CO2 is not causing changes of climate

[BethesdaWX]

Yikes.. the earth absorbs approximately the same amount of energy it absorbs. Sometimes very slightly more, sometimes very slightly less, sometimes exactly the same. Otherwise it would be constantly gaining in energy, which it isn't.

You cant be this stupid

Let me be clear...in the longways frequency...You can't be serious? You have clouds reflecting SW, Ozone repelling hyper frequent uv rays...

This is why the "imbalance" nonsense hounding up is worthless, you tell me we can't measure cloud changes...fine, then don't bring up "imbalance" in the TOA

[skierinvermont]

You cant be this stupid

Let me be clear...in the longways frequency...You can't be serious? You have clouds reflecting SW, Ozone repelling hyper frequent uv rays...

This is why the "imbalance" nonsense hounding up is worthless, you tell me we can't measure cloud changes...fine, then don't bring up "imbalance" in the TOA

We know there is an imbalance at the TOA due to rising sea levels which indicate increasing OHC. This indicates that the earth system (land, oceans, atmosphere) is gaining energy which means there must be more energy entering than leaving. That's rock solid observation and basic logic.

You didn't specify you were talking about only LW frequency. Besides, in the LW frequencies... the amount of energy leaving earth is orders of magnitude greater than entering, since pretty much all the energy entering the TOA is SW radiation. So if you were talking about LW frequencies only your claim that "the amount of energy leaving the atmosphere is less than that entering" makes even less sense.

[skierinvermont]

you can't be this stupid

Also.. welcome back to CC.

I'm sure taco will tell me I'm just being sensitive though and this is just a funny joke you were telling.

[WeatherRusty]

You cant be this stupid

Let me be clear...in the longways frequency...You can't be serious? You have clouds reflecting SW, Ozone repelling hyper frequent uv rays...

This is why the "imbalance" nonsense hounding up is worthless, you tell me we can't measure cloud changes...fine, then don't bring up "imbalance" in the TOA

You apparently are not aware that your statement is a direct contradiction to one of the very most fundamental set of laws in physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics. Then you have the audacity to imply someone who disagrees with you might be stupid.

[LakeEffectKing]

I have a question for you. If feedbacks to a warming influence are a net negative, then how is it possible to ever warm the Earth by any means? Be aware that the feedbacks are to the initial warming influence, not specifically to the original forcing/warming agent. For instance, water vapor pressure increases as a function of rising temperature, not how much CO2 there is in the air or how hot the Sun is. Clouds are a function of heating and available moisture.

A doubling of CO2 produces a warming influence of 1.2C as a consequence of adding 3.7W/m^2 to the energy flux within the lower atmosphere. This result is a direct consequence of Planck's Law and the Stephan-Boltzmann equation. The estimated equilibrium climate sensitivity is figured to be within the range of roughly 2C-4.5C, or about 0.75C per watt of energy. This is the current state of mainstream scientific knowledge. The 1.2C is a rock solid, black body/grey body calculation. The climate sensitivity to that initial warmth is obviously known with less precision. By studying past climate response to known forcing, volcanic eruptions and modeling, this is the best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity to a forcing the equal of 3.7/W^2.

You are free to dispute this information, but you fly in the face of all the research which has delivered this message.

Together water vapor and clouds add up to 75% of the greenhouse effect, but without CO2 water vapor's impact would plummet. Water vapor in the atmosphere is a feedback on temperature. So are clouds. They don't control or drive anything without the scaffolding of the greenhouse effect being present, the long term resident time greenhouse gases, the most important being CO2.

Because a complex system that is perturbed, and changes state, may very well not react THE SAME WAY at that altered state. Various thresholds, feedbacks, and complex NEW interactions (that we in no way can determine nor hypothesize about) will create essentially a different system.

We have no way of knowing quantifying new interactions and their manifistations, when we certainly have no real clue as to what such a system would resemble.

But our atmosphere appears to prefer to rest in the bottom of a parabolic curve. Countless volcanic eruptions over the milenia, unsequestered forest fires, natural biological alterations, etc. have shown little historical PERMENANT changes to our atmosphere.

[tacoman25]

Also.. welcome back to CC.

I'm sure taco will tell me I'm just being sensitive though and this is just a funny joke you were telling.

The difference being that taco doesn't get put on post limits, does he?

Obviously someone can differentiate between my comments and bethesda's. Judging from your comment, I guess you can't.

