Remember me
▼ Content

The Data Mine



Page 4 of 7<<<23456>>>
24-10-2015 12:56
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - here's a 2009 updated version of the Kiehl/Trenberth diagram. These values are all globally and annually averaged, with the "net absorbed" part of 0.9 W/m2 due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.

I haven't had time to work the numbers yet. Let me know if you find anything wrong. Please be specific if you do.



If you are familure with this why do you presume that there will be some sort of catastrophic change into a Venus scenario?

What sensativity do you ascribe to what gasses? And why are your numbers different to the IPCC's?

Once a certain spectrum of IR has been fully absorbed it cannot happen again. So there is a very finite limit to the maximum amount of greenhouse effectthere can possibly be. How do you over come this in your modeling?

This is why a simple line on a graph projections is drivel.
24-10-2015 15:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - here's a 2009 updated version of the Kiehl/Trenberth diagram. These values are all globally and annually averaged, with the "net absorbed" part of 0.9 W/m2 due to the enhanced greenhouse effect.

I haven't had time to work the numbers yet. Let me know if you find anything wrong. Please be specific if you do.



If you are familure with this why do you presume that there will be some sort of catastrophic change into a Venus scenario?

What sensativity do you ascribe to what gasses? And why are your numbers different to the IPCC's?

Once a certain spectrum of IR has been fully absorbed it cannot happen again. So there is a very finite limit to the maximum amount of greenhouse effectthere can possibly be. How do you over come this in your modeling?

This is why a simple line on a graph projections is drivel.


Tim, I'm not sure what you mean by your question "What sensativity do you ascribe to what gasses?"

Sensitivity of what gases to what? Can you explain more please?



Edited on 24-10-2015 15:44
24-10-2015 15:41
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim,

The 'numbers' from the 2009 Trenberth and Kiehl Energy Balance illustration trafn posted were based on data during the period 2000 to 2004. You can read their paper here if you want to know more about the sources.

Earth's Global Energy Budget

There is a more recent 2014 paper from Trenberth and Fasullo here:

Earth's Energy Imbalance

The IPCC AR5 WGI (Chapter 2, pg 181) report uses an Energy Balance illustration (see below) based on Wild et al 2013 who use data from a broader range of sources and over the period from 2000 to 2010/



You can find a copy of Wild et al 2013 here where they discuss the sources of data they use:

The global energy balance from a surface perspective



Edited on 24-10-2015 15:44
24-10-2015 15:42
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim,

As for your statement about a 'finite limit' of saturation, please read 'Saturation Fallacies' on page 37 of this 2011 paper:

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature

I agree with you when you say 'This is why a simple line on a graph projections is drivel." An example of that kind of 'drivel' would be someone using a 'graph' from Roy Spencer's blog or from the Cato Institute or from a Lord Monckton post on the WUWT conspiracy blog that only shows UAH or RSS satellite data of the lower troposphere since 97/98 (an anomalously high el Nino year, hence a dishonest cherry-picked starting date), deliberately ignoring all other evidence and data, and falsely claiming that "there has been no global warming in 18 years". Do you agree?



Edited on 24-10-2015 15:48
24-10-2015 16:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:
Tim,

The 'numbers' from the 2009 Trenberth and Kiehl Energy Balance illustration trafn posted were based on data during the period 2000 to 2004. You can read their paper here if you want to know more about the sources.

Earth's Global Energy Budget

There is a more recent 2014 paper from Trenberth and Fasullo here:

Earth's Energy Imbalance

The IPCC AR5 WGI (Chapter 2, pg 181) report uses an Energy Balance illustration (see below) based on Wild et al 2013 who use data from a broader range of sources and over the period from 2000 to 2010/



You can find a copy of Wild et al 2013 here where they discuss the sources of data they use:

The global energy balance from a surface perspective


Yes, I am familure with them.

I am asking if he disagreed with them. Since he has left due to such direct challenging questioning I will never know.

Do you find anything upsetting about the numbers? If so what?
24-10-2015 16:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:
Tim,


I agree with you when you say 'This is why a simple line on a graph projections is drivel." An example of that kind of 'drivel' would be someone using a 'graph' from Roy Spencer's blog or from the Cato Institute or from a Lord Monckton post on the WUWT conspiracy blog that only shows UAH or RSS satellite data of the lower troposphere since 97/98 (an anomalously high el Nino year, hence a dishonest cherry-picked starting date), deliberately ignoring all other evidence and data, and falsely claiming that "there has been no global warming in 18 years". Do you agree?


No. I think that using widely acepted data sources to show what the world's climate has been doing from a certain point is reasonable.

If it is the 1998 date you are upset about then again my answer is no. This is because it was in 1998 that the IPCC's 4th report came out which predicted the rise in temperature that has not happened. That is why it is OK to use that date.

It is also OK to use that date because since then there has not been any rise in global temperature. I am aware that the other data set (HARCuT, no but something like it) shows a very slight rise. This rise is within the error level of the data so just as it would be wrong to say that the RSS data shows a drop it is wrong to say that it shows a rise.

If you want to say that there has been a rise since 1970, then yes there has been. But since 1998 ther ehas not been.

