Role of the Sun in Climate Change

[The_Global_Warmer]

no, it smells like the usual garbage at WAWT, where you took this from, once again: http://wattsupwithth...r-and-braswell/

secondly, how long a paper takes to go through the publishing process is partially dependent on the author/authors him/her/their/self/selves and how quickly reviwers' comments are addressed, revisions made, and/or final files submitted for layout. I've published books from proposal to off press in 11 months, and other books take years. it isn't just peer review that is responsible for the delay; in most cases it is the lead author who is the hold up.

Watts has zero credibility.

[Snow_Miser]

I did not "copy that off of WUWT" unfortunately for your pet theory.

I just find it odd that these papers have such large differences in the time frames that they were published.

That's all.

[WeatherRusty]

I agree with this post. I'm perfectly fine with accepting the viewpoints of my AGWer counterparts, I just do not find the name calling and 'definitive claims' on either side of the debate to be productive toward the advancement of scientific understanding. Politics just make it worse.

I did not call you a moon bat, I said you are throwing out moon bat stuff. Not you, the stuff. I will withhold my fellings for you!

[WeatherRusty]

Speaking of stuff. Isn't this thread part of a larger skeptical argument which seeks to deflect any warming experienced so far and projected to the future (if any) away from CO2 and onto the Sun? Other posters go on about geomag this and GCRs that. It could be anything we are uncertain of, but it most probably is not caused by CO2 forcing which we do know much about?

This is denial of the scientifically determined forcing that increasing concentrations of atmospheric CO2 will have on the climate.

Do you deny a doubling of CO2 will promote a ~1.2C global warming before consideration of feedback? That is all I claim with near certainty. It is what the IPCC indicates also, simply because that figure is derived by the best tried and true 19th and 20th century physics.

The Sun is a forcing. CO2 is a forcing. They both have impact. The science says CO2 is currently having the larger impact and can demonstrate it with hard numbers.

So continue to deny CO2's role as the primary, initiating forcing of today's changing climate, but don't expect agreement from me or anyone else who knows better. The science does not support you.

[WeatherRusty]

I agree with this post. I'm perfectly fine with accepting the viewpoints of my AGWer counterparts, I just do not find the name calling and 'definitive claims' on either side of the debate to be productive toward the advancement of scientific understanding. Politics just make it worse.

You don't seem fine with accepting the science supporting AGW. You (an other skeptics) argue against everything from every imaginable angle.

You are not advancing anyones understanding of science. You are muddying the waters and causing confusion. You don't discuss science, you discuss your pet ideas and those found on denier sites.

[ben4vols]

So continue to deny CO2's role as the primary, initiating forcing of today's changing climate, but don't expect agreement from me or anyone else who knows better. The science does not support you.

I don't know if I would go as far as to say it is the primary intiating force. Funny thing about science, it looks good on paper but sometimes it doesn't translate to the real world. Right now, CO2 being the primary intiating force doesn't match up to what you see when you look out your window. I would say right now Roy Spencer is winning the climate debate. His claims about climate sensitivity and negative feedbacks seems to align pretty well with whats currently happening and what has happened in the past.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't know if I would go as far as to say it is the primary intiating force. Funny thing about science, it looks good on paper but sometimes it doesn't translate to the real world. Right now, CO2 being the primary intiating force doesn't match up to what you see when you look out your window. I would say right now Roy Spencer is winning the climate debate. His claims about climate sensitivity and negative feedbacks seems to align pretty well with whats currently happening and what has happened in the past.

Actually Roy Spencer agrees with me and mainstream science wrt CO2 forcing. He and Richard Lindzen are arguing for a low climate sensitivity to the initial forcing which produces a bit less than 1.2C per doubling of CO2. That's a different point than what I am making here.

When you bring the Sun into play, it has to act as an external forcing, or initiator of climate change. Same thing with the enhancement to the greenhouse effect by the addition of CO2. These are initiating forcings, Spencer is referring to feedback and thus equilibrium climate sensitivity.

[ben4vols]

If CO2 is the primary intiating force, what drove the warming from(roughly) 1910 to 1940? Why are the warming cycles of (roughly) 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 so similar despite the huge differences in CO2?

