Debunking the AGW Theory?

[Hugo]

I could have saved the Titanic

FYI it wasn't 1965 dumbass

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[tacoman25]

But HadCRUT+UAH warmed more in the 90s, so it cancels.

Except that it falls easily below scenario B in the late 2000s.

[skierinvermont]

Except that it falls easily below scenario B in the late 2000s.

Well so does GISS. I agree that the model was a little too warm even after accounting for the fact that emissions fell slightly below Scenario B. It doesn't matter whether we use GISS or HadCRUT+UAH since they show the same net warming since '88.

[BethesdaWX]

Well, based on my first quick skim of the article, there's one blatant error that stands out to me.

They claim that the earth receives 1368W/m2 of solar energy but that the IPCC says the earth only receives 341W/m2. The 1368 is what you find for a satellite in space receiving 24 hours/day of sunlight.

The 341W/m2 takes into account the curvature of the earth and the fact that half of the earth faces away from the sun.

Oops.

They forgot about night time and the curve of the earth. Don't expect this to be showing up in any peer-reviewed journals any time soon.

what?

The atmsphere is always recieving that amount of energy somewhere, the sun can also only shine on one side of a satellite, but it is still recieving that amount of energy. It makes no sense for the Sun to shine all over the planet, its obviouslty been accounted for.

Otherwise you'd cut it in half and get between between 600 and 700, and even then, the IPCC is wrong.

[WeatherRusty]

Have you ever stopped to wonder why the original AGW hypothesis references the year 2100???? Why wasn't the hypothesis crafted to predict the climate at a shorter lead time, if AGW/Climate Change/??? is ALREADY be portrayed as contributing (or is indirectly attributable) to: extreme weather, rapid sea level rise, rapid warming, rapid glacial retreats, etc. ?

The hypothesis or idea that adding greenhouse gases to the atmospheric mix will warm the climate began to be realized over a century ago. There is nothing special about the 2100 date, other than it represents a nice round number of sufficient duration to allow for an equilibrium state to have reached for the initial doubling of CO2 assuming that happens sometime near mid-century.

The hypothesized warming is part of the observed warming of the 20th century, as natural forcings have been shown insufficient to account for most of that warming.

[BethesdaWX]

The hypothesized warming is part of the observed warming of the 20th century, as natural forcings have been shown insufficient to account for most of that warming.

not true. Maybe in the IPCC hypothesis, yes, but not in many other viewpoints in hypothesis.

Hypothesis hypothesis hypothesis, feedbacks matter, feedbacks to solar, feedbacks to PDO.

we dont understand this sh*t.

[tacoman25]

Indeed, it most certainly has been lower than the long term trend the last 8-12 years. I think this is mostly explained by the solar cycle and maybe -PDO.

The solar cycle and PDO certainly play a role. And for Arctic temps, the AMO is also a player.

[WeatherRusty]

Well so does GISS. I agree that the model was a little too warm even after accounting for the fact that emissions fell slightly below Scenario B. It doesn't matter whether we use GISS or HadCRUT+UAH since they show the same net warming since '88.

At the time of Hansen's prediction, equilibrium climate sensitivity was thought to be best represented by a value of 4.2C/doubling of CO2. That figure has since been refined downward to 2.8C (~3.0C).

[BethesdaWX]

At the time of Hansen's prediction, equilibrium climate sensitivity was thought to be best represented by a value of 4.2C/doubling of CO2. That figure has since been refined downward to 2.8C (~3.0C).

And it will likely change again. Science changes all the time, especially regarding hypothesis.

[skierinvermont]

what?

The atmsphere is always recieving that amount of energy somewhere, the sun can also only shine on one side of a satellite, but it is still recieving that amount of energy. It makes no sense for the Sun to shine all over the planet, its obviouslty been accounted for.

Otherwise you'd cut it in half and get between between 600 and 700, and even then, the IPCC is wrong.

Satellites directly measure 1368W/m2 of energy received when facing the sun. On average the earth's surface receives only 341W/m2 of energy because not all of the earth's surface faces the sun.

This guy is so stupid though he says: "It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [iPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2."

[BethesdaWX]

Frankly I'd love some Global Warming regarding my inner wx weenie, more energy = stronger storms

[BethesdaWX]

Satellites directly measure 1368W/m2 of energy received when facing the sun. On average the earth's surface receives only 341W/m2 of energy because not all of the earth's surface faces the sun.

That makes no sense, because that is the amount of energy being applied to the atmosphere in general at one time....as in, 1368W/m2 is being applied because of the error in calculation of emissivity of CO2

The IPCC assuming a smaller number.