Edited on 24-10-2015 16:11
24-10-2015 16:15
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim,

The 'numbers' from the 2009 Trenberth and Kiehl Energy Balance illustration trafn posted were based on data during the period 2000 to 2004. You can read their paper here if you want to know more about the sources.

Earth's Global Energy Budget

There is a more recent 2014 paper from Trenberth and Fasullo here:

Earth's Energy Imbalance

The IPCC AR5 WGI (Chapter 2, pg 181) report uses an Energy Balance illustration (see below) based on Wild et al 2013 who use data from a broader range of sources and over the period from 2000 to 2010/



You can find a copy of Wild et al 2013 here where they discuss the sources of data they use:

The global energy balance from a surface perspective


Yes, I am familure with them.

I am asking if he disagreed with them.

Do you find anything upsetting about the numbers? If so what?


Well no, you asked why the 'numbers' in the Trenberth and Kiehl 2009 energy balance illustration were different from the IPCCs, so one would naturally assume that you hadn't read either of the research papers the 'numbers' were based on because it's rather clear in the papers why they are different.



Edited on 24-10-2015 16:16
24-10-2015 16:20
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:
Tim,

As for your statement about a 'finite limit' of saturation, please read 'Saturation Fallacies' on page 37 of this 2011 paper:

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature


From the blue sections on pages 36 and 37;

The graph showing the IR emitted by earth has the squiggly lines from the surface to a high altitude. From 1 atmosphere down to 0.12(ish)bar.

It then, on page 37 says;

A related saturation fallacy, also popularized by Ångström, is
that CO could have no influence on radiation balance because
water vapor already absorbs all the IR that CO would absorb.
Earth's very moist, near-surface tropical atmosphere is nearly
saturated in that sense, but the flaw in Ångström's argument is
that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO
escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the
atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. Also, as
displayed in the inset to figure 2, the individual water-vapor
and CO spectral lines interleave but do not totally overlap. That
structure limits the competition between CO and water vapor.


Well, the graph says otherwise. The graph says that heat energy is escaping directly from the surface of the rocky earth to space.

Also, if all the heat that could be stopped by CO2 was so done that would allow some heat to get out. Whilst this is a silly extreme idea it is still the case that there would be still a lot of availible heat loss.

I should further explain that my origonal point was to counter tanfn's(?) idea the the world is about to boil. If you are happy to proceed on the basis of the IPCC's numbers, so am I.
24-10-2015 17:06
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim,


I agree with you when you say 'This is why a simple line on a graph projections is drivel." An example of that kind of 'drivel' would be someone using a 'graph' from Roy Spencer's blog or from the Cato Institute or from a Lord Monckton post on the WUWT conspiracy blog that only shows UAH or RSS satellite data of the lower troposphere since 97/98 (an anomalously high el Nino year, hence a dishonest cherry-picked starting date), deliberately ignoring all other evidence and data, and falsely claiming that "there has been no global warming in 18 years". Do you agree?


No. I think that using widely acepted data sources to show what the world's climate has been doing from a certain point is reasonable.

If it is the 1998 date you are upset about then again my answer is no. This is because it was in 1998 that the IPCC's 4th report came out which predicted the rise in temperature that has not happened. That is why it is OK to use that date.

It is also OK to use that date because since then there has not been any rise in global temperature. I am aware that the other data set (HARCuT, no but something like it) shows a very slight rise. This rise is within the error level of the data so just as it would be wrong to say that the RSS data shows a drop it is wrong to say that it shows a rise.

If you want to say that there has been a rise since 1970, then yes there has been. But since 1998 ther ehas not been.


I'm sorry Tim, your post sounds rather confused and shows a very strong confirmation bias to me. I'm afraid that whatever your sources of 'information' are, you have been sadly misinformed because you are repeating the sort of misinformation found on blogs and in the tabloid press.

Surely you are not saying it's perfectly okay to misrepresent what's been happening with the whole earth by cherry-picking a short period from a cherry-picked start date from one source about one aspect (lower troposphere) of the earth and completely ignore all the other evidence like: surface temperatures, ocean surface and content temperatures, stratospheric temperatures, spectrographic data showing an increase in downwelling infrared radiation, sea-level rise, arctic ice melt, glacier melt, ocean pH level changes etc etc? But it seems you are saying that.

If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, stick with the science. Read a few textbooks on the foundational science, use valid academic sources, be very sceptical of non-evidence based pseudoscience opinions from conspiracy blogs, and be aware of confirmation bias - and you'll be much better informed.



Edited on 24-10-2015 17:11
24-10-2015 18:48
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim,

As for your statement about a 'finite limit' of saturation, please read 'Saturation Fallacies' on page 37 of this 2011 paper:

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature


From the blue sections on pages 36 and 37;

The graph showing the IR emitted by earth has the squiggly lines from the surface to a high altitude. From 1 atmosphere down to 0.12(ish)bar.