[physicsguy21]

You don't seem fine with accepting the science supporting AGW. You (an other skeptics) argue against everything from every imaginable angle.

I'm not fine with accepting voodoo physics, huge difference there. There is a small human component to climate change but the physics of Earth's *atmosphere effect* are being horribly butchered, resulting in the incorrect ideas we have today about what actually drives climate. You should open your mind rather than defend these false assertions with irrelavent closed-system physics.

You are not advancing anyones understanding of science. You are muddying the waters and causing confusion. You don't discuss science, you discuss your pet ideas and those found on denier sites.

This is anti-science fluff. You seem politically motivated rather than scientifically motivated, in my opinion.

[WeatherRusty]

If CO2 is the primary intiating force, what drove the warming from(roughly) 1910 to 1940? Why are the warming cycles of (roughly) 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 so similar despite the huge differences in CO2?

Solar had a positive impact early to mid 20th century. CO2 was on the rise back then too. The natural background CO2 level for the Holocene interglacial was 280ppm.

[physicsguy21]

If CO2 is the primary intiating force, what drove the warming from(roughly) 1910 to 1940? Why are the warming cycles of (roughly) 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 so similar despite the huge differences in CO2?

It is because CO2 was not the driving force. Global SSTs support this in many different manners of meaning. Something happened in 2005, we began a new regime sometime during that year, it seems. It took a Strong El Nino in 2010 to reach the value of the 2001 SST which was a neutral ENSO year.

Southern hemisphere SSTs versus 2007 AR4 model ensemble mean, note the GCM models have been essentially invalidated by the observations:

The most significant cooling in the model ensemble occurs near the Pinatubo eruption in 1991, yet SSTs barely responded. The models are stuck on the incorrect assumptions that TSI, Greenhouse Gases, and Volcanism are the largest climate drivers. They're probably the smallest drivers.

Northern Hemisphere SSTs versus 2007 AR4 model ensemble mean:

Global SSTs versus 2004 AR4 ensemble mean:

These sort of deviations are everywhere:

The Earth cooled about 10C at the end of the Eemian interglacial with no help from CO2.

[physicsguy21]

Solar had a positive impact early to mid 20th century. CO2 was on the rise back then too. The natural background CO2 level for the Holocene interglacial was 280ppm.

The IPCC in the 2007 AR4 report favored the R.S.S satellite for a lower tropospheric view on temperature. In 3 years, the 17 year timelength of statistical significance will be reached in the lower troposphere.

Source for data: http://www.remss.com/

[dabize]

This is anti-science fluff. You seem politically motivated rather than scientifically motivated, in my opinion.

While the total size of the component added by humans to the Earth's heat budget is tiny relative to that added by the Sun, the operative term here is marginal (as in rate of change). The fact that Earth exists in a near vacuum (negating convection and conduction and leaving only radiation), with the only external source of energy being the Sun, does rather make "closed system physics" relevant. It makes it possible to calculate the balance of energy fluxes while ignoring the details of what occurs within the Earth system itself. This, combined with the well established physics of CO2 as a GHG, leaves much less rhetorical underbrush for denialists and their obfuscations to flourish in. No great surprise that they don't like it. Even innumerate types like me can see this plainly.

Forcing due to the overall rate of change per unit time in the amount of energy from the Sun is vanishingly small (possibly even decreasing in the short term due to the current minimum in the sunspot cycle). By contrast, the rate of change per unit time of the human contribution looms large, since atmospheric CO2 is the dominant factor in keeping the temperature of the Earth warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. We have already increased total atmospheric CO2 levels nearly 10% over the past 40 years.

You can argue a bit more convincingly (but not much) about the effect of details of where the heat is going in the system, but all of the objective indices of AGW running rampant right now (massive ice volume loss, 40x increase in the rate of extreme heat events etc.) make it pretty hard to cast doubt on the larger picture. The overall result is OBVIOUS - to hell with proving causality with respect to details that we don't necessarily have to the satisfaction of pettifogging pseudo-pedants such as yourself.

The situation brings to mind Thoreau's comment that "sometimes circumstantial evidence is very strong, such as finding a trout in the milk".

