2010 Global Temps

[WeatherRusty]

The IPCC and other "climate authorities" have repeatedly said that rising greenhouse gases will overwhelm any influence from solar or other natural climate factors. The scenario you describe is not within their realm of possibility.

Over time greenhouse gases will overwelm natural factors. That does not mean however that natural. variability will not continue to occillate about the mean. Again, it is the mean that is being watched rather than the extremes. Not only is the scenario possible, it is an obvious feature of climate which everyone acknowledges.

[tacoman25]

Over time greenhouse gases will overwelm natural factors. That does not mean however that natural. variability will not continue to occillate about the mean. Again, it is the mean that is being watched rather than the extremes. Not only is the scenario possible, it is an obvious feature of climate which everyone acknowledges.

According to the IPCC and other authorities, GHG forcing has already reached the point where it should be overwhelming solar or other climate forcings. Several prominent climate scientists have gone on record that even if we experienced another Dalton-level minimum, temperatures should continue to rise near the expected rate of .2C/decade over the next couple decades.

You are refusing to acknowledge the fact that the IPCC's projections do not even consider temps flatlining for even just a couple decades a possibility. It is completely outside the range of confidence.

[BethesdaWX]

Over time greenhouse gases will overwelm natural factors. That does not mean however that natural. variability will not continue to occillate about the mean. Again, it is the mean that is being watched rather than the extremes. Not only is the scenario possible, it is an obvious feature of climate which everyone acknowledges.

Over time, we'll come to know what a load of Crap AGW is......thats my "theory".

[BethesdaWX]

Over time greenhouse gases will overwelm natural factors. That does not mean however that natural. variability will not continue to occillate about the mean. Again, it is the mean that is being watched rather than the extremes. Not only is the scenario possible, it is an obvious feature of climate which everyone acknowledges.

You do realize Earths CO2 level, for most of its existance, was at least 600ppm, right? So, are you saying that natural factors have not influenced earth when CO2 was 800ppm, 1000ppm, 2000ppm, etc?

The quick Changes to Ice Ages/cold periods, whether it be through Orbital cycles, volcanoes, Oceans/melting, etc....... Did CO2 overwhelm that? It was the other way around.

CO2 is really, not that big a deal....such a small fraction of the atmosphere, with WV doing 95% of the work. No need to fret.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The IPCC and other "climate authorities" have repeatedly said that rising greenhouse gases will overwhelm any influence from solar or other natural climate factors. The scenario you describe is not within their realm of possibility.

The rising green house gases would be the trump card if we maintain status quo.

If your talking abut something major like eruptions and a dead sun then of course that would trumph green house gases..

If the sun goes dead for 100 years we may have bigger issues then 500PPM Co2 in 100 years. Or a massive eruption that could alter the earths climate.

but as it stands..these factors as well as the oceans will fluctuate temps back and forth while the background temp goes up because of the green house effect.

The question is basically this.

How much of an effect will the green house effect have on global temps?

I don't have an issue with someone who thinks the effect of this process may be slow or the other factors will have a major impact.

my issue is when people say pumping Co2 in the atmosphere isn't going to effect things.

[nzucker]

The IPCC will never acknowledge ocean cycles to have a major impact on long-term global temperatures, because they cannot, by the laws of physics, alter the long term energy balance of the earth which dictates the surface temperature.

The only plausible mechanism would be for ocean cycles to increase albedo, but I see little to no correlation at best and even if there were a slight increase in albedo the effect on global T would be negligible.

Ocean cycles will mask and exaggerate surface warming at times, but they will not change the physical imbalance that is causing our planet to steadily warm.

How does the long term energy balance of the earth dictate the surface temperature? In the 1950s and 1960s, the Earth should have been absorbing heat due to the addition of greenhouse gases, and yet global temperatures went down quite a bit.