It then, on page 37 says;

A related saturation fallacy, also popularized by Ångström, is
that CO could have no influence on radiation balance because
water vapor already absorbs all the IR that CO would absorb.
Earth's very moist, near-surface tropical atmosphere is nearly
saturated in that sense, but the flaw in Ångström's argument is
that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO
escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the
atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. Also, as
displayed in the inset to figure 2, the individual water-vapor
and CO spectral lines interleave but do not totally overlap. That
structure limits the competition between CO and water vapor.


Well, the graph says otherwise. The graph says that heat energy is escaping directly from the surface of the rocky earth to space.

Also, if all the heat that could be stopped by CO2 was so done that would allow some heat to get out. Whilst this is a silly extreme idea it is still the case that there would be still a lot of availible heat loss.

I should further explain that my origonal point was to counter tanfn's(?) idea the the world is about to boil. If you are happy to proceed on the basis of the IPCC's numbers, so am I.


Tim, did it ever cross your mind when you think something in published papers (and textbooks) written by experts in the field of atmospheric physics is 'wrong', it might be worth first questioning if your understanding of the physics involved is wrong? Rather than assume you know more than they do and that they are wrong?




Edited on 24-10-2015 18:52
24-10-2015 19:45
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim,


I agree with you when you say 'This is why a simple line on a graph projections is drivel." An example of that kind of 'drivel' would be someone using a 'graph' from Roy Spencer's blog or from the Cato Institute or from a Lord Monckton post on the WUWT conspiracy blog that only shows UAH or RSS satellite data of the lower troposphere since 97/98 (an anomalously high el Nino year, hence a dishonest cherry-picked starting date), deliberately ignoring all other evidence and data, and falsely claiming that "there has been no global warming in 18 years". Do you agree?


No. I think that using widely acepted data sources to show what the world's climate has been doing from a certain point is reasonable.

If it is the 1998 date you are upset about then again my answer is no. This is because it was in 1998 that the IPCC's 4th report came out which predicted the rise in temperature that has not happened. That is why it is OK to use that date.

It is also OK to use that date because since then there has not been any rise in global temperature. I am aware that the other data set (HARCuT, no but something like it) shows a very slight rise. This rise is within the error level of the data so just as it would be wrong to say that the RSS data shows a drop it is wrong to say that it shows a rise.

If you want to say that there has been a rise since 1970, then yes there has been. But since 1998 ther ehas not been.


I'm sorry Tim, your post sounds rather confused and shows a very strong confirmation bias to me. I'm afraid that whatever your sources of 'information' are, you have been sadly misinformed because you are repeating the sort of misinformation found on blogs and in the tabloid press.

Surely you are not saying it's perfectly okay to misrepresent what's been happening with the whole earth by cherry-picking a short period from a cherry-picked start date from one source about one aspect (lower troposphere) of the earth and completely ignore all the other evidence like: surface temperatures, ocean surface and content temperatures, stratospheric temperatures, spectrographic data showing an increase in downwelling infrared radiation, sea-level rise, arctic ice melt, glacier melt, ocean pH level changes etc etc? But it seems you are saying that.

If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, stick with the science. Read a few textbooks on the foundational science, use valid academic sources, be very sceptical of non-evidence based pseudoscience opinions from conspiracy blogs, and be aware of confirmation bias - and you'll be much better informed.


The data sets of the lower troposphere are for the surface temperature. That is the temperature as measured just above the ground by weather staions and the like. All over the earth.

The point of saying that it has not warmed since 1998 is that this is true.

That it warmed between 1970 and 1998 is also true.

I fail to see why you have trouble with these factual statements.

The evidence for these statements is from the data sets produced by the respected bodies used by the IPCC. That they don't supply the numbers you would like them to is unlucky.
24-10-2015 19:46
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim,

As for your statement about a 'finite limit' of saturation, please read 'Saturation Fallacies' on page 37 of this 2011 paper:

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature


From the blue sections on pages 36 and 37;

The graph showing the IR emitted by earth has the squiggly lines from the surface to a high altitude. From 1 atmosphere down to 0.12(ish)bar.

It then, on page 37 says;

A related saturation fallacy, also popularized by Ångström, is
that CO could have no influence on radiation balance because
water vapor already absorbs all the IR that CO would absorb.
Earth's very moist, near-surface tropical atmosphere is nearly
saturated in that sense, but the flaw in Ångström's argument is
that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO
escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the
atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. Also, as
displayed in the inset to figure 2, the individual water-vapor
and CO spectral lines interleave but do not totally overlap. That
structure limits the competition between CO and water vapor.


Well, the graph says otherwise. The graph says that heat energy is escaping directly from the surface of the rocky earth to space.

Also, if all the heat that could be stopped by CO2 was so done that would allow some heat to get out. Whilst this is a silly extreme idea it is still the case that there would be still a lot of availible heat loss.

I should further explain that my origonal point was to counter tanfn's(?) idea the the world is about to boil. If you are happy to proceed on the basis of the IPCC's numbers, so am I.


Tim, did it ever cross your mind when you think something in published papers (and textbooks) written by experts in the field of atmospheric physics is 'wrong', it might be worth first questioning if your understanding of the physics involved is wrong? Rather than assume you know more than they do and that they are wrong?


Is it your position that the IPCC's figers are underestimates or are they about right or what?

