be factored into the equations as it would affect the overall radiative forcing of the system.

Obviously each forest is different, and the effects in rain forests may not be the same as those in other areas. However, deforestation can cause long-term water balance changes in other locations too, and thus climate changes that extend beyond simple color changes.

[WeatherRusty]

True,

I didn't cover glaciers.

But... as far as radiative forcing. Water has strong IR absorption in both visible light and IR frequencies.

Clouds can block the incoming sunlight during the day, and insulate at night.

The trees and forests have built-in water management, and to a large extent, temperature management.

Energy being absorbed for the purpose of photosynthesis may eventually cause a reaction that will generate heat. However, it can't be equated to energy being absorbed by green colored rock.

If the Kilimanjaro glaciers affect the albedo of sub-Saharan Africa, then it is part of the overall radiative forcing, but it would be a minor component.

The potential of desertification in sub-Saharan Africa may be beyond the scope of the albedo/radiative forcing, but should not be ignored as a potential effect of mismanagement of forestland. It still needs to be factored into the equations as it would affect the overall radiative forcing of the system.

Obviously each forest is different, and the effects in rain forests may not be the same as those in other areas. However, deforestation can cause long-term water balance changes in other locations too, and thus climate changes that extend beyond simple color changes.

Expanding the implications of deforestation beyond what I considered to be the original question forces me to agree with you. I tend to think very literally without reading deeper into intentions. This helps me in my scientific thinking process as it allows me to isolate on factors and deal with specifics very well. I like to reduce complexity to simple terms which aids in understanding. The trick (did I say trick?...don't misconstrue!) is in the later integration of simpler concepts into a real world whole which reflects reality. Creating a coheasive, logical train of thought becomes a much easier task when dealing with fuzzy concepts this way. Break down and simplify, simplify and simplify again.

[skierinvermont]

Expanding the implications of deforestation beyond what I considered to be the original question forces me to agree with you. I tend to think very literally without reading deeper into intentions. This helps me in my scientific thinking process as it allows me to isolate on factors and deal with specifics very well. I like to reduce complexity to simple terms which aids in understanding. The trick (did I say trick?...don't misconstrue!) is in the later integration of simpler concepts into a real world whole which reflects reality. Creating a coheasive, logical train of thought becomes a much easier task when dealing with fuzzy concepts this way. Break down and simplify, simplify and simplify again.

We've caught you red handed Rusty.. we knew it all along.. you're trying to trick us!

[salbers]

The title of this thread seems at odds with what the first post is saying. The land use effect is only at lower elevations, rather than the summit where the snows are.

"However, land use change has little effect on cloudiness and rainfall at elevations in excess of 4000 m and is not expected to impact glaciers in the summit zone of Kilimanjaro during the dry season."

[BethesdaWX]

The title of this thread seems at odds with what the first post is saying. The land use effect is only at lower elevations, rather than the summit where the snows are.

"However, land use change has little effect on cloudiness and rainfall at elevations in excess of 4000 m and is not expected to impact glaciers in the summit zone of Kilimanjaro during the dry season."

Find the missing link...

Did you actually read the article thoroughly?

[salbers]

Haven't read it yet. I'm simply pointing out the initial post and thread title seem to contradict each other. Land use generally is an influential factor - that's true. The abstract seems to suggest it isn't influencing the missing ice at the summit. Thus I'm not understanding the title of this thread. If the thread made more sense I might be more interested to read further.

Have you read something in the paper that explains the apparent contradiction and unsuitability of the thread title?

[BethesdaWX]

Haven't read it yet. I'm simply pointing out the initial post and thread title seem to contradict each other. Land use generally is an influential factor - that's true. The abstract seems to suggest it isn't influencing the missing ice at the summit. Thus I'm not understanding the title of this thread. If the thread made more sense I might be more interested to read further.

Have you read something in the paper that explains the apparent contradiction and unsuitability of the thread title?

Read and find out The article will answer your questions better than I ever could.

[salbers]

I read part of it and so far it simply supports the abstract and not the title of this thread. The local circulations being studied aren't affecting the summit precip. So if Bethesda is unable to explain this contradiction to me, then maybe someone else can? Maybe regional drying is a factor, tough outside the scope of this paper.