If we have a -PDO/-ENSO regime and a neo-Dalton Minimum, we'd see even more of an effect than just the ocean cycles alone. Why mainstream climate scientists won't concede the possibility of flatlining or cooling of global temperatures, even though we seem to have reached a plateau in 1998, makes little sense to me. The calls for accelerating warming and devastating effects appear to fly in the face of what many meteorologists know about the importance of the PDO and the solar cycle, and what we've read in terms of anecdotal reports about winter conditions in Europe and North America during the Maunder and Dalton Minimum.

[skierinvermont]

How does the long term energy balance of the earth dictate the surface temperature?

Seriously?

If the earth is gaining more energy than it is releasing then the temperature rises by definition.

[nzucker]

Seriously?

If the earth is gaining more energy than it is releasing then the temperature rises by definition.

Then why didn't the temperature rise in the 1950s if the carbon dioxide emissions, which were increasing massively, were trapping heat?

The temperature of the surface, where the effects are most pronounced, does not have to rise because more heat is retained...it can go to the oceans too.

[ORH_wxman]

Except that the IPCC's short/medium range predictions (and assessments of warming from the 1970s to 2000s) have clearly and repeatedly IGNORED natural/oceanic cycle influences. You can claim they are not important in the long term, and maybe they aren't, but the IPCC and others have used warming statistics over the past 30 years to support further warming without acknowledging much or any influence by natural cycles.

This is a mistake.

Exactly. They are assuming the trend from 1975-2000 will just keep going status quo....of course there are already signs that it is not and those signs will likely become more apparent in the next decade.

[WeatherRusty]

This is a re post of one I made in another thread but seems appropriate here given the asked questions above:

If I could point out one very overlooked point when assessing the impact of solar variation on global temperatures...

Take a close look at the TSI graphics presented in the above arguments. You will notice that total TSI CHANGE is on the order of 0.3W/m^2 between ~1900 and ~2000. To put this change into perspective versus the anticipated change in forcing by one greenhouse gas, namely CO2, we note that for a doubling of CO2 we get 3.7W/^2.

We have +0.3W/m^2 change in solar irradiance versus 3.7W/m^2 per 2X CO2. Now, CO2 has not doubled since 1900. It is up by a bit less than 40% of one doubling. Combining all known forcings we get about +1.6W/m^2 of which only +0.3W/m^2 is of solar origin.

We all should acknowledge that these relatively small changes in solar radiance have played a large part in past episodes of climate change. This only emphasizes the problem we face when introducing a forcing several orders of magnitude greater than that of known solar forcing.

To complicate things further, the forcing applied by the enhanced greenhouse effect is 24 hours per day and over the entire curved surface area of the Earth. The solar value is measured against a one square meter flat plane rather than a curved surface. In other words, the +0.3W/m^2 increase in solar energy received at Earth's top of atmosphere is spread out over a curved surface which greatly reduces it's warming intensity. So much so that the change in intrinsic solar output would require +22W/m^2 to equal the warming effect of CO2's greenhouse impact at 3.7W/m^2 per doubling.

[LakeEffectKing]

Except that the IPCC's short/medium range predictions (and assessments of warming from the 1970s to 2000s) have clearly and repeatedly IGNORED natural/oceanic cycle influences. You can claim they are not important in the long term, and maybe they aren't, but the IPCC and others have used warming statistics over the past 30 years to support further warming without acknowledging much or any influence by natural cycles.

This is a mistake.

MONEY POST!! Every time we "hear" about impending gloom....my "political agenda" ears perk up big time.

The last year or two has placed the AGW'ers in a giant sieve....and it's shaking.. Some are filtering out back to reality, while many believers in the shoddy extreme conclusions are still bouncing around....holding on for dear life.

There is no doubt some evidence for the POTENTIAL to have CO2 increases (from both nature and man) to impact our global temperatures, as we certainly live in a relatively shallow atmosphere....but the science that seeks "truth" or "fact" or as close to as possible, is NOT being conducted very well in the AGW hypothesis case.....and those hanging out in the sieve, are becoming shaken, and reacting in an anticipated fashion.

[BethesdaWX]

MONEY POST!! Every time we "hear" about impending gloom....my "political agenda" ears perk up big time.