Please support your view with some science so that I can understand why you think that.
24-10-2015 20:13
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:Tim, did it ever cross your mind when you think something in published papers (and textbooks) written by experts in the field of atmospheric physics is 'wrong', it might be worth first questioning if your understanding of the physics involved is wrong? Rather than assume you know more than they do and that they are wrong?


You posted a link to a paper where another paper was being rubbished.

I looked at it and found that it did not hang together, as far as I can tell.

Please explain the science or accept that this area is beyond you.

It should be very easy to test if CO2 can stop all the IR from getting out of the earth to space. Even I could do that. But then I'm sure that such direct physical experimentation would not be your style.
24-10-2015 20:15
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:Is it your position that the IPCC's figers are underestimates or are they about right or what?

Please support your view with some science so that I can understand why you think that.
The IPCC reports are a summary of all the available research by experts in many different fields who have spent many years studying the foundational science in those fields, performed the research and presented that research to be challenged by peer-review. My expertise is not in any of the fields of earth sciences, but in a different field of science. So my non-expert opinion outside my own field about whether "the IPCC's figures are underestimates or about right or what" is rather irrelevant.

I'm more interested in challenging people with no background in earth sciences who claim that experts in the fields involved in climate science are "wrong", about why they believe their evidence-free non-expert non-science opinions should be taken seriously.

But you didn't answer some of my questions. Please support your views with some valid science. That means - cite research that supports your views.

Please tell me why I should accept Tim the Plumbers opinions about the atmospheric physics involved in the enhanced 'greenhouse' effect, for example, rather than the informed opinions of atmospheric physicists and other earth scientists who have done the research.



Edited on 24-10-2015 20:32
24-10-2015 20:35
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim,


I agree with you when you say 'This is why a simple line on a graph projections is drivel." An example of that kind of 'drivel' would be someone using a 'graph' from Roy Spencer's blog or from the Cato Institute or from a Lord Monckton post on the WUWT conspiracy blog that only shows UAH or RSS satellite data of the lower troposphere since 97/98 (an anomalously high el Nino year, hence a dishonest cherry-picked starting date), deliberately ignoring all other evidence and data, and falsely claiming that "there has been no global warming in 18 years". Do you agree?


No. I think that using widely acepted data sources to show what the world's climate has been doing from a certain point is reasonable.

If it is the 1998 date you are upset about then again my answer is no. This is because it was in 1998 that the IPCC's 4th report came out which predicted the rise in temperature that has not happened. That is why it is OK to use that date.

It is also OK to use that date because since then there has not been any rise in global temperature. I am aware that the other data set (HARCuT, no but something like it) shows a very slight rise. This rise is within the error level of the data so just as it would be wrong to say that the RSS data shows a drop it is wrong to say that it shows a rise.

If you want to say that there has been a rise since 1970, then yes there has been. But since 1998 ther ehas not been.


I'm sorry Tim, your post sounds rather confused and shows a very strong confirmation bias to me. I'm afraid that whatever your sources of 'information' are, you have been sadly misinformed because you are repeating the sort of misinformation found on blogs and in the tabloid press.

Surely you are not saying it's perfectly okay to misrepresent what's been happening with the whole earth by cherry-picking a short period from a cherry-picked start date from one source about one aspect (lower troposphere) of the earth and completely ignore all the other evidence like: surface temperatures, ocean surface and content temperatures, stratospheric temperatures, spectrographic data showing an increase in downwelling infrared radiation, sea-level rise, arctic ice melt, glacier melt, ocean pH level changes etc etc? But it seems you are saying that.

If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, stick with the science. Read a few textbooks on the foundational science, use valid academic sources, be very sceptical of non-evidence based pseudoscience opinions from conspiracy blogs, and be aware of confirmation bias - and you'll be much better informed.


The data sets of the lower troposphere are for the surface temperature. That is the temperature as measured just above the ground by weather staions and the like. All over the earth.

The point of saying that it has not warmed since 1998 is that this is true.

That it warmed between 1970 and 1998 is also true.

I fail to see why you have trouble with these factual statements.

The evidence for these statements is from the data sets produced by the respected bodies used by the IPCC. That they don't supply the numbers you would like them to is unlucky.


Because they aren't factual statements.


24-10-2015 20:38
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Is it your position that the IPCC's figers are underestimates or are they about right or what?

Please support your view with some science so that I can understand why you think that.
The IPCC reports are a summary of all the available research by experts in many different fields who have spent many years studying the foundational science in those fields, performed the research and presented that research to be challenged by peer-review. My expertise is not in any of the fields of earth sciences, but in a different field of science. So my non-expert opinion outside my own field about whether "the IPCC's figures are underestimates or about right or what" is rather irrelevant.

I'm more interested in challenging people with no background in earth sciences who claim that experts in the fields involved in climate science are "wrong", about why they believe their evidence-free non-expert non-science opinions should be taken seriously.

But you didn't answer some of my questions. Please support your views with some valid science. That means - cite research that supports your views.

Please tell me why I should accept Tim the Plumbers opinions about the atmospheric physics involved in the enhanced 'greenhouse' effect, for example, rather than the informed opinions of atmospheric physicists and other earth scientists who have done the research.


