nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 The model predicts about ~.1C of warming of the stratosphere overall from 1995-2004. It looks as if the models had an error of about .03C in predicting stratospheric temps, pretty impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 I don't see what you're arguing. CO2 emissions clearly cool the stratosphere....we know carbon dioxide is increasing as per Mauna Loa observatory, and we know via precise physical mechanisms why it cools the stratosphere. Ozone is clearly recovering after the Montreal Protocol banned CFCs globally, this is countering the effects of the GHGs. I think you are just trying to create a controversy out of nothing. What the heck? My argument is related to climate sensitivity. Major problems here! Ozone increase has been slight, Lower Stratospheric Temperature increases have been slight....we are supposed to see a -0.4C/decade trend due to Mixed Greenhouse gases... (O3, Co2) -0.4C/decade cannot be overwhelmed by a slight increase in Ozone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Where is my IPCC link you were supposed to give me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 It looked like the study I cited used GFL's CM2.1 model which I believe is one of the major ones used in the IPCC report and frequently used for similar investigative studies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 What the heck? My argument is related to climate sensitivity. Major problems here! Ozone increase has been slight, Lower Stratospheric Temperature increases have been slight....we are supposed to see a -0.4C/decade trend due to Mixed Greenhouse gases... (O3, Co2) -0.4C/decade cannot be overwhelmed by a slight increase in Ozone. The lower stratospheric response to increasing CO2 is around -.1K/decade not -.4K/decade. See the purple line in the figure on page 1140. http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~gera/papers_volc/science_feb24_2006.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 It looked like the study I cited used GFL's CM2.1 model which I believe is one of the major ones used in the IPCC report and frequently used for similar investigative studies. Not what I asked Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 What the heck? My argument is related to climate sensitivity. Major problems here! Ozone increase has been slight, Lower Stratospheric Temperature increases have been slight....we are supposed to see a -0.4C/decade trend due to Mixed Greenhouse gases... (O3, Co2) -0.4C/decade cannot be overwhelmed by a slight increase in Ozone. Read this paper...the models' predictions show almost exactly the observed trend. http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~gera/papers_volc/science_feb24_2006.pdf "Despite the uncertainties, the simulations described here quantitatively demonstrate the existence of an externally forced response in the observed 1979–2003 global lower stratospheric temperature time series, and they delineate the natural and anthropogenic influences on the evolution of the cooling." (Ramaswamy 2006) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 The lower stratospheric response to increasing CO2 is around -.1K/decade not -.4K/decade. Kelvin is not the same as Celcius. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Kelvin is not the same as Celcius. For calculating trends, yes they are. Come on, this is 5th grade math. The predicted trend in response to increasing CO2 is around -.1C/decade for the lower stratosphere not -.4C/decade. This is the same as -.1K/decade and -.4K/decade respectively.. they're completely interchangeable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 For calculating trends, yes they are. Come on, this is 5th grade math. The predicted trend in response to increasing CO2 is around -.1C/decade for the lower stratosphere not -.4C/decade. This is the same as -.1K/decade and -.4K/decade respectively.. they're completely interchangeable. LOL this is just ridiculous...everyone knows Kelvin and Celsius are the same except with different starting points/freezing points. Bethesda is reaching for straws here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Read this paper...the models' predictions show almost exactly the observed trend. http://envsci.rutger..._feb24_2006.pdf "Despite the uncertainties, the simulations described here quantitatively demonstrate the existence of an externally forced response in the observed 1979–2003 global lower stratospheric temperature time series, and they delineate the natural and anthropogenic influences on the evolution of the cooling." (Ramaswamy 2006) Through 2004? It even says anthropogenic forcing are supposed to dictate the trend, and natural forcings blip the trend. Since the early 2000's I believe the ozone in the stratosphere actually decreased slightly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Through 2004? It even says anthropogenic forcing are supposed to dictate the trend, and natural forcings blip the trend. Since the early 2000's I believe the ozone in the stratosphere actually decreased slightly It doesn't say that, it just says that the CO2 effect would be magnified if ozone depletion continued (which it's not)... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 It doesn't say that, it just says that the CO2 effect would be magnified if ozone depletion continued (which it's not)... The paper does say that The anthropogenic factors drove the overall cooling during the period, and the natural ones modulated the evolution of the cooling They never elaborate, or mention this should change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 They say that because ozone depletion is also an anthropogenic factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 They say that because ozone depletion is also an anthropogenic factor. Yes. And in Celcius, do you know the expected trend/per decade in the Stratosphere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Yes. And in Celcius, do you know the expected trend/per decade in the Stratosphere? As Zucker and I both explained, trends in Celsius and Kelvin are interchangeable. The trend from CO2 alone is around -.1C/decade. This has recently been outweighed by the recovering ozone which has had a positive influence of around +.2C/decade since 1995. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 As Zucker and I both explained, trends in Celsius and Kelvin are interchangeable. The trend from CO2 alone is around -.1C/decade. This has recently been outweighed by the recovering ozone which has had a positive influence of around +.2C/decade since 1995. You forget how O3 has been trending, which finishes up the -0.4C/decade contribution. Its not CO2 alone. Yo I gotta get some sleep, be back tomorrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 You forget how O3 has been trending, which finishes up the -0.4C/decade contribution. Its not CO2 alone. Yo I gotta get some sleep, be back tomorrow Since 1995, O3 has been increasing, which causes warming of the lower stratosphere. The predicted warming effect of the O3 is around +.2C/decade since 1995. This offsets the CO2 cooling of -.1C/decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Since 1995, O3 has been increasing, which causes warming of the lower stratosphere. The predicted warming effect of the O3 is around +.2C/decade since 1995. This offsets the CO2 cooling of -.1C/decade. Since the early 2000's it has been decreasing, you get the increase with the spike near yr 2000. I'm still waiting for the IPCC link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Since the early 2000's it has been decreasing, you get the increase with the spike near yr 2000. I'm still waiting for the IPCC link. I don't know that the IPCC report discusses stratospheric temperature trends that much. As I said, the study I have provided shows that an IPCC model accurately reproduces stratospheric temperature trends only when the effect of both CO2 and ozone is included. As zucker said, you are grasping at straws here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.