The last year or two has placed the AGW'ers in a giant sieve....and it's shaking.. Some are filtering out back to reality, while many believers in the shoddy extreme conclusions are still bouncing around....holding on for dear life.

There is no doubt some evidence for the POTENTIAL to have CO2 increases (from both nature and man) to impact our global temperatures, as we certainly live in a relatively shallow atmosphere....by the science that seeks "truth" or "fact" or as close to as possible, is NOT being conducted very well in the AGW hypothesis case.....and those hanging out in the sieve, are becoming shaken, and reacting in an anticipated fashion.

Agreed. I think its very logical for there to be a small amount of human enhanced warming. The ones who are getting nasty about this AGW thing are the ones who are most terrified.

[tacoman25]

This is a re post of one I made in another thread but seems appropriate here given the asked questions above:

If I could point out one very overlooked point when assessing the impact of solar variation on global temperatures...

Take a close look at the TSI graphics presented in the above arguments. You will notice that total TSI CHANGE is on the order of 0.3W/m^2 between ~1900 and ~2000. To put this change into perspective versus the anticipated change in forcing by one greenhouse gas, namely CO2, we note that for a doubling of CO2 we get 3.7W/^2.

We have +0.3W/m^2 change in solar irradiance versus 3.7W/m^2 per 2X CO2. Now, CO2 has not doubled since 1900. It is up by a bit less than 40% of one doubling. Combining all known forcings we get about +1.6W/m^2 of which only +0.3W/m^2 is of solar origin.

We all should acknowledge that these relatively small changes in solar radiance have played a large part in past episodes of climate change. This only emphasizes the problem we face when introducing a forcing several orders of magnitude greater than that of known solar forcing.

To complicate things further, the forcing applied by the enhanced greenhouse effect is 24 hours per day and over the entire curved surface area of the Earth. The solar value is measured against a one square meter flat plane rather than a curved surface. In other words, the +0.3W/m^2 increase in solar energy received at Earth's top of atmosphere is spread out over a curved surface which greatly reduces it's warming intensity. So much so that the change in intrinsic solar output would require +22W/m^2 to equal the warming effect of CO2's greenhouse impact at 3.7W/m^2 per doubling.

You are only illustrating my point, Rusty. Based on the assumed forcings above (with little thought to multi-decadal oceanic cycles), the IPCC assumes that CO2 is overwhelming everything else. But the observed evidence thus far does not support that. The warming from the 1970s to 2000s came during increased solar, warm PDO phase, and in the 1990s and 2000s, warming AMO phase. Now that these natural factors (except the AMO) have turned cooler, the warming has at the very least slowed.

[LakeEffectKing]

If C02 output caused the Earths mean temp to rise 1c over any period of time.

The Earths Oceans would have zero impact on the 1c rise..only an impact on changing the mean.

for instance:

if 1c is mean temp...

in 2020 becuase of oceans cycles that decade may end up at .7c and then the next decade may end up 1.3c.

no matter what the mean is 1c because Co2 output causes the Earth mean temp to rise.

there will be factors like the sun, oceans, volcanic activity and so on that will influence the natural balance of things..but as long as Co2 and other green house gases increase we will increase in temp long term regardless.

why on Earth is this so hard to see? What skiier and Rusty are saying makes complete logic sense.

I worry the dead sun and climate patterns will end up masking the greenhouse effect and how we perceive it. Becuase these factos might lower the overall temp for a few decades but come 30 years or so when we were at 450PPM and rising...those climate factors will reverse, at some point the sun will get active and our temperature will go up...the only difference between then and now is that we will have pushed the AGW needle higher and temps will end up higher then they are today.

That is very reasonable sound logic.

If someone's issue is with climate scientist and some guy named Hansen whatever...it doesn't take much to see what is happening.

Need not worry Friv.....the same experts that hooked you, are (or at least WERE, until they back peddled a bit) saying that solar influences are MININMAL relative to CO2 forcing (and no, AGW'ers, there was no proclaimation of ANY potential cooling for a few decades, just a few short years ago when the Sun decided to have it's say....so NOW we have the new term du jour..."pipeline".....where was the "possibility" of "pipeline" in Hansen's '88 graphs???? ...<crickets> There were none!!! It was all about fear, doom, and agenda back then....and now today the whole movement doesn't know what to embrace as a "travesty" of cooling/plateau......