[BethesdaWX]

I read part of it and so far it simply supports the abstract and not the title of this thread. The local circulations being studied aren't affecting the summit precip. So if Bethesda is unable to explain this contradiction to me, then maybe someone else can? Maybe regional drying is a factor, tough outside the scope of this paper.

I will explain & quote if you cannot figure it out. You're a red tagger... I'm a student...

[salbers]

This is supposed to be a forum for exchange of information, rather than game playing. How about a hint? Again, the premise of this thread seems bogus, since the abstract in the first post doesn't back up what the title is saying. I've already quoted the abstract to make my point. Where's your quote Bethesda?

Curiously I could read the full text of the article earlier, though presently I don't have permission.

Meanwhile overall worldwide, glaciers are in decline:

http://nsidc.org/sot...er_balance.html

http://www.wgms.ch/mbb/sum09.html

[BethesdaWX]

Glacier Decline does nothing to validate AGW, because the debate is whether the Warming Temps are Nautral or Anthro induced.

- Glaciers have been retreating since the LIA, their melting has obviously correlated very well to Global Temperatures, as everyone knows.

Global temperatures have correlated strongly to Solar Activity over the past 2000yrs, and continue to do so. Nothing will be exact of course, so its pointless to look for blips in the correlation.

You know where I stand on the Issue.

Solar cycles are cyclic changes in behavior of the Sun. Many possible patterns have been noticed.

• 11 years: Most obvious is a gradual increase and decrease of the number of sunspots over a period of about 11 years, called the Schwabe cycle. The Babcock Model explains this as being due to a shedding of entangled magnetic fields. The Sun's surface is also the most active when there are more sunspots, although the luminosity does not change much due to an increase in bright spots.
• 22 years: Hale cycle. The magnetic field of the Sun reverses during each Schwabe cycle, so the magnetic poles return to the same state after two reversals.
• 88 years: Gleissberg cycle (70-100 years) is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990).
• 200 years: Suess cycle.
• 2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle.
• Other patterns have been detected:
  • In carbon-14: 105, 131, 232, 385, 504, 805, 2,241 years (Damon and Sonnett, 1991).
  • During the Upper Permian 240 million years ago, mineral layers created in the Castile Formation (West Texas/Southern New Mexico) show cycles of 2,500 years.

People focus too heavily on sunspots, which are an effect of 11yr cycles, and are more "jumpy" in terms of effects correlations

...Relative Ion Oncentraltion and 10BE concentration are things I look at in terms of the longer term cycles

Open solar flux

10BE concentration

Add in both Maxes, and its a good fit...

[WeatherRusty]

Glacier Decline does nothing to validate AGW, because the debate is whether the Warming Temps are Nautral or Anthro induced.

- Glaciers have been retreating since the LIA, their melting has obviously correlated very well to Global Temperatures, as everyone knows.

Global temperatures have correlated strongly to Solar Activity over the past 2000yrs, and continue to do so. Nothing will be exact of course, so its pointless to look for blips in the correlation.

You know where I stand on the Issue.

Solar cycles are cyclic changes in behavior of the Sun. Many possible patterns have been noticed.

• 11 years: Most obvious is a gradual increase and decrease of the number of sunspots over a period of about 11 years, called the Schwabe cycle. The Babcock Model explains this as being due to a shedding of entangled magnetic fields. The Sun's surface is also the most active when there are more sunspots, although the luminosity does not change much due to an increase in bright spots.
• 22 years: Hale cycle. The magnetic field of the Sun reverses during each Schwabe cycle, so the magnetic poles return to the same state after two reversals.
• 88 years: Gleissberg cycle (70-100 years) is thought to be an amplitude modulation of the 11-year Schwabe Cycle (Sonnett and Finney, 1990).
• 200 years: Suess cycle.
• 2,300 years: Hallstatt cycle.
• Other patterns have been detected:
  • In carbon-14: 105, 131, 232, 385, 504, 805, 2,241 years (Damon and Sonnett, 1991).
  • During the Upper Permian 240 million years ago, mineral layers created in the Castile Formation (West Texas/Southern New Mexico) show cycles of 2,500 years.

