Another Blow to the Crumbling Wall of AGW

[BethesdaWX]

Bethesda

It is my opinion that you have single handedly ruined this forum by throwing endless gobs of unsubstantiated mud against the wall which side tracks the discussion into garbage talk. You are the perfect example of someone distracting us from where the discussion belongs. We should be discussing the peer-reviewed science, not the crack-pot junk you force everyone to respond to. I have little interest in game playing, or in trying to win a debate. The scientific issue of climate change is much more important than that.

We could be spending our time attempting to understand the science from our unique perspectives of understanding and in doing so we would all gain a deeper understanding of the science. But you don't want us to learn the science, you only want to muddy the waters and cause doubt and confusion. Let the scientists work out the science, you and your questionable sources convince no one of anything.

And by the way, some feedback processes do work on the time frame of centuries.

Rusty,

Thankyou for your opinion, But I'll return the favor.

What is unsubstantiated? If you give me examples, I can explain & reference them to you.

[WeatherRusty]

False.

You didn't read...you're looking silly now. All feedbacks are detectable?!? Thats the most hilarious statement I've ever read.

1) Feedbacks are not seperate forcings, they are a response to a forcing, and it is required we understand the planets energy system and how it works to measure them in their own spectrum. We simply do not know of most of the feedbacks & inter-mechanisms within the climate system. Really the impact it has on the energy that Is trapped, what is done, etc, is where we stumble.

2) We cannot measure what is reflected from LLCC alone, because MLCC & HLCC make it impossible, since they trap IR, and LLCC reflects it. We cannot measure this, we can measure the overall reflectivity from GCC, but individually, no. What goes on in the Lower Tropopause is key to the LT anoms in satellite measurements. HLCC traps outgoing radiation.

3) SW radiation is not the same as LW radiation, it has a higher frequency, and Incoming SW radiation increase increases the overall energy budget of the Planet. LW outgoing radiation trapping increases the radiative imbalance, but that is cannot be tied into warming, because of not only the complex feedbacks invloved, but Equilibrium...as in, how fast the Climate system can equalize the difference between the Incoming and Outgoing radiation! We can measure an imbalance from increased CO2, but how quickly equilization, whether it be 2 yrs, 6 yrs, 10 yrs, etc, determines the impact & the ability of feedbacks to overwhelm it

All the TOA imbalance tells us is that the surface which radiates away most of Earth's absorbed energy must either warm or cool in order to restore the balance. It says nothing of the causes of the imbalance. Spectroscopy can inform us of the individual brightness of particular radiating species in the frequencies they uniquely absorb and radiate.

The TOA bidirectional radiative flux is a measure of energy entering and departing the Earth. The particular wavelengths matter only to the total energy coursing through the system. Shorter wavelengths are more energetic, longer wavelengths less energetic. The total energy of all wavelengths exiting the planet must equal the total energy in all wavelengths received by the planet or the temperature of the system will rise or fall. The time integrated measure of the radiative flux at the TOA informs us that the system must be warming. Spectroscopy indicates that the wavelengths absorbed by long lived greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4 are over time absorbing an increasing portion of the outgoing energy.

This means that the optical density of the atmosphere is thickening at these wavelengths, which provides a simple refutation of the complex argument posited by the paper sited in your thread "Debunking the AGW Theory?"

[BethesdaWX]

All the TOA imbalance tells us is that the surface which radiates away most of Earth's absorbed energy must either warm or cool in order to restore the balance. It says nothing of the causes of the imbalance. Spectroscopy can inform us of the individual brightness of particular radiating species in the frequencies they uniquely absorb and radiate.

The TOA bidirectional radiative flux is a measure of energy entering and departing the Earth. The particular wavelengths matter only to the total energy coursing through the system. Shorter wavelengths are more energetic, longer wavelengths less energetic. The total energy of all wavelengths exiting the planet must equal the total energy in all wavelengths received by the planet or the temperature of the system will rise or fall. The time integrated measure of the radiative flux at the TOA informs us that the system must be warming. Spectroscopy indicates that the wavelengths absorbed by long lived greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4 are over time absorbing an increasing portion of the outgoing energy.

This means that the optical density of the atmosphere is thickening at these wavelengths, which provides a simple refutation of the complex argument posited by the paper sited in your thread "Debunking the AGW Theory?"

Yes the article I posted appears to be False, I never believed it, I just found it interesting.

