So Is The Feedback Positive Or Negative?

Frescomexico wrote:[/b]You talk as if the "man-made CO2 power-up" has already happened. It has barely begun and we are just guessing with models where it is going and if it is dangerous.

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century

source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?

Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century

source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?

Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?

The industrial revolution began in the 1800s, not the 1900s!

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century

source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?

Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?

The industrial revolution began in the 1800s, not the 1900s!

Yes, technically true. A more accurate look at things would be to look at fossil fuel usage and the real spike starts in 1950

Frescomexico wrote:
The industrial revolution may have begun 200 years ago, but the rapid increase in man-made CO2 began right after World War II. Before that the increase was primarily natural, but it was still rapid. Why is that??

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century

source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?

Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?

Frescomexico wrote:

litesong wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:the increase in CO2 concentration cannot be totally due to man since evidently during the recovery from the last big ice age, the CO2 increased by itself.

Recovery from the ice age took thousands of years. man-made C02 power-up took 200+ years. & that is why AGW is dangerous. It is much more rapid that "natural" climate change, which is NOT weather.

You talk as if the "man-made CO2 power-up" has already happened. It has barely begun and we are just guessing with models where it is going and if it is dangerous.

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century

source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?

Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?

The industrial revolution began in the 1800s, not the 1900s!

Yes, technically true. A more accurate look at things would be to look at fossil fuel usage and the real spike starts in 1950

Or, even better, a graph comparing annual human output of CO2 and the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere:



Source: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

You can see that annual human emissions have been roughly twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1850. About half of the CO2 emitted by humans is absorbed by the land and oceans, while the other half accumulates in the atmosphere.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

The current episode of global warming is attributed to increasing emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into Earth's atmosphere. The global annual mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by more than 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, from 280 ppm, the level it had for the last 10,000 years leading up to the mid-18th century

source Wikipedia

Why do you find it so hard to do three seconds of googling?

Just wanted a number you think is good. So, is the above report a little "deceptive"?

The industrial revolution began in the 1800s, not the 1900s!

Yes, technically true. A more accurate look at things would be to look at fossil fuel usage and the real spike starts in 1950

Or, even better, a graph comparing annual human output of CO2 and the annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere:



Source: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

You can see that annual human emissions have been roughly twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1850. About half of the CO2 emitted by humans is absorbed by the land and oceans, while the other half accumulates in the atmosphere.

I suppose that most people would ask you WHY the CO2 emissions of man are growing so rapidly but the atmospheric CO2 isn't. But perhaps you need to ignore that little fact.

Surface Detail wrote:
Eh? I addressed exactly that point in my post. As I said, about half of the human emissions of CO2 are absorbed by the land and oceans. That's why, for example, the oceans are becoming more acidic.

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
The industrial revolution may have begun 200 years ago, but the rapid increase in man-made CO2 began right after World War II. Before that the increase was primarily natural, but it was still rapid. Why is that??

That the increase before World War II was due to primary natural sources is contrary to what I have read and have been lead to believe, and to be honest it does not seem credible. But giving you the benefit of the doubt please share with us, What is the mechanism for this natural rise?

And is there evidence for this?

Wake wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

litesong wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:the increase in CO2 concentration cannot be totally due to man since evidently during the recovery from the last big ice age, the CO2 increased by itself.

Recovery from the ice age took thousands of years. man-made C02 power-up took 200+ years. & that is why AGW is dangerous. It is much more rapid that "natural" climate change, which is NOT weather.

You talk as if the "man-made CO2 power-up" has already happened. It has barely begun and we are just guessing with models where it is going and if it is dangerous.

Also our True Believer friends here do not understand that geologic recovery of CO2 and temperatures are NOT accurate as ours would be if the numbers were being purposely counterfeited.

At the very best they are simply averages though the closer to modern times the less errors tend to be in the guesses.

As for our present information there are books written by people involved in high office in NOAA that say specifically that the numbers are pure garbage and that there IS no continued warming. That the pause is still in effect.