People focus too heavily on sunspots, which are an effect of 11yr cycles, and are more "jumpy" in terms of effects correlations

...Relative Ion Oncentraltion and 10BE concentration are things I look at in terms of the longer term cycles

This is a very reasonable post. There is not much of substance to argue with as stated. Everyone agrees that past climate change was obviously induced by natural factors such as intrinsic solar, orbital parameters, geology, volcanism, chemistry and atmospheric composition etc. Obviously, since those factors were responsible for past climate change, we should be able to find likely correspondences between those various factors and their effects on climate in the paleo and instrumental record.

Where we differ is in our understanding of how human activity can influence some of those same factors which when acting naturally are known to change climate.

[BethesdaWX]

Thankyou Yes exactly. I too think that there has to be some level of AGW occuring, the significance is the question we'd all like to know. For now at least, I'm considered a "skeptic" because I believe human impacts are very minor...but certainly are still there.

The problem I have with the debate, are the "names" given. Denier/Alarmist/Bla...It goes too far. When people call skeptics "holocaust deniers", that is just unreasonable crap. How would a Jewish Skeptic feel about that? Same goes for the other side too. Its annoying, and its waaay to politisized. on both ends, and it gets in the way of actual science.

My theory on Solar Influence will be tested over the coming decades...10BE concentration/Magnetic Flux are very important to look at in my view, because they give a large "scope" on the suns "attitude" and the resulting impacts from such. Kind of like a person. What he/she says on the outside & the tone of voice clearly represents their mood, but the intensity of the "mood", and the THOUGHTS will influence the action of the person.

So I watch the sun like a hawk. You can see the spike of 10BE scroll down.

Note the "Solar Hockeystick", in a NOAA study. And they are right. But...comparing the sunspots of individual cycles (AKA, decreasing since 1970's) is pointless to find a trend, since the solar cycles are not representative of each aspect of the cycle.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html

The overall "bunched" energies released.

Add in both Maxes, and its a good fit...

So we have a good fit through solar alone, in my eyes. You can see the cooler temps during high solar around the 1950's/1960's, as we had the -PDO here, but as the High Solar halted the Cooling, when the PDO warmed, solar decreased.

Of course, there are more variables, invloved, such as the earths Magnetic Field Decrease of 10-15% since 1850...which is Incredible and will have effects, then there are GCR's ans GCC, which is still "Baby Science"

Then there are Deep Ocean Currents, Ocean Oscillations such as ENSO, PDO/AMO/IOD, and Finally, the Human Impacts such as CO2/other trace GHG.

Then we have the complex energy system which we know very little about.

Its actually complicated stuff.

[salbers]

Yes, interesting to look at the natural factors that have been operating for thousands of years. However human influence is relatively new, and has to be considered as well. How much CO2 and other GHG's would it take to dominate over the natural factors? If you consider the numbers, it seems like we're already starting to do this.

[WeatherRusty]

Thankyou Yes exactly. I too think that there has to be some level of AGW occuring, the significance is the question we'd all like to know. For now at least, I'm considered a "skeptic" because I believe human impacts are very minor...but certainly are still there.

The problem I have with the debate, are the "names" given. Denier/Alarmist/Bla...It goes too far. When people call skeptics "holocaust deniers", that is just unreasonable crap. How would a Jewish Skeptic feel about that? Same goes for the other side too. Its annoying, and its waaay to politisized. on both ends, and it gets in the way of actual science.

My theory on Solar Influence will be tested over the coming decades...10BE concentration/Magnetic Flux are very important to look at in my view, because they give a large "scope" on the suns "attitude" and the resulting impacts from such. Kind of like a person. What he/she says on the outside & the tone of voice clearly represents their mood, but the intensity of the "mood", and the THOUGHTS will influence the action of the person.

So I watch the sun like a hawk. You can see the spike of 10BE scroll down.