I am not challenging the IPCC's sumary. Not the numbers at least.

I do not have a particularly strong CV to be able to challenge the science in the paper you linked to but I can ask questions.

There are 2 opinions, the origionla one and the one put forward in the paper you like. I think the credentials of the first are at least as good as the second. The fact that I can find an obvious flaw in it says it all.
24-10-2015 21:14
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Ceist wrote: An example of that kind of 'drivel' would be [..] deliberately ignoring all other evidence and data,

I see you're still preaching about "all the supporting evidence." Dismissed.

Ceist wrote:Well no, you asked why the 'numbers' in the Trenberth and Kiehl 2009 energy balance illustration were different from the IPCCs, so one would naturally assume that you hadn't read either of the research papers the 'numbers' were based on because it's rather clear in the papers why they are different.

But strangely, you don't understand it well enough to mention that "rather clear" difference yourself when you could have easily done so in the time it took for you to write your post. Funny how that is. So one would naturally assume that you hadn't read the research papers either.

Ceist wrote: I'm sorry Tim, your post sounds rather confused and shows a very strong confirmation bias to me.

Your bulverism is showing.

Ceist wrote: I'm afraid that whatever your sources of 'information' are, you have been sadly misinformed because you are repeating the sort of misinformation found on blogs and in the tabloid press.

More bulverism. As a matter of fact, that's the entire composition of your posts.

Ceist wrote: Surely you are not saying it's perfectly okay to misrepresent what's been happening with the whole earth by cherry-picking a short period from a cherry-picked start date from one source about one aspect (lower troposphere) of the earth and completely ignore all the other evidence ...

Aaahh, a Global Warming trifecta! Three major fallacies in one sentence. I bet your church awards bonus points for that sort of thing.

First, you're not addressing his argument, you are just assuming he is wrong and letting us see the bulverism basis of your argument.

Second, you don't know what "cherry-picking" means; revealing that you don't understand the "arbitrary selection" requirement of the scientific method. This is because you are arguing a religion and not science.

Third, you're preaching "supporting evidence" again. Why? Because you're preaching a religion and not science. Dismissed.

Ceist wrote: If you want your opinions to be taken seriously, stick with the science.

You have a few typos here. I think you meant it to read "If you want me to take your opinions seriously, stick to The Science."

Ceist wrote:Tim, did it ever cross your mind when you think something in published papers (and textbooks) written by experts...

Non-stop bulverism, I see. Ceist, did it ever cross your mind to address Tim's comments. As in you ...addressing Tim's comments?

You have added zero cognitive input to the discussion, like a zombie...a warmizombie, in fact.


Ceist wrote: I'm more interested in challenging people with no background in earth sciences...

Bully's are cowards. You clearly need to beat up on those you perceive as being "weaker" than you but you are deathly afraid to learn from those who know more than you.

Ceist wrote: Please support your views with some valid science. That means - cite research that supports your views.

Research is not science. Data is not science. Trivia is not science. You still cannot discern science from religion.

Ceist wrote: Please tell me why I should accept Tim the Plumbers opinions about the atmospheric physics involved in the enhanced 'greenhouse' effect, for example, rather than the informed opinions of atmospheric physicists and other earth scientists who have done the research.

Because 1) You appelates are not here participating in this discussion, 2) you do not speak for them, 3) Tim is here, and 4) Tim obviously knows shitloads more that you. It's pretty clear in any discussion between the two of you that Tim is the one who has thought through things and you are the one relegated to appealing to your religious ministers and to your perceived authority figures.
24-10-2015 21:28
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The fact that I can find an obvious flaw in it says it all.


The fact that you seriously 'believe' you found an 'obvious flaw in it', says it all.




Edited on 24-10-2015 21:31
24-10-2015 21:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Tim the plumber wrote:It should be very easy to test if CO2 can stop all the IR from getting out of the earth to space.

Already done. We currently have plenty of science pertaining to thermal radiation so this question is already answered.

Imagine a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere. Assume that some quantity of IR from directly below (a combined quantity originating from other molecules below or directly from the surface) hits the CO2 molecule in question and is entirely absorbed, converting into thermal energy and raising the temperature of the CO2 molecule. Instantaneously that CO2 molecule will begin converting that thermal energy into IR EM and will begin radiating in all directions at a rate that is a function of the temperature. Almost exactly half of that IR will be in an upward direction. Always.

There is no way any substance can "block" or "trap" thermal radiation.

Tim the plumber wrote:I do not have a particularly strong CV to be able to challenge the science in the paper you linked to but I can ask questions.

Credentials are not required to challenge science. If a four-year-old falsifies the Theory of Relativity, then falsified it is. No one owns science. Your CV is completely irrelevant.
24-10-2015 22:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Surface Detail wrote:
I'm not "attempting to win", nor am I "moving goalposts". I'm simply trying to get an unbiased view of the data. The data in the paper I referred to in the other thread indicated that, up until 2004 (the paper was published in 2005), the number and proportion of storms of Category 4 and above throughout the world had increased. I suggested that, by the same criteria, that increase had continued. That's why I said I'd like to see the same data series continued. IBdaMann's the goalpost shuffler here.