[WeatherRusty]

Because a complex system that is perturbed, and changes state, may very well not react THE SAME WAY at that altered state. Various thresholds, feedbacks, and complex NEW interactions (that we in no way can determine nor hypothesize about) will create essentially a different system.

We have no way of knowing quantifying new interactions and their manifistations, when we certainly have no real clue as to what such a system would resemble.

But our atmosphere appears to prefer to rest in the bottom of a parabolic curve. Countless volcanic eruptions over the milenia, unsequestered forest fires, natural biological alterations, etc. have shown little historical PERMENANT changes to our atmosphere.

The Earth's climate history provides cases of many differing Earth's in many changed states. There is nothing normal about today's climate, it is what it is because of a particular balance between competing factors which determine the range of weather we experience. Change those factors enough and you will change the balance and the resultant weather and overall climate.

So we do have analogs represented by Earth's own past, we do know what states the climate is capable of attaining. In any case, the laws of physics should be the same everywhere and at every time.

You make it appear that everything is so complex that science has no hope of understanding anything. That much is obviously wrong for most practical purposes.

[BethesdaWX]

You apparently are not aware that your statement is a direct contradiction to one of the very most fundamental set of laws in physics, the Laws of Thermodynamics. Then you have the audacity to imply someone who disagrees with you might be stupid.

What? Ummm no, the amount of energy that actually gets to the earth in the first place changes depending on the cloud cover/ozone are present...you know this...right? So clouds don't exist, and neither does Ozone?

You're so stuck up to defend CAGW supporters that you either purposely manipulate my comment, or just choose not to read it.

[WeatherRusty]

What? Ummm no, the amount of energy that actually gets to the earth in the first place changes depending on the cloud cover/ozone are present...you know this...right? So clouds don't exist, and neither does Ozone?

You're so stuck up to defend CAGW supporters that you either purposely manipulate my comment, or just choose not to read it.

Here is your statement from post #57: "The Earth has never emitted as much energy as it absorbs, it can't."

I rest my case!

[BethesdaWX]

Here is your statement from post #57: "The Earth has never emitted as much energy as it absorbs, it can't."

I rest my case!

Exactly, the Earth, as in, the Atmosphere included. After all we're talking about the climate system, right?

How much Solar Energy impacting the Earth and Climate system, re-emitted LW radiation, reflected SW radiation...much is reflected.

[Sundog]

Because a complex system that is perturbed, and changes state, may very well not react THE SAME WAY at that altered state. Various thresholds, feedbacks, and complex NEW interactions (that we in no way can determine nor hypothesize about) will create essentially a different system.

We have no way of knowing quantifying new interactions and their manifistations, when we certainly have no real clue as to what such a system would resemble.

But our atmosphere appears to prefer to rest in the bottom of a parabolic curve. Countless volcanic eruptions over the milenia, unsequestered forest fires, natural biological alterations, etc. have shown little historical PERMENANT changes to our atmosphere.

Stromatolites would disagree with you.

[BethesdaWX]

Also.. welcome back to CC.

I'm sure taco will tell me I'm just being sensitive though and this is just a funny joke you were telling.

Clouds reflect SW radiation...not all the Solar Radiation will be reflected as LW...you and I agree on this.

[BethesdaWX]

We know there is an imbalance at the TOA due to rising sea levels which indicate increasing OHC. This indicates that the earth system (land, oceans, atmosphere) is gaining energy which means there must be more energy entering than leaving. That's rock solid observation and basic logic.

You didn't specify you were talking about only LW frequency. Besides, in the LW frequencies... the amount of energy leaving earth is orders of magnitude greater than entering, since pretty much all the energy entering the TOA is SW radiation. So if you were talking about LW frequencies only your claim that "the amount of energy leaving the atmosphere is less than that entering" makes even less sense.

Bingo!!! Thats the point...everything entering is SW, and how much SW energy actually gets to the surface will vary over time due to several factors...Solar output remains the same overall, but how much of that gets into the climate system/oceans will vary over time...an imbalance is always present from incoming to outgoing energies, more energy impacts the system, less is re-emmited by the system...we have seen increasing OLR and decreasing reflected SW over the past 30yrs on the magnitude in OLR of at least 2W/m^2 depending on the smoothing you choose to use, and on a decadal scale. You know what that means?

You validated me...thankyou!