Note the "Solar Hockeystick", in a NOAA study. And they are right. But...comparing the sunspots of individual cycles (AKA, decreasing since 1970's) is pointless to find a trend, since the solar cycles are not representative of each aspect of the cycle.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...olanki2004.html

The overall "bunched" energies released.

Add in both Maxes, and its a good fit...

So we have a good fit through solar alone, in my eyes. You can see the cooler temps during high solar around the 1950's/1960's, as we had the -PDO here, but as the High Solar halted the Cooling, when the PDO warmed, solar decreased.

Of course, there are more variables, invloved, such as the earths Magnetic Field Decrease of 10-15% since 1850...which is Incredible and will have effects, then there are GCR's ans GCC, which is still "Baby Science"

Then there are Deep Ocean Currents, Ocean Oscillations such as ENSO, PDO/AMO/IOD, and Finally, the Human Impacts such as CO2/other trace GHG.

Then we have the complex energy system which we know very little about.

Its actually complicated stuff.

It is complicated if you lack the insight which allows you to reduce all that complexity to something that adds up all the pluses and minuses to a simple net result. Modern science has given us the ability to do just that. We can measure and compare the energy entering and leaving the system at the only place it really matters, at the top of atmosphere where all energy exchange is radiative. The net balance of this energy exchange is what determines Earth's temperature. It really is that simple, even if some people fail to realize it.

[salbers]

Here's an interesting note to followup on perhaps:

"As the ERBE and CERES satellites measure the net energy imbalance, this data can be combined with temperature records to place constraints on climate sensitivity. Because the ERBE satellite record covers only 15 years, it doesn't encompass slower feedback processes such as receding Arctic sea ice. Hence the data provides only a weak upper bound of climate sensitivity (a maximum of around 10°C warming for doubled CO2). However, the analysis rules out climate sensitivities lower than 2°C. This finding is consistent with the general consensus estimate of climate sensitivity (in addition, the author Dan Murphy informs me he's currently doing follow-up work to calculate a more precise lower bound)."

[BethesdaWX]

It is complicated if you lack the insight which allows you to reduce all that complexity to something that adds up all the pluses and minuses to a simple net result. Modern science has given us the ability to do just that. We can measure and compare the energy entering and leaving the system at the only place it really matters, at the top of atmosphere where all energy exchange is radiative. The net balance of this energy exchange is what determines Earth's temperature. It really is that simple, even if some people fail to realize it.

And this is my problem with you......it is not simple at all, its the most complicated thing we've ever tried to do...predict the climate. In order for the CO2 mass warming theory to work, it HAS to be simple, or its a f***ked theory.

You and Salbers continue to throw incorrect formulas and assumptions that Co2 will "overwhelm" this, that...assuming that the warming we've seen is even CO2 related, which is unknown s ever. Solar Correlates to everything just as well, if not better, since we were just as warm in the MWP/RWP, and very cold in the LIA.....your solar "formulas" are Incorrect, as they would not allow for the LIA, MWP, etc, to even exist . 2 Solar Maxes, same strength.....and 1 warm period is solar caused, and the other is CO2 caused? Not true.

Example of "Simple" common sense in the AGW theory falling on its back due to COMPLICATED factors...............Stratospheric cooling...it has not been commencing quite as anticipated. If CO2 "changing the energy profile" of the planet cannot affect the Stratosphere, which is a LOW energy profile region, how can we expect it to impact the oceans, which store immense abouts of energy? If lower profiles are not falling victim to Co2 increase, Higher profiles are not either.

Thus, since the mechanisms are not falling within realm of expectation,we are left with the Sun/GCC/GCR/Deep Ocean currents/ENSO/PDO/AMO, and the Earths Magnatic Field Decrease...as the largest contributors.

Its not simple....we miss 1 vriable, the entire systemof our understandings are thrown off.

If it was that simple, then the "qualified climate scientist vs meteorologist" argument wouldn't be thrown around so much by the professionals we have come to worship.

Next? The correlation is undeniable!

[WeatherRusty]

And this is my problem with you......it is not simple at all, its the most complicated thing we've ever tried to do...predict the climate. In order for the CO2 mass warming theory to work, it HAS to be simple, or its a f***ked theory.