Nobody expects the number to increase monotonically. That's why you have to plot a graph of the data rather than making guesses at a trend from tabular data.


No. You are moving the goalposts. The original discussion started with you demanding a source of data concerning Atlantic hurricanes.

Next you demanded data in the Pacific as well because the Atlantic ocean is somehow completely different.

Now you are asking for plots instead of tabular data. This is the first time you've asked for this. The tabular form IBdaMann used seemed sufficient to start this whole conversation.

It is you that has moved the goalposts three times here. You want more data? Get it and plot it yourself. I have given my sources (which is why I set up that rule) for you to search out the data to verify it and find the source isn't just some bullshit, and plot it any way you want.

You have sufficient data in both oceans. Discuss on that or bring more data that conforms to the Data Mine rules.
24-10-2015 22:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Ceist wrote:
Tim,

The 'numbers' from the 2009 Trenberth and Kiehl Energy Balance illustration trafn posted were based on data during the period 2000 to 2004. You can read their paper here if you want to know more about the sources.

Earth's Global Energy Budget

There is a more recent 2014 paper from Trenberth and Fasullo here:

Earth's Energy Imbalance

The IPCC AR5 WGI (Chapter 2, pg 181) report uses an Energy Balance illustration (see below) based on Wild et al 2013 who use data from a broader range of sources and over the period from 2000 to 2010/



You can find a copy of Wild et al 2013 here where they discuss the sources of data they use:

The global energy balance from a surface perspective


Unfortunately this is random numbers again. See the Rules 1b which disallows composite data sources. This is for a reason. Such sources are composited from unknown raw data using an unknown algorithm. The sources themselves or composite data itself is often fudged.

The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.
24-10-2015 22:35
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Ceist wrote:The fact that you seriously 'believe' you found an 'obvious flaw in it', says it all.

More bulverism, and more EVASION on your part of Tim's points. You still have not addressed any of the concerns raised.

Tim, on the other hand, apparently has found obvious flaws, and you apparently won't refute Tim's concerns, so Tim's concerns stand and whole "Energy Budget" remains "dismissed" as are your bulverist posts.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-10-2015 22:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)


Unfortunately the top level numbers don't add up.

340 W/m2 enters.
339 W/m2 exits.

The entire graphic is based on the unsupported assumption of energy accumulation.

Dismissed.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-10-2015 23:05
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:The IPCC AR5 WGI (Chapter 2, pg 181) report uses an Energy Balance illustration (see below) based on Wild et al 2013 who use data from a broader range of sources and over the period from 2000 to 2010/

You can find a copy of Wild et al 2013 here where they discuss the sources of data they use:

The global energy balance from a surface perspective


Unfortunately this is random numbers again. See the Rules 1b which disallows composite data sources. This is for a reason. Such sources are composited from unknown raw data using an unknown algorithm. The sources themselves or composite data itself is often fudged.

The Data Mine prefers plain vanilla. No extra fudge.

Here's just some of the many sets of data from the Wild et al paper (which I guess you didn't bother to read because there were links in the paper). You are welcome to go look up each set yourself to check if those dastardly untrustworthy scientists are 'fudging' data. So when are you going to book the supercomputer time and the software needed? Or even understand what it all means with no background in the science? Or did you think you could just play with Excel on your PC?


[branner: large amount of data moved from post to http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/post_3925.txt]



Edited by branner on 09-11-2015 22:42
24-10-2015 23:28
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night, you will need an account to download the data from the 6378 datasets (contact is below). And they are just the surface radiation measurements discussed in the Wild et al paper. Do you have the money to book the supercomputer time? What do you think you can do with the data?

"The data collection contains 6378 links to basic measurements of radiation from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN). It covers all available measurements from the time period between 1992-01 and 2012-05 taken at BSRN stations all over the world.

Any user who accepts the BSRN data release guidelines (http://www.bsrn.awi.de/en/data/conditions_of_data_release) may ask Gert König-Langlo (Gert.Koenig-Langlo@awi.de) to obtain an account to download these datasets."


25-10-2015 01:13
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Ceist wrote:Here's just some of the many sets of data from the Wild et al paper (which I guess you didn't bother to read because there were links in the paper). You are welcome to go look up each set yourself to check if those dastardly untrustworthy scientists are 'fudging' data.

All data should always be inspected for validity. I hope you weren't operating under the mistaken impression that certain data was beyond validation. Beyond checking to see if political activists fudged the data (very common; routine in the case of Global Warming) one must ensure the data is sufficient to derive the asserted conclusions.


Ceist wrote: So when are you going to book the supercomputer time and the software needed? Or even understand what it all means with no background in the science?

It is the responsibility of the scientist (or political activist) to present clear data and clear assertions. Any scientist (or political activist) who publishes in cryptic code will be summarily dismissed.

Religions keep things unnecessarily convoluted in order to maintain the appearance of "divine knowledge" held by the clergy. Science makes complex concepts clear to those who have no background in the field.

You are preaching a religion and you advertise it in every post.