[PhillipS]

Exactly, the Earth, as in, the Atmosphere included. After all we're talking about the climate system, right?

How much Solar Energy impacting the Earth and Climate system, re-emitted LW radiation, reflected SW radiation...much is reflected.

Um, Mr B, how can I put this gently . . . you are simply, flatly wrong and Rusty is correct. This is basic high-school physics. When the Earth (everything included) is at thermal equilibrium then it emits exactly as much energy as it absorbs. It something perturbs that equilibrium so that less energy is emitted, say rising CO2 levels make the atmosphere more opaque to LWIR, then the Earth will warm (which increases the amount of energy emitted) until equilibrium is restored. Similarly, if something perturbs the equilibrium so that less energy is absorbed, a major volcanic eruption for example, then the Earth will cool (decreasing the amount of energy it emits) until equilibrium is restored.

Please note that due to the thermal inertia of the land/ocean/air system it often takes years to reach a new equilibrium temperature.

If you are confused about this there are a number of useful on-line resources you can learn from.

[BethesdaWX]

Um, Mr B, how can I put this gently . . . you are simply, flatly wrong and Rusty is correct. This is basic high-school physics. When the Earth (everything included) is at thermal equilibrium then it emits exactly as much energy as it absorbs. It something perturbs that equilibrium so that less energy is emitted, say rising CO2 levels make the atmosphere more opaque to LWIR, then the Earth will warm (which increases the amount of energy emitted) until equilibrium is restored. Similarly, if something perturbs the equilibrium so that less energy is absorbed, a major volcanic eruption for example, then the Earth will cool (decreasing the amount of energy it emits) until equilibrium is restored.

Please note that due to the thermal inertia of the land/ocean/air system it often takes years to reach a new equilibrium temperature.

If you are confused about this there are a number of useful on-line resources you can learn from.

What on earth are you talking about? I agree with everything you just stated...

What are you arguing good sir? That ISWR impacts the system is matched within OLWR? That is impossible with clodus reflecting ISWR. Solar output doesn't change, but how much of that solar output (SW) reaches the Earth's surface in the first place will change depending on several atmospheric factors/complexities, (reflected SW), such as Clouds, Ozone, and resulting SST temperatures. CO2 increase will dampen the CO2 spectrum on its own, (trapped OLR), but in this circumstance it is a small issue RF wise compared to what else has been going on in the Stratosphere & LT...at least since 1979, we have seen OLR increase, The Surface Out-warm the LT, and yet we've seen Significantly reduced reflecyed SW radiation...and in all regards, get the whole picture before letting loose, because you'll know that with these unequivocal pieces of evidence we have a multi-contributionary forcing element here before feedback.

Example being Jet stream modulation indirectly through solar activity. In the TLT LLCC changes per 1% equate to over 1W/m^2, and an easy accomplishement of 5-10W/m^2 RF change (Inc/dec) may result over an extended timeframe...also take into account ozone depletion...why do you think we have OLR increasing substantially?

Point comes down to this...how much RF impacts the system (SW) is not equated in re-emmited (LW) Radiation since not all of the SW IR makes it to the surface to be re-emmited anyway. The Imbalance I was referring to was in the ISWR to OLWR ratio in W/m^2.

[skierinvermont]

..an imbalance is always present from incoming to outgoing energies, more energy impacts the system, less is re-emmited by the system...

This is just flat out wrong as numerous people have explained. In the long run the same amount of energy "impacts" the system as is "re-emitted" by the system.

I'm not sure you are aware what it is you are typing...

EDIT: I think perhaps I know where the confusion lies... you are not considering SW radiation which is reflected by clouds to have "entered" the system. It has. It's passed through the top of the atmosphere which is many many miles above the clouds. When people say that there is an imbalance they mean that:

(incoming SW radiation) > (reflected SW radiation + OLR)

that's the imbalance we are experiencing at the moment and which dictates surface warming until equilibrium is restored. And this imbalance is directly attributable to CO2 because we have empirical measurements proving the atmosphere has reduced OLR in the CO2 spectrum. This reduction in OLR by CO2 creates the energy imbalance in the equation above, creating surface warming.

Also you continually cite these OLR observations which are considered just as bunk as the GCC observations.