[tacoman25]

Well so does GISS. I agree that the model was a little too warm even after accounting for the fact that emissions fell slightly below Scenario B. It doesn't matter whether we use GISS or HadCRUT+UAH since they show the same net warming since '88.

It doesn't matter if you are just looking at trendlines since 1988, but it does matter if you are looking at the end point. As in, where are we currently compared to projections.

[skierinvermont]

That makes no sense. because that is the amount of energy being applied to the atmosphere in general at one time.

No 1368W/m2 is the energy recieved by a satellite facing the sun. 341W/m2 is the average energy received by the top of of the atmosphere over the course of a day.

The satellite faces the sun and takes a reading of 1368W/m2. This must then be converted to reflect the fact that not all of the atmosphere is facing the sun.

These people are total jokes, as expected.

[tacoman25]

At the time of Hansen's prediction, equilibrium climate sensitivity was thought to be best represented by a value of 4.2C/doubling of CO2. That figure has since been refined downward to 2.8C (~3.0C).

So clearly something is off. Skiier is claiming that Hansen's projections are right on schedule if you factor in ENSO/PDO/solar cycle...but according to that, Hansen significantly over-estimated CO2 forcing at that time (assuming current estimates are more accurate).

Both can't be true facts.

[Mallow]

what?

The atmsphere is always recieving that amount of energy somewhere, the sun can also only shine on one side of a satellite, but it is still recieving that amount of energy.

Otherwise you'd cut it in half and get between between 600 and 700, and even then, the IPCC is wrong.

The Earth receives an average of 1/4 the total ~1360 watts per sq. meter over its entire surface area. That's the average input over the entire Earth. As skier said, this is because half the Earth is facing away from the sun, and most of the Earth is not receiving a perpendicular beam of sunlight. This is well-established, and a one-dimensional model has ~340 watts per sq. meter as the incoming solar radiation intensity at the top of Earth's atmosphere. Not ~1300... that would make Earth WAY too warm (even without any greenhouse gases).

[WeatherRusty]

not true. Maybe in the IPCC hypothesis, yes, but not in many other viewpoints in hypothesis.

Hypothesis hypothesis hypothesis, feedbacks matter, feedbacks to solar, feedbacks to PDO.

we dont understand this sh*t.

The IPCC is a synthesis of the current knowledge as represented in the scientific literature. (I know about the gray literature)

As such the IPCC repesents the state of the scientific consensus. Doesn't make it all absolutely correct, but it is to the best of our knowledge how things currently stand. Crackpot refutations of the greenhouse effect of CO2 notwithstanding, yes there are other viewpoints, but like I stated elsewhere, anyone can throw mud against the wall to see what sticks if their goal is only to muddy the waters. That's what this thread is all about. Confuse the issue by introducing more and more doubt.

[skierinvermont]

It doesn't matter if you are just looking at trendlines since 1988, but it does matter if you are looking at the end point. As in, where are we currently compared to projections.

That's something to consider, trendlines don't always tell the whole story like that, but it turns out the endpoints are roughly the same. HadCRUT+UAH goes up higher in the 1998-2002 period but then drops down equal to GISS.

Technically I should use a 1986-1990 base but as you can see it would make very little difference. If anything HadCRUT starts cooler in the 88-90 period and using that as the base would bump up HadCRUT's endpoint a bit higher than GISS's.

[Mallow]

Satellites directly measure 1368W/m2 of energy received when facing the sun. On average the earth's surface receives only 341W/m2 of energy because not all of the earth's surface faces the sun.

This guy is so stupid though he says: "It’s quite simple. The flux of power on the top of the atmosphere is 1368 W/m^2; however, they [iPCC] say it is 341 W/m^2."

Wait, did he really say that? If so, the guy is even more of a kook than I thought. That's a pretty simple and non-confrontational point to get so completely and horribly wrong.

[skierinvermont]

So clearly something is off. Skiier is claiming that Hansen's projections are right on schedule if you factor in ENSO/PDO/solar cycle...but according to that, Hansen significantly over-estimated CO2 forcing at that time (assuming current estimates are more accurate).

Both can't be true facts.

No way.. I'm not saying it's right on schedule. I'm just saying it's not that bad.

[tacoman25]

That's something to consider, trendlines don't always tell the whole story like that, but it turns out the endpoints are roughly the same. HadCRUT+UAH goes up higher in the 1998-2002 period but then drops down equal to GISS.

Fair enough, I guess. Though I never understood why you chose such a short base period (1990-1999) for that graph. Per longterm averages, HadCRU/UAH has been running cooler than GISS since at least 2005.