Ceist wrote: Or did you think you could just play with Excel on your PC?

Please explain this? Does math somehow differ for Global Warming data? Are you trying to maintain complete unfalsifiability again? You are, aren't you? Real world software isn't supposed to be able to process divine unfalsifiable dogma, correct?

Why would Into the Night somehow not be able to run this particular data through a spreadsheet?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-10-2015 08:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night, you will need an account to download the data from the 6378 datasets (contact is below). And they are just the surface radiation measurements discussed in the Wild et al paper. Do you have the money to book the supercomputer time? What do you think you can do with the data?

"The data collection contains 6378 links to basic measurements of radiation from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN). It covers all available measurements from the time period between 1992-01 and 2012-05 taken at BSRN stations all over the world.

Any user who accepts the BSRN data release guidelines (http://www.bsrn.awi.de/en/data/conditions_of_data_release) may ask Gert König-Langlo (Gert.Koenig-Langlo@awi.de) to obtain an account to download these datasets."


I see the use of the BSRN datasets, but the rest is openly admitted to being estimated and composited from computer models. I don't need supercomputer time. This is the Data Mine. I expect the raw data itself. Composite data like this comes from many sources, many of them fudged, much of it manufactured by computer models.

Still random numbers. Please adhere to rule 1 before choking any more of this thread with mountains of unverifiable, fudged, or composite numbers. Computer models are not data. Neither is fudged data. Both are openly claimed by the paper you linked to.
25-10-2015 09:38
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:Tim, did it ever cross your mind when you think something in published papers (and textbooks) written by experts in the field of atmospheric physics is 'wrong', it might be worth first questioning if your understanding of the physics involved is wrong? Rather than assume you know more than they do and that they are wrong?


You posted a link to a paper where another paper was being rubbished.

I looked at it and found that it did not hang together, as far as I can tell.

Please explain the science or accept that this area is beyond you.

It should be very easy to test if CO2 can stop all the IR from getting out of the earth to space. Even I could do that. But then I'm sure that such direct physical experimentation would not be your style.


There was no othe paper being 'rubbished' and it all hangs together very well.

It was quite well explained in the papers I linked to. What didn't you understand? I had assumed you at least understood how the 'greenhouse' effect works because of the 'confident' way you put other people down as if you understand the science and they don't. I apologise for making that false assumption.

Okay. I'll try to explain it to you myself in as simple as way as possible, but I'm not the expert and can't explain it nearly as well as PierreHumbert does. I'm wondering how many other people have tried to explain this to you and you still don't get it? I'm sorry if you find it difficult to understand and have to keep asking. Perhaps try reading a textbook on the foundational sciences?

When infrared radiation (IR) is emitted by the earth's surface, it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere. Some of this energy from the IR is absorbed in each layer of the atmosphere by molecules of CO2 (or water vapor or other GHGs). The molecules radiate the energy back out again in random directions, or they transfer energy into velocity by colliding with other molecules in the air. So each layer of air where the GHG molecules are, becomes warmer.

In each layer of air some of the absorbed energy is radiated downwards back toward the surface and some of it upwards to higher layers. Eventually the energy reaches a layer thin enough that the infrared radiation is able to escape into space, but the higher colder layers do not radiate heat as well. So when we add more CO2, the atmosphere needs to be thinner before the IR is able to escape to space, which means the amount of IR escaping to space is less.

The higher levels radiate some of the excess heat energy back downwards and the lower levels warm up. The imbalance has to continue until the higher levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out into space as the earth is receiving.

CO2 'saturation' at lower levels doesn't change this, as it's the layers at the top of the atmosphere from which radiation escapes that determine the planet's energy balance and hence, global temperature. And we are nowhere near saturating the lower levels, let alone the higher levels.

While a runaway 'greenhouse' effect like on Venus where the oceans boil off may be very unlikely (unless the Earth was receiving more radiation from the sun as it grows stronger-in maybe half a billion years), there can certainly be a very strong 'enhanced greenhouse' effect long before greenhouse gas saturation. Currently, less energy is escaping to space than the earth is receiving (it's been measured)– hence we have been experiencing the beginning of an enhanced 'greenhouse' effect.



Edited on 25-10-2015 10:38
25-10-2015 09:50
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Is it your position that the IPCC's figers are underestimates or are they about right or what?

Please support your view with some science so that I can understand why you think that.
The IPCC reports are a summary of all the available research by experts in many different fields who have spent many years studying the foundational science in those fields, performed the research and presented that research to be challenged by peer-review. My expertise is not in any of the fields of earth sciences, but in a different field of science. So my non-expert opinion outside my own field about whether "the IPCC's figures are underestimates or about right or what" is rather irrelevant.

I'm more interested in challenging people with no background in earth sciences who claim that experts in the fields involved in climate science are "wrong", about why they believe their evidence-free non-expert non-science opinions should be taken seriously.

But you didn't answer some of my questions. Please support your views with some valid science. That means - cite research that supports your views.

Please tell me why I should accept Tim the Plumbers opinions about the atmospheric physics involved in the enhanced 'greenhouse' effect, for example, rather than the informed opinions of atmospheric physicists and other earth scientists who have done the research.