As far as the total heat budget of Earth is concerned, the marginal rate of human-mediated addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is pretty much the only game in town, qualitatively speaking. You seem to be using the (usually well founded) desire of scientists to quantitate the details as a tool to spread confusion and doubt where there shouldn't be any.

It isn't a respectable thing to do.

[physicsguy21]

I never claimed that closed system mechanics are not relevant, but you need to understand the definition of an open system and the limitations involved with applying calculations in such a system. Not to mention in a graviational field. There are numerous errors that have been made.

For one thing, the Earth's greybody temperature has been miscalculated because insolation was weighted first as an underlying base. The Earth's actual greybody temperature is about 188K, not 255K. It is 193K for the moon, which happens to contain a temperature between 192K-197K.

Here was my attempted explanation to WeatherRusty since I don't feel like retyping:

You'll find out the error is that insolation is weighted first in our blackbody equation giving a temperature much too high. Research Holder's Inequality. If I recall this clear demonstration correctly, invision a flat blackbody at Earth's distance from the Sun with area of 1m2 with little mass but placed full so insolation = 1362Wm2, one side lit, the other dark. Correct application is a flat sunlit half, Full S-B is 1362Wm2 = 5.6704 x 10^-8 x T^4, 394K = T. Nighttime side is set to the 2K deep space value. (394K+2K)/2 = 198K (Reality). If flux is averaged first before being used to calculate temp, You get S_o/2 = 681Wm2. T^4 = 120 x 10^8 = 331K. That is wrong. Once again, measured evidence is on my side.

And it makes sense, because no portion of the atmosphere on a global scale can be COLDER then the greybody temperature, it is a physical impossibility violating numerous thermodynamic laws. But then in what we know as an open system, defining different types of 'temperature' are also necessary, the radiative temperature (analogous to velocity) and molecular temperature (analogous to density) have no connecting physics in equality.

What we refer to as the '33C greenhouse effect' is actually much larger, it is over 100C and not radiatively induced for the most part. The surface being 288K does not need a radiative explanation at all. When you get into surface conduction and ocean thermal capacity-driven equilibrium, it all falls into place.

It is due to the lack of surface cooling at night, insulation so to speak. Opposite during the day, also. It is true that atmospheric pressure cannot raise temperature above the daytime greybody maximum temperature, but that is all. Conduction with the surface at night, molecular line broadening towards the surface via higher density escape field, and the oceans warming significantly to reach thermal equilibrium in accordance to their thermal capacity explain almost all of the surface temperature of 288K over the 188K greybody temperature. The plantary S-B law should not be applied to relate pressure to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[DoctorMu]

physicsguy21 said

The more O2 that is exchanged for higher heat capacity CO2, the greater the dimishing of stellar radiation during the day. There may still be a slightly lopsided value there, but the point here is that we need a physics revamp. It is certainly odd to see catastrophe theory science defended with such heart, despite obvious inaccuracies.

That's the crux of the matter - there's not an exchange. The source of CO2 is primarily hydrocarbons from under the ground, therefore added to the system within decades rather than removed over eons. We know this because C14 levels in the atmosphere are dropping in proportion to hydrocarbon emissions added to the atmosphere. The oil being hundreds of millions of years past 6 x the half life of C14.

A question to ask oneself, is whether the Earth would be cooler if CO2 levels were 280 ppm again instead of 395 ppm? The answer is a resounding YES.

Indeed, since CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, has a relatively long-half life (unlike H2O vapor), and has a measurable and reliable infrared absorbance rate and spectrum its effects are predictable. Not surprisingly, the increase in Earth's surface temp of nearly 1°C over the last Century are congruent with predictions. The UAH group presented some alternative theories and evidence. However, their primary point that the tropospheric gradient of temp (too cold in the upper troposphere) to be consistent with global warming was undermined by the discovery that satellite decay resulted in spurious data. Cnce recalibrated, the solar arguments were weaker. There is some recent evidence that amplification by water vapor, a potent GHG, *may* not be as strong as feared (difficult to calculate with short half-life and heterogeneous distribution). Arguably, the Mt Pinatubo eruption had a biphasic effect. Still, one would have expected a reduction in solar radiation to force cooling instead of more warming over the past decade...