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/climategate-40-un-ipcc-pause-deniers.html

The take-up again in global warming was a trick performed by ASSUMING temperature data where none existed - the Arctic and Antarctic areas. Well it turns out we did have data after all that tells us a different story:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/climategate-40-un-ipcc-pause-deniers.html

As for the books to read:

https://www.amazon.com/Deliberate-Corruption-Climate-Science/dp/0988877740/ref=zg_bs_16053251_35?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6R46FEN1K0RTMZ898PPJ

https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession-Mark-Steyn-editor/dp/0986398330/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0986398330&pd_rd_r=3GNEW0XAC0P5ZYSTVPE3&pd_rd_w=rHwjO&pd_rd_wg=EB2GU&psc=1&refRID=3GNEW0XAC0P5ZYSTVPE3

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0037KM20G?psc=1

Frescomexico wrote:
OK, here's what I have gotten from the original subject "So is the feedback positive or negative", both through posts to this thread other searches:

The predominant opinion is that feedback on global temperature rise due to CO2 increase is that it is positive. This is primarily due to water vapor greenhouse effect. Because of this effect, the moderate temperature increase due to CO2 alone is leveraged to harmful levels. Ice core studies indicate that this phenomena accompanied past recoveries from ice ages. There is no doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and some (most?) of this is caused by mankind. Why this phenomenon also occurred after ice ages, without help from mankind is not clear to me.

There still remains a body of evidence that the feedback is negative, and/or that the present warming is caused by forcings unrelated to CO2. Some of this is the UAH satellite measurement of radiation entering and leaving the planet, the Milankovitch Cycles, and the "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback".

I guess this, in a nutshell, is why there still is a climate debate.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Ceist wrote:
e conspiracy sources, yet flat out deny/reject evidence-based facts and science.
And yes, of course climate change can cause both flooding and drought. Why would you think it wouldn't?

Because I'm not gullible.

Show me your "fact based science" that proves me wrong.

Frescomexico wrote:
With respect to the recent floods and droughts, these are examples of weather, not climate. The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
Eh? I addressed exactly that point in my post. As I said, about half of the human emissions of CO2 are absorbed by the land and oceans. That's why, for example, the oceans are becoming more acidic.

I can think of nothing more silly than to claim that the ocean is getting more acidic.

Firstly the oceans are a mildly alkaline solution. Any change towards a neutral solution would be referred to as neutralizing.

Secondly the ocean is already saturated with CO2 which is why as the atmosphere heats it "boils" CO2 into the atmosphere. Likewise cooling causes it to take up CO2.

If you remember your grade school chemistry the atmosphere was originally some 40% CO2. It was absorbed by the oceans and plants changed part of it into the 21% O2 presently in the atmosphere, and some small part into carbon deposits - coal, oil etc. We do not have conditions anywhere on the Earth today where carbon deposits can build up because plants cannot grow fast enough or lush enough. Instead they rot and are consumed by bacteria which convert it into atmospheric CO2 again. This is called the cycle of life.

Because some MORON says something doesn't mean you have to repeat it without even knowing what it's supposed to mean.

There ARE no natural "carbon sinks" that is what is so crazy about all the claims of the alarmists. How is the carbon consumption so damn high and the atmospheric CO2 changing so slowly. Why is the CO2 input into the atmosphere increasing exponentially and the increase in atmospheric CO2 a slow linear rise?

Suggestion - why hasn't ANYONE talked about the real carbon sink - PLANTS. Increasing plankton and algae?

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
The industrial revolution may have begun 200 years ago, but the rapid increase in man-made CO2 began right after World War II. Before that the increase was primarily natural, but it was still rapid. Why is that??

That the increase before World War II was due to primary natural sources is contrary to what I have read and have been lead to believe, and to be honest it does not seem credible. But giving you the benefit of the doubt please share with us, What is the mechanism for this natural rise?

And is there evidence for this?

Read the NASA info on CO2: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital signs/
Carbon-dioxide/

Ceist wrote:quote]

Hahahhah! Once more you go straight to mindlessly parroting a junkscience conspiracy blog by a non-scientist. The Hockeyschtick? Really? That's even worse than WUWT.

Even WUWT doesn't buy into a lot of THS ridiculous pseudoscience claims that the 'greenhouse' effect doesn't even exist.

Then you link to that NR hack Mark Steyn? Are you not even aware he is getting his arse sued off for defamation, and he's losing?

You just keep proving you are a desperate gullible scientifically illiterate ideologically driven blithering idiot.

Sorry mate, the science just isn't on your side. Neither is reality.

Wake wrote:
And once again you claim that a book written by one of the NOAA scientists IN CHARGE of the data at NOAA is "junk science" because the mention of it is on a site you don't like.

Please introduce yourself to me sometime. I'm just a harmless old man.

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:
And once again you claim that a book written by one of the NOAA scientists IN CHARGE of the data at NOAA is "junk science" because the mention of it is on a site you don't like.