[BethesdaWX]

The satellite faces the sun and takes a reading of 1368W/m2. This must then be converted to reflect the fact that not all of the atmosphere is facing the sun.

So you'd cut in in 1/2, and the IPCC would still be wrong?

The Atmosphere in general, in the course of a day, 1/2 of it takes in 1368W/m2 at a given time.

The earth's atmosphere needs to be accounted as one body from what I've learned, and the IPCC says the same with their prediction.

So energy just vanishes after it is absorbed by one side of the planet? As in, the globel is constantly rotating, so its really just distributing it? If you were to spin the satellite like the rotation of the earth, what would happen?

Again, maybe I'm wrong.

[tacoman25]

No way.. I'm not saying it's right on schedule. I'm just saying it's not that bad.

I thought you were saying when you apply Tamino's calculations, we're right on track?

EDIT: And regardless if Hansen over-estimated CO2 forcing by that much (30%), his projections would have to be pretty off.

[skierinvermont]

Wait, did he really say that? If so, the guy is even more of a kook than I thought. That's a pretty simple and non-confrontational point to get so completely and horribly wrong.

Yup he's quoted as saying it here

http://www.biocab.org/Mean_Free_Path.pdf

but I don't know if he actually says that in his article or not. Either way you have to be a total kook to say something like that.

[skierinvermont]

I thought you were saying when you apply Tamino's calculations, we're right on track?

Yeah with IPCC numbers.. with Hansen's we're probably a little cool.

[WeatherRusty]

So clearly something is off. Skiier is claiming that Hansen's projections are right on schedule if you factor in ENSO/PDO/solar cycle...but according to that, Hansen significantly over-estimated CO2 forcing at that time (assuming current estimates are more accurate).

Both can't be true facts.

I don't know how anyone can make a prediction of future global temperature to anything better than a factor of >2 since the climate sensitivity could be anywhere from 2C to 4.5C. We don't really know what the temp will be a X time in the future, only that for a fixed equilibrium sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 or its equivalent in forcing plus inexact feedback..

[skierinvermont]

So you'd cut in in 1/2, and the IPCC would still be wrong?

The Atmosphere in general, in the course of a day, 1/2 of it takes in 1368W/m2 at a given time.

The earth's atmosphere needs to be accounted as one body from what I've learned, and the IPCC says the same with their prediction.

So energy just vanishes after it is absorbed by one side of the planet? As in, the globel is constantly rotating, so its really just distributing it? If you were to spin the satellite like the rotation of the earth, what would happen?

If you spun the satellite like the earth you'd get half the 1368 number (you'd probably get a bit higher than that because you'd also pick up on SW radiation reflecting off the earth).

It's not just the fact that half the earth is in night though. The earth's surface isn't flat and doesn't face the sun directly. At high latitudes the angle of the sun is much lower than 90 degrees. This must also be accounted for.

I don't know exactly how the calculation is done, but a reasonable way of thinking about it is pretend like there were a wall in the shape of a 2-dimensional cut out circle the size of the earth. But just a flat wall. Place this wall between the earth and the sun so that it blocks out the sun. Measure the total rate of energy that hits this wall. Then divide by the total surface area of the earth. That should give you the 341W/m2 number.

The total surface area of the earth would be about 4X that circular cardboard cutout because the earth is spherical.

[Mallow]

So you'd cut in in 1/2, and the IPCC would still be wrong?

The Atmosphere in general, in the course of a day, 1/2 of it takes in 1368W/m2 at a given time.

The earth's atmosphere needs to be accounted as one body from what I've learned, and the IPCC says the same with their prediction.

So energy just vanishes after it is absorbed by one side of the planet? As in, the globel is constantly rotating, so its really just distributing it? If you were to spin the satellite like the rotation of the earth, what would happen?

Dude, this is a very, very basic concept that one absolutely must understand before even beginning to make claims re: the validity or extent of AGW. If you don't understand this point, you need to re-read on the basics of radiation before anyone will take you seriously.

[nzucker]

Dude, this is a very, very basic concept that one absolutely must understand before even beginning to make claims re: the validity or extent of AGW. If you don't understand this point, you need to re-read on the basics of radiation before anyone will take you seriously.

You mean the idea the earth is tilted?

[BethesdaWX]

Dude, this is a very, very basic concept that one absolutely must understand before even beginning to make claims re: the validity or extent of AGW. If you don't understand this point, you need to re-read on the basics of radiation before anyone will take you seriously.

huh? I have always abided by the IPCC #, what I was confused on was what your quote.

As in, were these "kooks" taking the 1/2 of the atmosphere, or the entire thing?