Disclosure: I am not a climate researcher but a researcher in the biosciences. At one time, I was skeptical because of the excessive proclivity for speculation or extrapolation from data including in the primary literature (which we can't do in the biosciences), but the preponderance of evidence in latest NOAA and NASA reports toward climate change are absolutely overwhelming.

If one looks at the temperature records over the course of Earth's history and particularly the last million years, it's clear this is an unstable system with potential for feedforward runaway changes in both directions...ergo, concern in this kind of system is understandable.

http://desmond.image...gif&res=landing

[WeatherRusty]

I never claimed that closed system mechanics are not relevant, but you need to understand the definition of an open system and the limitations involved with applying calculations in such a system. Not to mention in a graviational field. There are numerous errors that have been made.

For one thing, the Earth's greybody temperature has been miscalculated because insolation was weighted first as an underlying base. The Earth's actual greybody temperature is about 188K, not 255K. It is 193K for the moon, which happens to contain a temperature between 192K-197K.

Here was my attempted explanation to WeatherRusty since I don't feel like retyping:

You'll find out the error is that insolation is weighted first in our blackbody equation giving a temperature much too high. Research Holder's Inequality. If I recall this clear demonstration correctly, invision a flat blackbody at Earth's distance from the Sun with area of 1m2 with little mass but placed full so insolation = 1362Wm2, one side lit, the other dark. Correct application is a flat sunlit half, Full S-B is 1362Wm2 = 5.6704 x 10^-8 x T^4, 394K = T. Nighttime side is set to the 2K deep space value. (394K+2K)/2 = 198K (Reality). If flux is averaged first before being used to calculate temp, You get S_o/2 = 681Wm2. T^4 = 120 x 10^8 = 331K. That is wrong. Once again, measured evidence is on my side.

And it makes sense, because no portion of the atmosphere on a global scale can be COLDER then the greybody temperature, it is a physical impossibility violating numerous thermodynamic laws. But then in what we know as an open system, defining different types of 'temperature' are also necessary, the radiative temperature (analogous to velocity) and molecular temperature (analogous to density) have no connecting physics in equality.

What we refer to as the '33C greenhouse effect' is actually much larger, it is over 100C and not radiatively induced for the most part. The surface being 288K does not need a radiative explanation at all. When you get into surface conduction and ocean thermal capacity-driven equilibrium, it all falls into place.

It is due to the lack of surface cooling at night, insulation so to speak. Opposite during the day, also. It is true that atmospheric pressure cannot raise temperature above the daytime greybody maximum temperature, but that is all. Conduction with the surface at night, molecular line broadening towards the surface via higher density escape field, and the oceans warming significantly to reach thermal equilibrium in accordance to their thermal capacity explain almost all of the surface temperature of 288K over the 188K greybody temperature. The plantary S-B law should not be applied to relate pressure to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

So, when will the textbooks be rewritten? Also, don't forget to dig Max Planck out of his grave and tell him face to face that which you peddle here.

[physicsguy21]

physicsguy21 said

The more O2 that is exchanged for higher heat capacity CO2, the greater the dimishing of stellar radiation during the day. There may still be a slightly lopsided value there, but the point here is that we need a physics revamp. It is certainly odd to see catastrophe theory science defended with such heart, despite obvious inaccuracies.

That's the crux of the matter - there's not an exchange. The source of CO2 is primarily hydrocarbons from under the ground, therefore added to the system within decades rather than removed over eons. We know this because C14 levels in the atmosphere are dropping in proportion to hydrocarbon emissions added to the atmosphere. The oil being hundreds of millions of years past 6 x the half life of C14.

That actually isn't the context I meant it in, but I greatly appriciate your polite posting style.

A question to ask oneself, is whether the Earth would be cooler if CO2 levels were 280 ppm again instead of 395 ppm? The answer is a resounding YES.

Of course adding CO2 will have a warming impact, it is physically impossible to deny this. But at this point I strongly contend that any warming due to additions of CO2 will be lost in the noise of climate variation. The current theory has a few major physical flaws in attibution and calculation.