You and Salbers continue to throw incorrect formulas and assumptions that Co2 will "overwhelm" this, that...assuming that the warming we've seen is even CO2 related, which is unknown s ever. Solar Correlates to everything just as well, if not better, since we were just as warm in the MWP/RWP, and very cold in the LIA.....your solar "formulas" are Incorrect, as they would not allow for the LIA, MWP, etc, to even exist . 2 Solar Maxes, same strength.....and 1 warm period is solar caused, and the other is CO2 caused? Not true.

Example of "Simple" common sense in the AGW theory falling on its back due to COMPLICATED factors...............Stratospheric cooling...it has not been commencing quite as anticipated. If CO2 "changing the energy profile" of the planet cannot affect the Stratosphere, which is a LOW energy profile region, how can we expect it to impact the oceans, which store immense abouts of energy? If lower profiles are not falling victim to Co2 increase, Higher profiles are not either.

Thus, since the mechanisms are not falling within realm of expectation,we are left with the Sun/GCC/GCR/Deep Ocean currents/ENSO/PDO/AMO, and the Earths Magnatic Field Decrease...as the largest contributors.

Its not simple....we miss 1 vriable, the entire systemof our understandings are thrown off.

If it was that simple, then the "qualified climate scientist vs meteorologist" argument wouldn't be thrown around so much by the professionals we have come to worship.

Next? The correlation is undeniable!

The numbers and formulas are very basic to all of science. The Planck equation and the Stephan-Boltzmann relationship are not assumptions. The change in solar forcing being something like .09 to .30W/m^2 since 1750 is not likely to be grossly in error. Neither is 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2. The implication is clear as day. Solar variation is easily overcome by greenhouse warming.

Now, no one can tell you what the exact global temp will be in 50, 100 or 300 years. That depends on the feedback process and climate sensitivity to the initial forcing. We can only estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity with currently constrained values likely between 2-4.5C or about 0.75C/watt ( 0.5 to 1.0 ).

The MWP and LIA are tiny blips in terms of climate change. Only on the order of 0.5C to 1.0C at most. This is reasonably within the ability of natural solar forcing coupled with volcanic activity plus positive feedback. The LIA was not very cold. By comparison a full blown ice age climate is at least 5C to 6C colder than today. It is imposible to account for that much change without rather strong short and long term positive feedback.

Every source I have ever come across states that the stratosphere has been cooling. Except you.

[BethesdaWX]

1) .09 to .30W/m^2 since 1750 is definitely in significant error, given the LIA, MWP, RWP, and CWP all correlate with solar Perfectly, significant in the means of short term changes, all over 0.5C, most likely higher. Difference between the LIA dip & MWP peak is 1-2C depending on the proxies you use....MWP & CWP are very similar, solar activity is very similar. The solar formula is incorrect.

2) The formulas for CO2 are obviously not the same, but the issues are somewhat more drastic here actually. We do not know how 0.038% CO2 3.7W/m^2 will initiate the expected Response is the problem. Heck, we don't know where the "missing heat" is, or if it exists, the Stratospheric Cooling has been Busting....if that Low energy Profile cannot be affected, why should high energy profiles be effected by the disruption of increased Co2 & GHGes? A "forcing", and the response in initiates, are two different things completely.

Thus, formulas are changed.

This is the problem...Your formulas gauge the forcing applied to the atmosphere...they do not gauge the response of the atmosphere to the forcings, and better yet, its temperature, and to what extent! This is why current temps have fallen out of the IPCC cone of confidence....when Every Driver was aligned warmer than ever!...and we scrape the bottom barely, and now we fall out!...we didn't need any CO2 warming to do that! This is getting ridiculous.

This is not simple sh*t as you make it out to be, its too complicated to even think about accuracy levels. Bringing up "verification" for the future is laughable.

[WeatherRusty]

1) .09 to .30W/m^2 since 1750 is definitely in significant error, given the LIA, MWP, RWP, and CWP all correlate with solar Perfectly, significant in the means of short term changes, all over 0.5C, most likely higher. Difference between the LIA dip & MWP peak is 1-2C depending on the proxies you use....MWP & CWP are very similar, solar activity is very similar. The solar formula is incorrect.