[HSVWx]

Need not worry Friv.....the same experts that hooked you, are (or at least WERE, until they back peddled a bit) saying that solar influences are MININMAL relative to CO2 forcing (and no, AGW'ers, there was no proclaimation of ANY potential cooling for a few decades, just a few short years ago when the Sun decided to have it's say....so NOW we have the new term du jour..."pipeline".....where was the "possibility" of "pipeline" in Hansen's '88 graphs???? ...<crickets> There were none!!! It was all about fear, doom, and agenda back then....and now today the whole movement doesn't know what to embrace as a "travesty" of cooling/plateau......

Man, that was great! What a voice of reason

[LakeEffectKing]

Man, that was great! What a voice of reason

Look, I'm not discounting the general notion of POSSIBLE significant warming due to CO2.....the science of it's "greenhouse" abilities IS sound....my issue has always been about the feedbacks, and the skeptisim of exactly how much of the human portion of CO2 contribution is shown in the increases over the last century vs. the potential natural increase that would be expected during a warming of the planet via natural cycles....

But my battle is against those that belittle ANYONE who has even the slightest skeptisism (look what happened to Judith Curry).....that is NOT what science includes in it's path to conclusive theory. Take on ALL skeptics with the hypothesis....MAKE IT STRONGER THAT WAY!! Besmirching any and everyone who "dares" bring up other ideas/concepts or refutes the interpretation of data only weakens the hypothesis....as is being demonstrated. So IF there indeed IS a potential AGW crisis, the scientisist are not doing the science of it any favors.

[WeatherRusty]

You are only illustrating my point, Rusty. Based on the assumed forcings above (with little thought to multi-decadal oceanic cycles), the IPCC assumes that CO2 is overwhelming everything else. But the observed evidence thus far does not support that. The warming from the 1970s to 2000s came during increased solar, warm PDO phase, and in the 1990s and 2000s, warming AMO phase. Now that these natural factors (except the AMO) have turned cooler, the warming has at the very least slowed.

It's not an assumption. It's raw physics which you obviously are totally ignorant off. Sorry if that offends you but the reality, which you can not shake is what I have stated above. You may not accept basic physical realities as revealed by modern science, but that is not my problem..it is yours.

I couldn't give a rip about the politics of this. You guys obviously do. So have your pleasure at denying science if you will but the facts of physics don't give a rip about what you think. The world's environment will go to hell at the behest of a group of profiteers who don't give a damn or are just plain ignoramuses.

I lost my cool....a win for you!

[BethesdaWX]

It's not an assumption. It's raw physics which you obviously are totally ignorant off. Sorry if that offends you but the reality, which you can not shake is what I have stated above. You may not accept basic physical realities as revealed by modern science, but that is not my problem..it is yours.

I couldn't give a rip about the politics of this. You guys obviously do. So have your pleasure at denying science if you will but the facts of physics don't give a rip about what you think. The world's environment will go to hell at the behest of a group of profiteers who don't give a damn or are just plain ignoramuses.

I lost my cool....a win for you!

haha

please seperate physics of co2 & its heat trapping abilities from its interaction with 1000's of other forcings in place on this planet.

Physics......

With CO2 bearing such a small load on the overall GHG effect, & WV doing so much, you need to know how it will effect CO2, as it is the dominant GHG.

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

[LakeEffectKing]

It's not an assumption. It's raw physics which you obviously are totally ignorant off. Sorry if that offends you but the reality, which you can not shake is what I have stated above. You may not accept basic physical realities as revealed by modern science, but that is not my problem..it is yours.

I couldn't give a rip about the politics of this. You guys obviously do. So have your pleasure at denying science if you will but the facts of physics don't give a rip about what you think. The world's environment will go to hell at the behest of a group of profiteers who don't give a damn or are just plain ignoramuses.