Indeed, since CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, has a relatively long-half life (unlike H2O vapor), and has a measurable and reliable infrared absorbance rate and spectrum its effects are predictable. Not surprisingly, the increase in Earth's surface temp of nearly 1°C over the last Century are congruent with predictions. The UAH group presented some alternative theories and evidence. However, their primary point that the tropospheric gradient of temp (too cold in the upper troposphere) to be consistent with global warming was undermined by the discovery that satellite decay resulted in spurious data. Cnce recalibrated, the solar arguments were weaker. There is some recent evidence that amplification by water vapor, a potent GHG, *may* not be as strong as feared (difficult to calculate with short half-life and heterogeneous distribution). Arguably, the Mt Pinatubo eruption had a biphasic effect. Still, one would have expected a reduction in solar radiation to force cooling instead of more warming over the past decade...

I completely disagree with just about all of this, it all rests on a few physical impossibilities. CO2 sensitivity values are derived from a theorized 300+Wm2 backradiation value against the radiative forcing value of a CO2 molecule. Problem, the Earth's greybody temperature cannot be (and is not) 255K, and the surface temperature of 288K does not need to be explained radiatively. Actually, it cannot be explained radiatively. Some errors I believe you have referenced:

- TSI is still very high relative to where it was 70 years ago, and the oceans take hundreds of years to equilibriate to any forcing, pre-feedback. So there cannot physically be any cooling resulting from the Sun's irradience directly, at this time. Magnetism is something completely different.

- The more recent AMSU data (non-drift) also does not find any hotspot in the upper troposphere, neither does HadAT radiosonde data. It was assumed that the NOAA14 satellite had been incorrectly calibrated for drift, but the better AMSU data since 2003 suggests otherwise. No one has measured a hotspot, error boundaries have been absurdly widened to claim that it could 'still be there', but that is about it.

- No portion of the atmosphere on a global scale can be colder than the greybody temperature, I do not see why that is so hard to understand.

[The_Global_Warmer]

While the total size of the component added by humans to the Earth's heat budget is tiny relative to that added by the Sun, the operative term here is marginal (as in rate of change). The fact that Earth exists in a near vacuum (negating convection and conduction and leaving only radiation), with the only external source of energy being the Sun, does rather make "closed system physics" relevant. It makes it possible to calculate the balance of energy fluxes while ignoring the details of what occurs within the Earth system itself. This, combined with the well established physics of CO2 as a GHG, leaves much less rhetorical underbrush for denialists and their obfuscations to flourish in. No great surprise that they don't like it. Even innumerate types like me can see this plainly.

Forcing due to the overall rate of change per unit time in the amount of energy from the Sun is vanishingly small (possibly even decreasing in the short term due to the current minimum in the sunspot cycle). By contrast, the rate of change per unit time of the human contribution looms large, since atmospheric CO2 is the dominant factor in keeping the temperature of the Earth warmer than it would be without an atmosphere. We have already increased total atmospheric CO2 levels nearly 10% over the past 40 years.

You can argue a bit more convincingly (but not much) about the effect of details of where the heat is going in the system, but all of the objective indices of AGW running rampant right now (massive ice volume loss, 40x increase in the rate of extreme heat events etc.) make it pretty hard to cast doubt on the larger picture. The overall result is OBVIOUS - to hell with proving causality with respect to details that we don't necessarily have to the satisfaction of pettifogging pseudo-pedants such as yourself.

The situation brings to mind Thoreau's comment that "sometimes circumstantial evidence is very strong, such as finding a trout in the milk".

As far as the total heat budget of Earth is concerned, the marginal rate of human-mediated addition of CO2 to the atmosphere is pretty much the only game in town, qualitatively speaking. You seem to be using the (usually well founded) desire of scientists to quantitate the details as a tool to spread confusion and doubt where there shouldn't be any.

It isn't a respectable thing to do.

Isn't it closer to 18%?

March was 394.45, 1 year ago was 392.40 so a change of 2.05, 2 year ago was 391.08, so the change from 2010 to 2011 was lower because of El Nino. Once it went La Nina the rate of Co2 rise slowed.