Please introduce yourself to me sometime. I'm just a harmless old man.

What "book"?

Mark Steyn is not a NASA scientist, you idiot.

Here's Mark Steyn. Check out his 'groovy' pussycat song. Not.

http://www.therebel.media/video_mark_steyn_sings_a_song_for_halloween

Steyn is a music critic and an opinion writer on National Review Online (well he was, he's been sacked)

Steyn is so stupid he wrote a trashy hit piece book on Michael Mann while being sued by Mann for defamation for some false claims and accusations he made in a an earlier trashy article on National Review Online- just compounding the malicious intent part of defamation law. Needless to say, Mann is winning the case.

Tim Ball is also not a NASA scientist.

Ball is also not a 'climatologist' as he claims. He's a retired geographer, has not been a practicing scientist for years, never published much of any worth, and is known as paid promoter of oil and gas companies.

Funnily enough, Tim Ball actually tried to sue a scientist for defamation (who wrote that Ball had lied about his academic background and professional reputation) but Ball had to drop his suit because it was shown in court that Ball HAD lied about his academic background and professional reputation.

Tim Ball is a fringe nutter conspiracy theorist- a 'sky dragon slayer' who rejects basic physics. He was lead author in a nutty pseudoscience book "Slaying the Sky Dragon" with a handful of other nutters, most of whom weren't even scientists of any kind.

It's not surprising you blindly worship stupid people who like to lie.

Whats even funnier is that you didn't even read the HS conspiracy blog post you linked to as it didn't mention any 'books' by a NASA scientist.

Really? How thick are you? Thick as two short Plancks

You remind of Monty Pythons armless, legless idiotic Black Knight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Wake wrote:
And once again you claim that a book written by one of the NOAA scientists IN CHARGE of the data at NOAA is "junk science" because the mention of it is on a site you don't like.

Please introduce yourself to me sometime. I'm just a harmless old man.

What "book"?

Mark Steyn is not a NASA scientist, you idiot.

Here's Mark Steyn. Check out his 'groovy' pussycat song. Not.

http://www.therebel.media/video_mark_steyn_sings_a_song_for_halloween

Steyn is a music critic and an opinion writer on National Review Online (well he was, he's been sacked)

Steyn is so stupid he wrote a trashy hit piece book on Michael Mann while being sued by Mann for defamation for some false claims and accusations he made in a an earlier trashy article on National Review Online- just compounding the malicious intent part of defamation law. Needless to say, Mann is winning the case.

Tim Ball is also not a NASA scientist.

Ball is also not a 'climatologist' as he claims. He's a retired geographer, has not been a practicing scientist for years, never published much of any worth, and is known as paid promoter of oil and gas companies.

Funnily enough, Tim Ball actually tried to sue a scientist for defamation (who wrote that Ball had lied about his academic background and professional reputation) but Ball had to drop his suit because it was shown in court that Ball HAD lied about his academic background and professional reputation.

Tim Ball is a fringe nutter conspiracy theorist- a 'sky dragon slayer' who rejects basic physics. He was lead author in a nutty pseudoscience book "Slaying the Sky Dragon" with a handful of other nutters, most of whom weren't even scientists of any kind.

It's not surprising you blindly worship stupid people who like to lie.

Whats even funnier is that you didn't even read the HS conspiracy blog post you linked to as it didn't mention any 'books' by a NASA scientist.

Really? How thick are you? Thick as two short Plancks

You remind of Monty Pythons armless, legless idiotic Black Knight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

So without reading the book you have both discounted it and decreed it's author not only to be a liar but not a "climate scientist" despite the fact that there is no such science and all such are self identified. Interesting.

And yet the data NOAA used to calculate the global warming was deleted. And when data that was recovered was calculated it showed NO WARMING.

[Karlen] I have in my studies of temperatures also checked a number of areas using data from NASA. One, in my mind interesting study, includes all the 13 stations with long and decent continuously records north of 65 deg N.

The pattern is the same as for the Nordic countries. This diagram only shows 11-yr means of individual stations. A few stations such as Verhojans and Svalbard indicate a recent mean 11-year temperature increase up to 0.5 deg C above the late 1930s. Verhojansk, shows this increase but the temperature has after the peak temperature decreased with about 0.3 deg C during the last few years. The majority of the stations show that the recent temperatures are similar to the one in the late 1930s.