However, feedbacks will make or break AGW, not all feedbacks are detectable, many have yet to be discovered, and there is little we know on how the climate system can respond to such, and how many there are in a sequence. Its not Just the CO2 Spectrum that has changed..........TOA imblance is somewhat misleading in a sense, because feedbacks don't need to occur within just 1 layer of the atmosphere, or a given wavelength that can be measured. So if extra radiation that would be forced back into the surface of the planet is reflected by low level clouds out into space forcedly, or if the Earth can Just Store Energy within the Deep Oceans and recycle it over time, then there will be less AGW at the surface.

As for CO2, Emissivity is a simple coefficient which determines the potential that any thermodynamic system has to emit energies. If the emitted energy is of its own, like the energy emitted by the Sun, the thermodynamic system is a primary source of energy. If not, like the gases in the atmosphere and the materials of the surface, it is not a primary source of energy and only can emit the energy it absorbs, at the most.

[WeatherRusty]

Yes the article I posted appears to be False, I never believed it, I just found it interesting.

However, feedbacks will make or break AGW, not all feedbacks are detectable, many have yet to be discovered, and there is little we know on how the climate system can respond to such, and how many there are in a sequence. Its not Just the CO2 Spectrum that has changed..........TOA imblance is somewhat misleading in a sense, because feedbacks don't need to occur within just 1 layer of the atmosphere, or a given wavelength that can be measured. So if extra radiation that would be forced back into the surface of the planet is reflected by low level clouds out into space forcedly, or if the Earth can Just Store Energy within the Deep Oceans and recycle it over time, then there will be less AGW at the surface.

As for CO2, Emissivity is a simple coefficient which determines the potential that any thermodynamic system has to emit energies. If the emitted energy is of its own, like the energy emitted by the Sun, the thermodynamic system is a primary source of energy. If not, like the gases in the atmosphere and the materials of the surface, it is not a primary source of energy and only can emit the energy it absorbs, at the most.

We do have an idea as to how the climate has behaved in the past to radiative forcing. If we take a standard radiative forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2 or 3.7W/m^2, past climate change seems to have been sensitive such that a proportional temperature response equaling 2 to 4.5C follows at equilibrium. Feedback must be positive in order to account for the range of past climate change since all known radiative forcings are quite weak. Water vapor feedback, ice albedo feedback, carbon cycle feedback are all positive. Lapse rate feedback is negative. The net sign of cloud feedback is uncertain. Whatever the particulars, we just can not account for the degree of past climate change without net positive feedback to radiative forcing.

The greenhouse effect does not produce any energy of it's own, it merely slows the loss of thermal radiant energy to space from the surface. Nights cool less rapidly. The temperature is higher when the Sun rises the next morning than it would be in the absence of the greenhouse effect. If the Sun were to go instantly dark, the greenhouse effect could save us only a few more hours and days before the world would become a very cold place. If the greenhouse effect where to magically disappear tonight, the Earth would freeze over to nearly the equator in less than 50 years.

[BethesdaWX]

We do have an idea as to how the climate has behaved in the past to radiative forcing. If we take a standard radiative forcing the equal of a doubling of CO2 or 3.7W/m^2, past climate change seems to have been sensitive such that a proportional temperature response equaling 2 to 4.5C follows at equilibrium. Feedback must be positive in order to account for the range of past climate change since all known radiative forcings are quite weak. Water vapor feedback, ice albedo feedback, carbon cycle feedback are all positive. Lapse rate feedback is negative. The net sign of cloud feedback is uncertain. Whatever the particulars, we just can not account for the degree of past climate change without net positive feedback to radiative forcing.

The greenhouse effect does not produce any energy of it's own, it merely slows the loss of thermal radiant energy to space from the surface. Nights cool less rapidly. The temperature is higher when the Sun rises the next morning than it would be in the absence of the greenhouse effect. If the Sun were to go instantly dark, the greenhouse effect could save us only a few more hours and days before the world would become a very cold place. If the greenhouse effect where to magically disappear tonight, the Earth would freeze over to nearly the equator in less than 50 years.

I actually agree with most of what you're saying here, however I feel there are some misconceptions on your part.

Time Period

If you're speaking in the Millions of Years ago, (regarding past climate change), we cannot compare the climate system then to the Climate system Now, it was completely different.

Feedbacks

Our knowledge on the feedbacks within the climate system is actually piss poor, especially regarding Clouds and precipitation. Not all feedbacks are detectable, in fact, we don't even know many of them. Inter-Mechanisms are other issues, as is the planets exact handling of the energy. So we simply cannot accurately gauge the planet's climate sensitivity even within a "Range" of possibilities.