Co2 now is around 395, 40 years ago it was 325.

So I think it's moving quite fast.

[physicsguy21]

So, when will the textbooks be rewritten? Also, don't forget to dig Max Planck out of his grave and tell him face to face that which you peddle here.

No one knew the lunar temperature during his time of life, otherwise he probably would have caught the mathematical error. The Moon's temperature, as measured by Diviner, lies between 192K-197K, not the incorrect 255K (or whatever bloated values assigned by the IPCC). When calculating the for the moon, you get 193K with the improved formula. Had Max Planck known the lunar surface temperature, he would have figured out the problem.

We know that for Earth the 255K greybody temperature is wrong because no portion of the atmosphere on a global scale can be colder than the greybody temperature. That should be clear, no?

[physicsguy21]

I'd like to account for poor word choice on my part here:

The more O2 that is exchanged for higher heat capacity CO2

Atmospheric mass, versus an exchange in energy. I was typing quickly and now realize that it could have been open to various interpretations.

[WeatherRusty]

No one knew the lunar temperature during his time of life, otherwise he probably would have caught the mathematical error. The Moon's temperature, as measured by Diviner, lies between 192K-197K, not the incorrect 255K (or whatever bloated values assigned by the IPCC). When calculating the for the moon, you get 193K with the improved formula. Had Max Planck known the lunar surface temperature, he would have figured out the problem.

We know that for Earth the 255K greybody temperature is wrong because no portion of the atmosphere on a global scale can be colder than the greybody temperature. That should be clear, no?

The effective temperature of the Earth does not occur at the TOA. It does not occur at the tropopause. It is generally found at 16,000 feet, averaged globally. At that level Earth's thermal radiation becomes free to escape to space Below that level the troposphere is largely opaque to IR due to the presence of water vapor, CO2 etc.

[DoctorMu]

Quote

Indeed, since CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere, has a relatively long-half life (unlike H2O vapor), and has a measurable and reliable infrared absorbance rate and spectrum its effects are predictable. Not surprisingly, the increase in Earth's surface temp of nearly 1°C over the last Century are congruent with predictions. The UAH group presented some alternative theories and evidence. However, their primary point that the tropospheric gradient of temp (too cold in the upper troposphere) to be consistent with global warming was undermined by the discovery that satellite decay resulted in spurious data. Cnce recalibrated, the solar arguments were weaker. There is some recent evidence that amplification by water vapor, a potent GHG, *may* not be as strong as feared (difficult to calculate with short half-life and heterogeneous distribution). Arguably, the Mt Pinatubo eruption had a biphasic effect. Still, one would have expected a reduction in solar radiation to force cooling instead of more warming over the past decade...

I completely disagree with just about all of this, it all rests on a few physical impossibilities. CO2 sensitivity values are derived from a theorized 300+Wm2 backradiation value against the radiative forcing value of a CO2 molecule. Problem, the Earth's greybody temperature cannot be (and is not) 255K, and the surface temperature of 288K does not need to be explained radiatively. Actually, it cannot be explained radiatively. Some errors I believe you have referenced:

- TSI is still very high relative to where it was 70 years ago, and the oceans take hundreds of years to equilibriate to any forcing, pre-feedback. So there cannot physically be any cooling resulting from the Sun's irradience directly, at this time. Magnetism is something completely different.

- The more recent AMSU data (non-drift) also does not find any hotspot in the upper troposphere, neither does HadAT radiosonde data. It was assumed that the NOAA14 satellite had been incorrectly calibrated for drift, but the better AMSU data since 2003 suggests otherwise. No one has measured a hotspot, error boundaries have been absurdly widened to claim that it could 'still be there', but that is about it.

- No portion of the atmosphere on a global scale can be colder than the greybody temperature, I do not see why that is so hard to understand.

The two periods of Snowball Earth would have something to say about this assertion when the surface was 240°K on average!

Plus you would have a greater beef with water vapor, which is far more potent a GHG en masse than CO2 even when not counting clouds. If the claim is a systematic error, one then cannot claim that the systematic error is responsible for a change rather than a dynamic component. Indeed, systematic errors have no real effect on the ability to analyze a dynamic system, and components thereof, if one knows anything about complex systems.