[BethesdaWX]

EDIT: I think perhaps I know where the confusion lies... you are not considering SW radiation which is reflected by clouds to have "entered" the system. It has. It's passed through the top of the atmosphere which is many many miles above the clouds. When people say that there is an imbalance they mean that:

(incoming SW radiation) > (reflected SW radiation + OLR)

Yes exactly, but that is not where the problem lies...it is in OLR, as in, how much of that ISR can be transferred to LW (heat) energy upon transaction...When ISR is reflected by clouds we lose that much energy from the budget...visa-versa when less is reflected. In this case (At least since 1979), Reflected SW has Decreased...(as in, more ISR has reached the surface/oceans), and this is the reason for the increase in OLR by several W/m^2, at least 2W/m^2 depenmding on the data smoothing used.

that's the imbalance we are experiencing at the moment and which dictates surface warming until equilibrium is restored. And this imbalance is directly attributable to CO2 because we have empirical measurements proving the atmosphere has reduced OLR in the CO2 spectrum. This reduction in OLR by CO2 creates the energy imbalance in the equation above, creating surface warming.

The increase in OLR by over 2W/m^2 since 1979 is not attributable to CO2, Peer reviewed papers validate and use this OLR/SW data...it is only attributable to the fact that Incoming SW radiation has reached the Earth's surface in higher abundance. Since 1850 we've seen a 1.6W/m^2 RF increase from CO2 increase...since 1979 we've seen OLR increase by over 2W/m^2...so since 1979...we have seen more RF energy budget increase naturally than has been seen by CO2 since 1850 This is where we split further...the mechanism at how the energy budget is handled outside the CO2 spectrum is something else completely...yes there has been a dampening in the CO2 spectrum, but in our measurement timeframe it has been very minimal to natural increases in the energy budget.

Also you continually cite these OLR observations which are considered just as bunk as the GCC observations.

Well first off they are not...otherwise, If we can't determine OLR than how can we determine any imbalance within the climate system Mr Numbnut? The CO2 spectrum is part of this specific wavelength frequency...and can be measured within the same satellite data system...

You better own up to this blunder. GCC measurements are completely different because it is estimated as in the exact trend of clouds at different levels of the atmosphere leading to an OLR change/reflected SW change...but in this case we reflected SW anomaly is not the issue, it is the trend in exact cloud types/levels that led to the change in reflected ISR.

[skierinvermont]

Please refer me to a reference establishing reasonable error bars for OLR. Or at least to the data source that you are using.

[BethesdaWX]

Please refer me to a reference establishing reasonable error bars for OLR. Or at least to the data source that you are using.

You mean the CPC...

[BethesdaWX]

RAW DATA HERE: NOAA/CPC

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/data/indices/olr

Graphed:

[skierinvermont]

You mean the CPC...

The CPC data contains no correction for satellite drift and is not intended for long term trends.

Unless you presume that these are magic satellites which do not drift, then the data is bunk, because no correction is made. UAH and RSS both have to make corrections for satellite drift to obtain workable results.. although the modern AQUA satellite resolves that. Unfortunately, older satellites all drift. Since no correction is made for this in the CPC data, it is not accurate. (Which is why the CPC specifically say don't use it for long term trends).

But that won't stop the deniers from using it! They know more about CPC data than the CPC does!

http://cawcr.gov.au/...heeler/maproom/

[skierinvermont]

RAW DATA HERE: NOAA/CPC

http://www.cpc.noaa....ata/indices/olr

See above. Also the heading to the raw data specifically says "EQUATOR 160E to 160W. So it's just the equator and not global.. what good is that?

[BethesdaWX]

See above. Also the heading to the raw data specifically says "EQUATOR 160E to 160W. So it's just the equator and not global.. what good is that?

The Link should go to the rest of the globe...if not I can post that and the global mean.

[BethesdaWX]

The CPC data contains no correction for satellite drift and is not intended for long term trends.

Unless you presume that these are magic satellites which do not drift, then the data is bunk, because no correction is made. UAH and RSS both have to make corrections for satellite drift to obtain workable results.. although the modern AQUA satellite resolves that. Unfortunately, older satellites all drift. Since no correction is made for this in the CPC data, it is not accurate. (Which is why the CPC specifically say don't use it for long term trends).

But that won't stop the deniers from using it! They know more about CPC data than the CPC does!

http://cawcr.gov.au/...heeler/maproom/

We'd know if a satellite had drifted...the NOAA15 satellite has severe drift issues. Guess how we measure TOA/Imbalance from the planet...thru satellites...pick your boat and drive it, don't change back and forth.