Wibjörn Karlén (born 26 August 1937 in Kristine, Kopparberg County, Sweden), Ph.D., is a professor emeritus of physical geography and quaternary geology at Stockholm University, Sweden. In an article which describes Karlén as a paleoclimatologist, he is quoted as saying: "One of the big problems with trying to determine long-term temperature changes, is that weather records only go back to about 1860. By relying on statistical reconstruction of the last 1000 years, using only the temperature patterns of the last 140 years instead of actual temperature readings, the IPCC report and Summary missed both a major cooling period as well as a significant warming trend during that millennium."[1] Karlén has also criticized the mainstream media for "spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate."[2] He was also named in a 2007 minority report of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee as one of 400 "prominent scientists" who were said to dispute global warming.[3] In 2010, he predicted that natural climate changes, caused to a large degree by the sun's activity, would more likely make the climate colder than warmer in the next decades.[4] He is a contributing author to the Fraser Institute 2007 Independent Summary for Policymakers. Karlén is a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

And you are a moron of the first water.

Ceist wrote: You're so conspiracy addled and brain dead, you can't even keep up with your own ridiculous lies.

Wake wrote:

Ceist wrote: You're so conspiracy addled and brain dead, you can't even keep up with your own ridiculous lies.

I must say that as the evidence builds up the tears start flowing from your eyes in a continuous stream.

I don't have to prove anything to you. I don't have to give you ANY references. If you do not wish to read the books I never recommended them to you in the first place and you're pissing all over yourself because more and more people have your number and that of people like you.

Cry me a river.

Ceist wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

spot wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
The industrial revolution may have begun 200 years ago, but the rapid increase in man-made CO2 began right after World War II. Before that the increase was primarily natural, but it was still rapid. Why is that??

That the increase before World War II was due to primary natural sources is contrary to what I have read and have been lead to believe, and to be honest it does not seem credible. But giving you the benefit of the doubt please share with us, What is the mechanism for this natural rise?

And is there evidence for this?

Read the NASA info on CO2: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital signs/
Carbon-dioxide/

That doesn't say anything about 1940s-1970s cooling. It's just an extremely basic overview.

Try this:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/

and

http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14537.pdf

or gosh.... the IPCC Working Group 1 'scientific basis' reports, where all these questions are addressed. Search for aerosols, sulphates, Mt Agung etc

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml

Seriously, why are you guys even pretending you have a clue about this topic and continue trying to make claims "that scientists don't know stuff" (projecting your own ignorance) if you haven't even read the IPCC technical reports and the cited literature? Or even read a freaken' basic University undergrad level textbook?

Ceist wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
OK, here's what I have gotten from the original subject "So is the feedback positive or negative", both through posts to this thread other searches:

The predominant opinion is that feedback on global temperature rise due to CO2 increase is that it is positive. This is primarily due to water vapor greenhouse effect. Because of this effect, the moderate temperature increase due to CO2 alone is leveraged to harmful levels. Ice core studies indicate that this phenomena accompanied past recoveries from ice ages. There is no doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and some (most?) of this is caused by mankind. Why this phenomenon also occurred after ice ages, without help from mankind is not clear to me.

There still remains a body of evidence that the feedback is negative, and/or that the present warming is caused by forcings unrelated to CO2. Some of this is the UAH satellite measurement of radiation entering and leaving the planet, the Milankovitch Cycles, and the "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback".

I guess this, in a nutshell, is why there still is a climate debate.

Your second paragraph is just plain wrong. Also using terms like "recovery" from an ice age shows you just repeat memes from non-science sources. Where is this "body of evidence that the feedback is negative"???

1. UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville) don't "measure radiation entering and leaving the planet". All UAH do is take the satellite measurements of radiance (brightness) of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere then apply their own algorithms, models, adjustments for satellite drift, stratospheric cooling etc to infer atmospheric temperatures (not surface). RSS are the other group who do this with the same satellite observations.

(UAH's Spencer and Christie have a long history of having to have their mistakes corrected by other scientists since the 1990's when they got the sign wrong for diurnal satellite drift/orbital decay and claimed the atmosphere was cooling not warming. They still have not published their paper on their version 6 datasets, despite using the data publicly for about 18mths. Mears and Wentz from RSS have more recently updated some of their datasets and published their paper on methods before releasing their data. http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated )


Perhaps you should look up "earth's energy budget" and read some of the papers
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=earth%27s+energy+budget&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Or read about these projects:

Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES)
Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE)


2. The warming since the pre-industrial era has nothing to do with the Milankovich cycles. The timing is (~22k, 40k, 100k) is just way too long. Here's a really brief summary.