I lost my cool....a win for you!

I profit nothing from this Rusty....and welcome back by the way!

Why then are there some factions of the warmists that DO (now) account for potential solar influences??? Isn't is plausible that either the hypotheses out there now regarding CR impacts on cloud physics, or some "other" unknown extraterrestrial forcings out there may demonstrate a more intuitive link to our climate?? Isn't there enough evidence in your mind to see the many correlations that exist with certain solar cycles, their lengths, and amplitudes to at least warrant further/deeper inquiry???

As a scientist who has been a "believer" many moons ago, I can attest to the will of fresh minds to seek acceptance within a pool of arrogant, self serving elites......the questions I had as a budding scientist in my junior year, were greeted with a smelly attitude of unworthiness.....and all the while carrying at the time a 3.4 gpa.....so there is your politics you are wanting to so shove aside....unfortunately politics exist and can dominate a "climate" ....socially speaking....

[WeatherRusty]

haha

please seperate physics of co2 & its heat trapping abilities from its interaction with 1000's of other forcings in place on this planet.

Physics......

With CO2 bearing such a small load on the overall GHG effect, & WV doing so much, you need to know how it will effect CO2, as it is the dominant GHG.

http://www.geocraft....house_data.html

I don't learn science from you or our your crackpot references. But maybe you may influence a few innocents who happen to pass through here.

[BethesdaWX]

I don't learn science from you or our your crackpot references. But maybe you may influence a few innocents who happen to pass through here.

Yet you refuse to post references to the "books" you read. News Flash.....you're a hypocrit!

At least I post actual science....not figures from books published in the 1970's....

Again, Physics of the CO2 molecule, & its interaction with the hundreds of thousands of forcings on this planet, are completely different things. CO2 is not the dominant GHG, and is not much of a factor in or current WP.

[WeatherRusty]

I profit nothing from this Rusty....and welcome back by the way!

Why then are there some fractions of the warmists that DO (now) account for potential solar influences??? Isn't is plausible that either the hypotheses out there now regarding CR impacts on cloud physics, or some "other" unknown extraterrestrial forcings out there may demonstrate a more intuitive link to our climate?? Isn't there enough evidence in your mind to see the many correlations that exist with certain solar cycles, their lengths, and amplitudes to at least warrant further/deeper inquiry???

As a scientist who has been a "believer" many moons ago, I can attest to the will of fresh minds to seek acceptance within a pool of arrogant, self serving elites......the questions I had as a budding scientist in my junior year, were greeted with a smelly attitude of unworthiness.....and all the while carrying at the time a 3.4 gpa.....so there is your politics you are wanting to so shove aside....unfortunately politics exist and can dominate a "climate" ....socially speaking....

My issue isn't so much with you. If I recall most of your skepticism arises from the uncertainty surrounding feedbacks. That's fine.. and where the proper emphasis should be placed on doubts of cataclysmic climate change. My issue is with those who will argue anything if it smacks of supporting the AGW hypothesis/theory.

To deny modern physics which calls for a warming of 1.2C per doubling of CO2 before feedbacks just angers me.

For the umpteenth time the Sun is a powerful driver of global climate. Always has been and always will be. Modern science informs us that so is greenhouse warming. The basic physics are simple and easily understood and form the basis behind all kinds of science from the thermodynamics of Earth's atmosphere to the chemistry, spectra, chemical makeup and surface temperature of distant stars and galaxies.

Is science tainted by politics? Of course, just like anything else. However the science I profess to is simple and apolitical. It has passed the test of time in many areas of science and is thus true also for the global warming issue.

I always harp away at what I consider the core issue of AGW, the basic physics that gives 3.7W/m^2 of forcing per doubling of CO2 and about 1.2C of warming at equilibrium. That much is just not debatable other than in tweaking things a bit. Beyond that, the feedbacks are more nebulous a concept. That is acknowledged in the Charney Sensitivity which is a best evidence derived estimate at 2-4.5C at equilibrium per doubling.