The same databoard beam system is used for these analysis dude! WHat argument are you going to side with? That there has been drift that somehow escaped out grasp and thus all OLR/CO2 Spectrum/TOA measurements are Bunk...or that we know thus far that any drift has been minimal and should not be a large enough issue to effect the data...? Take your pick.

[ORH_wxman]

The biggest concern is what has happened the last 8-9 years with OHC not accounting for the flat global atmospheric temps. It might suggest the climate sensitivity of CO2 has been over estimated. But we probably need another decade to be sure.

[BethesdaWX]

The biggest concern is what has happened the last 8-9 years with OHC not accounting for the flat global atmospheric temps. It might suggest the climate sensitivity of CO2 has been over estimated. But we probably need another decade to be sure.

Agree, and this happens to coincide with a major jump in OLR mid-range spectrum (on the CPC graph), which could suggest we've lost the energy to space. Also interesting to note is that even beforehand since 1979, reflected SW radiation had decreased continuously, this ended in 2001-02, and has since flat-lined with no descernable trend.

That might suggest that higher incoming SW radiation impacting the planet/oceans was perhaps a predominate cause for increasing OHC, or al least a contributing factor. Increasing OLR has to be naturally induced.

[skierinvermont]

We'd know if a satellite had drifted...the NOAA15 satellite has severe drift issues. Guess how we measure TOA/Imbalance from the planet...thru satellites...pick your boat and drive it, don't change back and forth.

The same databoard beam system is used for these analysis dude! WHat argument are you going to side with? That there has been drift that somehow escaped out grasp and thus all OLR/CO2 Spectrum/TOA measurements are Bunk...or that we know thus far that any drift has been minimal and should not be a large enough issue to effect the data...? Take your pick.

Funny you should mention NOAA 14 since NOAA 14 was the sole source of OLR data for the CPC data set from 1995-2001.

Here is a list of satellites used in the CPC OLR data:

http://www.esrl.noaa...interp_OLR.html

All of the old NOAA satellites have severe drift issues and these are the satellites which the OLR sensors are on.

And this drift remains uncorrected in the CPC data because it is difficult or impossible to correct for.

[BethesdaWX]

Funny you should mention NOAA 14 since NOAA 14 was the sole source of OLR data for the CPC data set from 1995-2001.

All of the old NOAA satellites have severe drift issues and these are the satellites which the OLR sensors are on.

And this drift remains uncorrected in the CPC data.

I mentioned NOAA15 first of all...data has been calibrated to fit into the NOAA16 satellite after transition...it has to be.

So even if you were correct, your CO2 imbalance statements could not be correct since the same databoard system is used here.

You're ripping the very satellites you use to make your own arguments...brilliant.

[ORH_wxman]

Agree, and this happens to coincide with a major jump in OLR mid-range spectrum (on the CPC graph), which could suggest we've lost the energy to space. Also interesting to note is that even beforehand since 1979, reflected SW radiation had decreased continuously, this ended in 2001-02, and has since flat-lined with no descernable trend.

That might suggest that higher incoming SW radiation impacting the planet/oceans was perhaps a predominate cause for increasing OHC, or al least a contributing factor. Increasing OLR has to be naturally induced.

This recent data is what prompted the papers like Spencer et al 2011 and Lindzen/Choi et al 2011. You can criticize Spencer's "model" in his paper but that is a tangent argument to underlying theme of why the papers are being written in the first place....because OHC has not matched global atmospheric temps the past 8-9 years under the current AGW theory of GHGs. So this questions the sensitivity which is what the papers address.

Again, I personally think we need another decade to see what happens, but its a fair question to ask.

[skierinvermont]

I mentioned NOAA15 first of all...data has been calibrated to fit into the NOAA16 satellite after transition...it has to be.

So even if you were correct, your CO2 imbalance statements could not be correct since the same databoard system is used here.

You're ripping the very satellites you use to make your own arguments...brilliant.

The fact that the atmosphere is becoming more opaque to radiation in the CO2 spectrum doesn't require satellites to measure. You can measure this on a clear night in your back yard taking repeated measurements over many years. Less and less energy is measured traveling in the CO2 spectrum.

Trenberth estimated the satellite drift to be responsible for up to a 3W/m2 error in the trend in CPC OLR data:

http://www.cgd.ucar....000JD000297.pdf