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/cryo/cryosphere/topics/ice_age/compare.html
Besides, where the earth currently is in the Milankovitch cycles, we should be cooling, not warming.

3. Shows once again that you haven't even read the IPCC reports. See chapter 8 of the AR5 WG1 science basis report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Did you just see that paper mentioned on a blog or something and decided to chuck it in here without even reading it?

Frescomexico wrote:

Ceist wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:
OK, here's what I have gotten from the original subject "So is the feedback positive or negative", both through posts to this thread other searches:

The predominant opinion is that feedback on global temperature rise due to CO2 increase is that it is positive. This is primarily due to water vapor greenhouse effect. Because of this effect, the moderate temperature increase due to CO2 alone is leveraged to harmful levels. Ice core studies indicate that this phenomena accompanied past recoveries from ice ages. There is no doubt that CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing and some (most?) of this is caused by mankind. Why this phenomenon also occurred after ice ages, without help from mankind is not clear to me.

There still remains a body of evidence that the feedback is negative, and/or that the present warming is caused by forcings unrelated to CO2. Some of this is the UAH satellite measurement of radiation entering and leaving the planet, the Milankovitch Cycles, and the "Reduction of Climate Sensitivity to Solar Forcing due to Stratospheric Ozone Feedback".

I guess this, in a nutshell, is why there still is a climate debate.

Your second paragraph is just plain wrong. Also using terms like "recovery" from an ice age shows you just repeat memes from non-science sources. Where is this "body of evidence that the feedback is negative"???

1. UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville) don't "measure radiation entering and leaving the planet". All UAH do is take the satellite measurements of radiance (brightness) of oxygen molecules in the atmosphere then apply their own algorithms, models, adjustments for satellite drift, stratospheric cooling etc to infer atmospheric temperatures (not surface). RSS are the other group who do this with the same satellite observations.

(UAH's Spencer and Christie have a long history of having to have their mistakes corrected by other scientists since the 1990's when they got the sign wrong for diurnal satellite drift/orbital decay and claimed the atmosphere was cooling not warming. They still have not published their paper on their version 6 datasets, despite using the data publicly for about 18mths. Mears and Wentz from RSS have more recently updated some of their datasets and published their paper on methods before releasing their data. http://www.remss.com/blog/RSS-TMT-updated )


Perhaps you should look up "earth's energy budget" and read some of the papers
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=earth%27s+energy+budget&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

Or read about these projects:

Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System (CERES)
Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE)


2. The warming since the pre-industrial era has nothing to do with the Milankovich cycles. The timing is (~22k, 40k, 100k) is just way too long. Here's a really brief summary.

http://earth.rice.edu/mtpe/cryo/cryosphere/topics/ice_age/compare.html
Besides, where the earth currently is in the Milankovitch cycles, we should be cooling, not warming.

3. Shows once again that you haven't even read the IPCC reports. See chapter 8 of the AR5 WG1 science basis report:

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Did you just see that paper mentioned on a blog or something and decided to chuck it in here without even reading it?

1. Dr. Spencer seems to think he can measure radiation leaving the planet as witnessed in his statement: "That number (3.3) thus represents the magic boundary between positive and negative feedback. If satellites measure more than 3.3 Watts per square meter given off by the Earth per degree of global warming, that is evidence of negative feedback. If the number is less than 3.3, that is positive feedback. If the number reached zero, that would correspond to a borderline unstable climate system. The 20 climate models tracked by the IPCC have feedbacks ranging from about 0.9 to 1.9 (all corresponding to positive feedback since they are less than 3.3)."

Also almost all scientists have a history of having their mistakes corrected by other scientists. Nobody is perfect. That is how science progresses.

2. The warming since the pre-industrial era probably is due to CO2's greenhouse effect. That effect is not being contested. It is the feedback amount and direction that is in question.

3. Your right on this one. Feels good, doesn't it?

Ceist wrote:
Doesn't matter anyway. I'm too busy with work and study for the next few weeks to waste time on this little forum playing with the handful of resident nutty science deniers who are too lazy, close minded and conspiracy addicted to learn anything, or do any research or fact-checking before making ludicrous scientifically illiterate claims parroted from junkscience blogs.