Whatever else happens along side the forcing by CO2 is important to consider, but that CO2 forcing remains nonetheless.

[BethesdaWX]

My issue isn't so much with you. If I recall most of your skepticism arises from the uncertainty surrounding feedbacks. That's fine.. and where the proper emphasis should be placed on doubts of cataclysmic climate change. My issue is with those who will argue anything if it smacks of supporting the AGW hypothesis/theory.

To deny modern physics which calls for a warming of 1.2C per doubling of CO2 before feedbacks just angers me.

For the umpteenth time the Sun is a powerful driver of global climate. Always has been and always will be. Modern science informs us that so is greenhouse warming. The basic physics are simple and easily understood and form the basis behind all kinds of science from the thermodynamics of Earth's atmosphere to the chemistry, spectra, chemical makeup and surface temperature of distant stars and galaxies.

Is science tainted by politics? Of course, just like anything else. However the science I profess to is simple and apolitical. It has passed the test of time in many areas of science and is thus true also for the global warming issue.

I always harp away at what I consider the core issue of AGW, the basic physics that gives 3.7W/m^2 of forcing per doubling of CO2 and about 1.2C of warming at equilibrium. That much is just not debatable other than in tweaking things a bit. Beyond that, the feedbacks are more nebulous a concept. That is acknowledged in the Charney Sensitivity which is a best evidence derived estimate at 2-4.5C at equilibrium per doubling.

Whatever else happens along side the forcing by CO2 is important to consider, but that CO2 forcing remains nonetheless.

Stop this sh*t with the Co2 Molecule, yes, we all know that CO2 traps heat... k?

Anyone who claims we fully understand our atmosphere, and how it works......enough to make even the slightest accurate predictions, is a nutcase, case closed.

[WeatherRusty]

Yet you refuse to post references to the "books" you read. News Flash.....you're a hypocrit!

At least I post actual science....not figures from books published in the 1970's....

Again, Physics of the CO2 molecule, & its interaction with the hundreds of thousands of forcings on this planet, are completely different things. CO2 is not the dominant GHG, and is not much of a factor in or current WP.

You don't know what your talking about. Books? What I post isn't hidden away in some dusty old book written by some individual. Go learn science from the ground up and you will come across everything I state in the mainstream literature and in text books everywhere.

You have much to learn concerning the greenhouse effect and the gases, particulates and clouds that make it happen. You call me a hypocrite. I'll call you ignorant.

[BethesdaWX]

You don't know what your talking about. Books? What I post isn't hidden away in some dusty old book written by some individual. Go learn science from the ground up and you will come across everything I state in the mainstream literature and in text books everywhere.

You have much to learn concerning the greenhouse effect and the gases, particulates and clouds that make it happen. You call me a hypocrite. I'll call you ignorant.

Show me these "formulas" through references, who wrote them, & most omportantly, how they've worked out so far....OK???? It shouldn't be a challenge for you, right?

Again, there is NO consensus, and until you understand that..... the yippidy Yap could be endless.

What am I gonna do woth you?

[nzucker]

You don't know what your talking about. Books? What I post isn't hidden away in some dusty old book written by some individual. Go learn science from the ground up and you will come across everything I state in the mainstream literature and in text books everywhere.

You have much to learn concerning the greenhouse effect and the gases, particulates and clouds that make it happen. You call me a hypocrite. I'll call you ignorant.

Why don't you give us some sources that you find pertinent to the discussion?

Also, if CO2 causes 3.7W/m2 of forcing, why hasn't the Earth warmed much at all since 1998? Where is all this heat going, and why are we to think it will suddenly start showing up in increased surface temperatures? Also, if the heat is being transferred to the deep ocean given that it's not showing up at the surface or at 700m OHC measurements, then why wouldn't we be led to think warming will be less significant, and less catastrophic, than modeled?

Finally, what does the forcing rate have to do with a drastic solar minimum coupled with a strong -PDO/-ENSO pattern? Do you know how much albedo could be affected by this pattern, and what reduction that would cause to the forcing equation? Also, how much do you believe we can constrain solar as a variable, given that TSI is probably not the only aspect and that the last significant minimum was 200 years ago in the pre-Industrial age?