Included in the erroneous assumptions you've made are that (a) the earth is a homogenous ball and (b ) that no potential energy to kinetic or thermal energy has occurred in the last Century.

My livelihood depends on being a skeptic in complex, dynamic systems. It is indeed possible for the body of literature to tease out much of the players. Like many dyanamic systems, positive feedback cycles amplify changes... increased CO2 begets changes temp and combined with aerosols reduction in albedo...this in turn may accelerate warming through increased heat retention by dirt, rock, and water vs. ice and snow.

I certainly hope with the current period of reduced solar activity warming will slow or reverse. However, at best it's just a break in the action...

[physicsguy21]

The effective temperature of the Earth does not occur at the TOA. It does not occur at the tropopause. It is generally found at 16,000 feet, averaged globally. At that level Earth's thermal radiation becomes free to escape to space Below that level the troposphere is largely opaque to IR due to the presence of water vapor, CO2 etc.

That would be fine and dandy, but that does not permit any level of the global atmosphere to reside at a value colder than the greybody temperature, in accordance to the law of conservation of energy. Come on, you know this. The 16,000ft 'imbalance boundary' is mythical. Any science based off this mythical boundary will reach faulty conclusions. We incorrectly interpreted what we were measing, in the 1980s.

[dabize]

Isn't it closer to 18%?

March was 394.45, 1 year ago was 392.40 so a change of 2.05, 2 year ago was 391.08, so the change from 2010 to 2011 was lower because of El Nino. Once it went La Nina the rate of Co2 rise slowed.

Co2 now is around 395, 40 years ago it was 325.

So I think it's moving quite fast.

You're no doubt right.

I wrote that without access to the figures and made a guess based on what I recalled the CO2 levels were in 1958 vs now from the Keeling curve.

I must have transposed a digit.......

[physicsguy21]

The two periods of Snowball Earth would have something to say about this assertion when the surface was 240°K on average!

The increase in ice albedo was responsible. That is still warmer than the greybody temperature which is more like 188K rather than 255K.

Plus you would have a greater beef with water vapor, which is far more potent a GHG en masse than CO2 even when not counting clouds. If the claim is a systematic error, one then cannot claim that the systematic error is responsible for a change rather than a dynamic component. Indeed, systematic errors have no real effect on the ability to analyze a dynamic system, and components thereof

Exactly, greenhouses are the systematic error! If we removed all greenhouse gases from the atmosphere right now, there would not be a significant effect on surface temperature. This is because radiative temperature and molecular temperature are two completely different types of temperature, radiative temperature is analogous to velocity, molecular temperature is analogous to density. Above the stratosphere, the molecular temperature is below -60C. They greybody temperature is incorrectly theorized to lie at -18C..see the big problem here?

If one knows anything about complex systems Included in the erroneous assumptions you've made are that (a) the earth is a homogenous ball and (b ) that no potential energy to kinetic or thermal energy has occurred in the last Century.

Huh? I am not sure what you're talking about.

My livelihood depends on being a skeptic in complex, dynamic systems. It is indeed possible for the body of literature to tease out much of the players. Like many dyanamic systems, positive feedback cycles amplify changes... increased CO2 begets changes temp and combined with aerosols reduction in albedo...this in turn may accelerate warming through increased heat retention by dirt, rock, and water vs. ice and snow.

I have a feeling you think this way because you have been educated to believe the current faulty physical planetary calculations. I was at one time a concerned believer but the facts do not add up to this anthropogenic warming theory. We have mis-interpreted what we're actually measuring.

I certainly hope with the current period of reduced solar activity warming will slow or reverse. However, at best it's just a break in the action...

Solar control of the climate is a very complicated issue. Thermal physics suggest that TSI should be the dictator of the Sun's forcing on climate before feedbacks, but the best correlations by far lie in the magnetics. The Earth's magnetic field has always trended with the Sun's, too. We don't know how this is physically possible unless the current dynamo theory is incorrect. There are questions arising on whether the Sun is truly fueled by nuclear fusion.