Leitwolf wrote:
I would just want to note, maybe I will write something more explicitely on this at a later point, that the most dominant greenhouse gas (and feedback factor) is water vapor. It increases with temperature, and thus is not only a multiplicator with regard to global warming, it also most significant in tropical regions. It there, where it drives up the greenhouse effect, in this also the place, where the greenhouse effect is at its lowest!!!

Surface Detail wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
I would just want to note, maybe I will write something more explicitely on this at a later point, that the most dominant greenhouse gas (and feedback factor) is water vapor. It increases with temperature, and thus is not only a multiplicator with regard to global warming, it also most significant in tropical regions. It there, where it drives up the greenhouse effect, in this also the place, where the greenhouse effect is at its lowest!!!

The greenhouse effect is indeed strongest in the tropics. The increase in the greenhouse effect over the last decades is, however, strongest at the poles.

Frescomexico wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
I would just want to note, maybe I will write something more explicitely on this at a later point, that the most dominant greenhouse gas (and feedback factor) is water vapor. It increases with temperature, and thus is not only a multiplicator with regard to global warming, it also most significant in tropical regions. It there, where it drives up the greenhouse effect, in this also the place, where the greenhouse effect is at its lowest!!!

The greenhouse effect is indeed strongest in the tropics. The increase in the greenhouse effect over the last decades is, however, strongest at the poles.

That is very interesting. How is the location of the greenhouse effect, and the increase in greenhouse effect pinpointed?

Surface Detail wrote:
That is very interesting. How is the location of the greenhouse effect, and the increase in greenhouse effect pinpointed?

Wake wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
The greenhouse effect due to water vapour is, obviously, strongest where there is the most water vapour. If the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases, as is the case in the Arctic, then the greenhouse effect that it causes will also increase. It's not rocket science.

Again really showing your stuff

https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/forecast/modelclimate/arctic-archipelago_canada_9062327

Leitwolf wrote:
Note to myself: do not post when drunk!

Ok .. to straighten this up: the tropics should naturally be the warmest spot on earth, because they receive more solar radiation than any other place. So far it is a no-brainer.
Now we know that as a perfect black body earth should have 280°K on average, and it is about 8-9°K warmer than this. As earth is a sphere we divide the amount of radiation it would receive as a disc by 4, because obviously a sphere has 4times the surface of a disc with the same diameter. So it is 1366/4 = 341.5.
On the equator however every m2 receives roughly 1366W/PI = 435W/m2. Skipping the complicated formulas, we can derive (435/341.5)^0.25 * 280 = 297.5°K, or 24.5°C.
Average equatorial temperatures are about 27°C or so? So anyway we put it, the GHE is in fact at its lowest where it should be at its highest, if water vapor was the most significant greenhouse gas. In science we call that a falsification.

Leitwolf wrote:
Note to myself: do not post when drunk!

Ok .. to straighten this up: the tropics should naturally be the warmest spot on earth, because they receive more solar radiation than any other place. So far it is a no-brainer.
Now we know that as a perfect black body earth should have 280°K on average, and it is about 8-9°K warmer than this. As earth is a sphere we divide the amount of radiation it would receive as a disc by 4, because obviously a sphere has 4times the surface of a disc with the same diameter. So it is 1366/4 = 341.5.
On the equator however every m2 receives roughly 1366W/PI = 435W/m2. Skipping the complicated formulas, we can derive (435/341.5)^0.25 * 280 = 297.5°K, or 24.5°C.
Average equatorial temperatures are about 27°C or so? So anyway we put it, the GHE is in fact at its lowest where it should be at its highest, if water vapor was the most significant greenhouse gas. In science we call that a falsification.

Surface Detail wrote:

Frescomexico wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Leitwolf wrote:
I would just want to note, maybe I will write something more explicitely on this at a later point, that the most dominant greenhouse gas (and feedback factor) is water vapor. It increases with temperature, and thus is not only a multiplicator with regard to global warming, it also most significant in tropical regions. It there, where it drives up the greenhouse effect, in this also the place, where the greenhouse effect is at its lowest!!!

The greenhouse effect is indeed strongest in the tropics. The increase in the greenhouse effect over the last decades is, however, strongest at the poles.

That is very interesting. How is the location of the greenhouse effect, and the increase in greenhouse effect pinpointed?

The greenhouse effect due to water vapour is, obviously, strongest where there is the most water vapour. If the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere increases, as is the case in the Arctic, then the greenhouse effect that it causes will also increase. It's not rocket science.