2) The formulas for CO2 are obviously not the same, but the issues are somewhat more drastic here actually. We do not know how 0.038% CO2 3.7W/m^2 will initiate the expected Response is the problem. Heck, we don't know where the "missing heat" is, or if it exists, the Stratospheric Cooling has been Busting....if that Low energy Profile cannot be affected, why should high energy profiles be effected by the disruption of increased Co2 & GHGes? A "forcing", and the response in initiates, are two different things completely.

Thus, formulas are changed.

This is the problem...Your formulas gauge the forcing applied to the atmosphere...they do not gauge the response of the atmosphere to the forcings, and better yet, its temperature, and to what extent! This is why current temps have fallen out of the IPCC cone of confidence....when Every Driver was aligned warmer than ever!...and we scrape the bottom barely, and now we fall out!...we didn't need any CO2 warming to do that! This is getting ridiculous.

This is not simple sh*t as you make it out to be, its too complicated to even think about accuracy levels. Bringing up "verification" for the future is laughable.

The missing heat is there somewhere. The Earth's energy budget is balanced at the top of atmosphere. We know the Earth is warming due to the positive energy imbalance there. We currently lack the technology to measure every aspect of the climate system (deep oceans for example) with the accuracy necessary to close the energy budget. Thus Trenberth's travesty statement. Thing are about to get worse with House Republicans attempting to slash science funding.

You and many others place to much emphasis on IPCC scenarios. We don't know what climate sensitivity is to better than a factor of 2 (2.0 to 4.5C). That uncertainty means we are playing Russian Roulette with the future.. All we can say is that for a doubling of CO2 we get 3.7W/m^2 forcing and 1.2C of warming which of course is added to and subtracted from other factors, but the 1.2 if realized will result in 2 to 4.5C of warming at radiative equilibrium.

[BethesdaWX]

The missing heat is there somewhere. The Earth's energy budget is balanced at the top of atmosphere. We know the Earth is warming due to the positive energy imbalance there. We currently lack the technology to measure every aspect of the climate system (deep oceans for example) with the accuracy necessary to close the energy budget. Thus Trenberth's travesty statement. Thing are about to get worse with House Republicans attempting to slash science funding.

You and many others place to much emphasis on IPCC scenarios. We don't know what climate sensitivity is to better than a factor of 2 (2.0 to 4.5C). That uncertainty means we are playing Russian Roulette with the future.. All we can say is that for a doubling of CO2 we get 3.7W/m^2 forcing and 1.2C of warming which of course is added to and subtracted from other factors, but the 1.2 if realized will result in 2 to 4.5C of warming at radiative equilibrium.

1) Kevin Trenberth Argues the missing heat is radiating back into space, Michael Mann says it in the deep oceans...point is, we don't know...much like how our atmosphere will behave. The simple stuff and complicated stuff have to interact, which only makes the outcome even harder...its not simple as you said it was.

2) My point is...we do not need any CO2 warming to get to the levels we are at now, it was done before by solar, on both the cooling and warming ends of the spectrum...We should be warmer if CO2 is having its effect, not 2 equal Solar Maxes and 2 Equal Temperatre spikes (MWP/CWP) People saying that Solar should be giving us Big Cooling now are making a laughing stock of themselves...intracycle warming/cooling (between cycle max/min) is very minor...its the long term cycle that matters for a reason...and THAT is what shows the Lag, not the 11yr cycle. Once we get into the Weak Solar Max, 5-6 years from now, you'll see a significant drop in global temps. As for the flat-lining/cooling over the past decade, Don't hone in upon ENSO spikes/dips that inflate/deflate a trend...point being, our warming has halted, and will begin reversing. Since 2002, we have seen a slight cooling trend begin, when giving less consideration to ENSO spikes/dips, although the 2010 El Nino f**ked that up temporarily if you wana go with the calculated anomaly.

3) I hope, with the post I presented above this one, that I have at least got you thinking a bit on the issue at hand , and how we're attemping to add 2+2 to make 5. CO2 rise correlates to our rise in global temperature...thats as far as we can go!