[WeatherRusty]

Ok, I would say the most relevant physical formula are the Planck function and the Stephan-Bolzmann Law. You can see how these standards of physics are integreated into our understanding of the greenhouse effect and why CO2 is an important component of the greenhouse effect here: Chris Colose Blog

Planck's Law - Wiki

Stephan-Boltzmann Law

You can dig into the HITRAN database of radiation codes here: HITRAN DATABASE

From the above science can be derived that 3.7W/m^2 of forcing ensues from a doubling of CO2 in an atmosphere at Earth's density and composition and that that forcing results in 1.2C of surface warming at equilibrium..

[skierinvermont]

Glad to know I am not the only one who loses his cool with some of the more irrational and uninformed posts that go for 'great posts' around here.

Many of these internet sites such as WUWT have a certain disconnect from reality. If you crowd a room with enough idiots they can convince themselves from anything. They will become impervious to facts and reality.

To some extent that is what happens here. Throw around acronyms like PDO and TSI and try and sound smart and you have yourself an argument. Basic physics and logic aside.

That's what great about your posts Rusty.. they are based in the science from the ground up. I wish we saw more of that around here.

It would be nice if we could discuss some of the more uncertain aspects of science like cloud feedbacks. But we can't discuss any of that if we can't even establish basic facts like the surface temperature record or the forcing response per doubling of CO2.

[BethesdaWX]

Ok, I would say the most relevant physical formula are the Planck function and the Stephan-Bolzmann Law. You can see how these standards of physics are integreated into our understanding of the greenhouse effect and why CO2 is an important component of the greenhouse effect here: Chris Colose Blog

Planck's Law - Wiki

Stephan-Boltzmann Law

You can dig into the HITRAN database of radiation codes here: HITRAN DATABASE

From the above science can be derived that 3.7W/m^2 of forcing ensues from a doubling of CO2 in an atmosphere at Earth's density and composition and that that forcing results in 1.2C of surface warming at equilibrium..

What does this have to do with water vapor changes? One thing Mentioned, a "Control Knob", of the atmosphere, includes, but does not mention Temperature impact on CO2's heating "viscosity" in this sense.

Changes in Water Vapor would alter the cycle

http://pielkeclimate...6/05/05/co2h2o/

Your posts actually successfully disprove the science. If the forcings were distributed as progged in or "science", the results would show in our warming, being close to +0.9C right now if it were true......instead, we're +0.28C, well within realm.

[WeatherRusty]

Why don't you give us some sources that you find pertinent to the discussion?

Also, if CO2 causes 3.7W/m2 of forcing, why hasn't the Earth warmed much at all since 1998? Where is all this heat going, and why are we to think it will suddenly start showing up in increased surface temperatures? Also, if the heat is being transferred to the deep ocean given that it's not showing up at the surface or at 700m OHC measurements, then why wouldn't we be led to think warming will be less significant, and less catastrophic, than modeled?

Finally, what does the forcing rate have to do with a drastic solar minimum coupled with a strong -PDO/-ENSO pattern? Do you know how much albedo could be affected by this pattern, and what reduction that would cause to the forcing equation? Also, how much do you believe we can constrain solar as a variable, given that TSI is probably not the only aspect and that the last significant minimum was 200 years ago in the pre-Industrial age?

We know the Earth is absorbing energy rather than being at equilibrium with income solar radiation. Satellite measurements show this to be the case. We know the greenhouse effect is being enhanced in the wavelengths of CO2, Methane and water vapor from from both surface and satellite measurements.

We don't know for sure where all this absorbed energy is going because in accounting for ocean, atmosphere, land warming and the melting of global ice, we come up short. Thus Ken Trenberth's statement of a travesty that we don't yet have the technology to measure this with precision.

As stated, the average solar irradiance increased by about 0.3W/m^2 at the top of atmosphere over the course of the 20th century. This is sufficient to move temperature before feedback by about 0.1C.