Mechanisms

For Example, Clouds are assumed to be a positive feedback to CO2 Warming because they tend to decrease in warm years. But if the Clouds are decreasing predominately due to GCR decrease, thus causing the warming, and not due to warming, then there cannot be a direct correlation, or ANY correlation to warming Causing GCC decrease. So GCC may very well be a Negative Feedback to warming, or warming from within the climate system, but is being overwhelmed. Or there could be no change. But we Can't Measure them to find out.

Since we cannot Measure GCC right now, it makes it more difficult, especially given upper and lower level clouds. So the TOA Imbalance, in totalily, knowing we cannot measure GCC, is now rendered useless. There are so many feedbacks and processed we don't know of, its kind of silly to even attempt to predict temperatures for the future.

[WeatherRusty]

I actually agree with most of what you're saying here, however I feel there are some misconceptions on your part.

Time Period

If you're speaking in the Millions of Years ago, (regarding past climate change), we cannot compare the climate system then to the Climate system Now, it was completely different.

Feedbacks

Our knowledge on the feedbacks within the climate system is actually piss poor, especially regarding Clouds and precipitation. Not all feedbacks are detectable, in fact, we don't even know many of them. Inter-Mechanisms are other issues, as is the planets exact handling of the energy. So we simply cannot accurately gauge the planet's climate sensitivity even within a "Range" of possibilities.

Mechanisms

For Example, Clouds are assumed to be a positive feedback to CO2 Warming because they tend to decrease in warm years. But if the Clouds are decreasing predominately due to GCR decrease, thus causing the warming, and not due to warming, then there cannot be a direct correlation, or ANY correlation to warming Causing GCC decrease. So GCC may very well be a Negative Feedback to warming, or warming from within the climate system, but is being overwhelmed. Or there could be no change. But we Can't Measure them to find out.

Since we cannot Measure GCC right now, it makes it more difficult, especially given upper and lower level clouds. So the TOA Imbalance, in totalily, knowing we cannot measure GCC, is now rendered useless. There are so many feedbacks and processed we don't know of, its kind of silly to even attempt to predict temperatures for the future.

I don't think I am the one holding misconceptions. You are the one latching on to uncertainty as if the things we don't know outweigh the things we do. If paleoclimate tells us anything it is that the climate system is sensitive to perturbation. This can only be accounted for if the feedback process is a net positive.

Time Period;

The period of relevance is the past 3 million years of glaciation during which most of the mechanisms in place were very much the same as today. This includes the climate response to Mt. Pinatubo.

The radiative forcing produced by orbital cycles is actually quite weak, yet small changes in the eccentricity of the orbit and tilt of the spin axis are sufficient to distribute energy differently across the globe. This in itself would do very little to change climate if the climate system were not sensitive to these small changes.

Carbon cycle, water cycle and ice albedo all feedback positively as the climate changes. We see this pattern repeatedly in the paleoclimate record. As the climate warms we get more CO2, higher specific humidity and less ice. When it cools we see the opposite. These are expected both theoretically and in observation of the current and past climates as they change.

[BethesdaWX]

I don't think I am the one holding misconceptions. You are the one latching on to uncertainty as if the things we don't know outweigh the things we do. If paleoclimate tells us anything it is that the climate system is sensitive to perturbation. This can only be accounted for if the feedback process is a net positive.

Time Period;

The period of relevance is the past 3 million years of glaciation during which most of the mechanisms in place were very much the same as today. This includes the climate response to Mt. Pinatubo.

The radiative forcing produced by orbital cycles is actually quite weak, yet small changes in the eccentricity of the orbit and tilt of the spin axis are sufficient to distribute energy differently across the globe. This in itself would do very little to change climate if the climate system were not sensitive to these small changes.

Carbon cycle, water cycle and ice albedo all feedback positively as the climate changes. We see this pattern repeatedly in the paleoclimate record. As the climate warms we get more CO2, higher specific humidity and less ice. When it cools we see the opposite. These are expected both theoretically and in observation of the current and past climates as they change.

Eh, actually the Ice ages do not correlate that well with the orbital cycles, and even if they were/are the cause, those mechanisms are not CO2 related, and it shows how sensitive the planet is to incoming SW radiation changes.

A feedback can be positive to certain aspects in forcings, of the climate system, and negative to others. depending on how they directly impact the climate system.

And I'm not saying that most of what we do now isn't correct, but that what we don't know will change what we do know, we saw it happen in the 90's with the 1988 predictions being downgraded, and we'll see it it again soon.