I am not challenging the IPCC's sumary. Not the numbers at least.

I do not have a particularly strong CV to be able to challenge the science in the paper you linked to but I can ask questions.

There are 2 opinions, the origionla one and the one put forward in the paper you like. I think the credentials of the first are at least as good as the second. The fact that I can find an obvious flaw in it says it all.

Sure you can ask questions. I do all the time. I also go do more research and reading if something doesn't make sense to me at first. I don't automatically assume a scientist who is expert their field is wrong.

But what you are doing is stating that the scientists (who have spent their lives putting in all the effort in studying and researching and working in their fields) are wrong, and you, (who doesn't have the background and hasn't even put in the effort to understand even the foundational knowledge to understand what they are writing), have decided you have found an 'obvious flaw'. When the obvious flaw, is in your understanding.



Edited on 25-10-2015 10:48
25-10-2015 10:13
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night, you will need an account to download the data from the 6378 datasets (contact is below). And they are just the surface radiation measurements discussed in the Wild et al paper. Do you have the money to book the supercomputer time? What do you think you can do with the data?

"The data collection contains 6378 links to basic measurements of radiation from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network (BSRN). It covers all available measurements from the time period between 1992-01 and 2012-05 taken at BSRN stations all over the world.

Any user who accepts the BSRN data release guidelines (http://www.bsrn.awi.de/en/data/conditions_of_data_release) may ask Gert König-Langlo (Gert.Koenig-Langlo@awi.de) to obtain an account to download these datasets."


I see the use of the BSRN datasets, but the rest is openly admitted to being estimated and composited from computer models. I don't need supercomputer time. This is the Data Mine. I expect the raw data itself. Composite data like this comes from many sources, many of them fudged, much of it manufactured by computer models.

Still random numbers. Please adhere to rule 1 before choking any more of this thread with mountains of unverifiable, fudged, or composite numbers. Computer models are not data. Neither is fudged data. Both are openly claimed by the paper you linked to.


You can expect whatever you like. Do you expect anyone but you cares what an anonymous forum poster with no background in science 'expects'? I expect that you will never accept anything that contradicts your ideology, no matter how much evidence there is. Which is probably why you have had to convince yourself that all the scientists must be 'fudging data' and that the 'greenhouse' effect 'violates' the laws of physics and therefore all the textbooks must be wrong.


I didn't provide 'random numbers'. And I didn't provide 'mountains of numbers', I provided thousands of links that lead to mountains of data from millions of measurements of surface radiation from all over the world over a period of years. It would be impossible to post that 'raw data' in a forum post. And why would you even think you would know what it is or what to do with it even if it were possible?

Do you really think you can use a PC and Excel spreadsheets to download and crunch data from the GCMs that are used today? Do you have any idea at all what computer climate models do and how much data is input into them?


You could always personally visit all those thousands of BSRN sites (and all those other sites involved in measuring and collecting information about the earth) and check all the scientists pockets to make sure they aren't taking home an eraser- because of course, in your opinion, they must be all liars, thieves and fraudsters.




Edited on 25-10-2015 10:16
25-10-2015 10:53
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
So some people look at those energy balance diagrams and say that the top numbers don't add up, and just dismiss the diagrams as 'wrong'.


Ironically they don't seem realise, that's the point. The energy balance diagrams show there is less energy going out to space than energy coming in from the sun. They don't 'add up' because there is an energy imbalance.
That energy imbalance is..... drum roll...... the enhanced 'greenhouse' effect, aka global warming.

I'd say it isn't rocket science, but it kind of is. The US Airforce would not have been able to build accurate heat seeking missiles and NASA wouldn't have been able to launch rockets successfully without an understanding of the physics and chemistry of the 'greenhouse' effect and the atmosphere. That's why there was a lot of the research in atmospheric sciences in the mid 20th century.

Look, I get it, some people couldn't be bothered to take the time to learn the foundational science. And that's fine. Science is not everyone's cup of tea. I'm certainly no expert.

But it's usually those very same people who are the loudest about claiming all the science is 'bunk' and the scientists are 'wrong' or 'fudging data'.



Edited on 25-10-2015 11:39
25-10-2015 12:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:Tim, did it ever cross your mind when you think something in published papers (and textbooks) written by experts in the field of atmospheric physics is 'wrong', it might be worth first questioning if your understanding of the physics involved is wrong? Rather than assume you know more than they do and that they are wrong?


You posted a link to a paper where another paper was being rubbished.

I looked at it and found that it did not hang together, as far as I can tell.

Please explain the science or accept that this area is beyond you.

It should be very easy to test if CO2 can stop all the IR from getting out of the earth to space. Even I could do that. But then I'm sure that such direct physical experimentation would not be your style.


There was no othe paper being 'rubbished' and it all hangs together very well.

It was quite well explained in the papers I linked to. What didn't you understand? I had assumed you at least understood how the 'greenhouse' effect works because of the 'confident' way you put other people down as if you understand the science and they don't. I apologise for making that false assumption.

Okay. I'll try to explain it to you myself in as simple as way as possible, but I'm not the expert and can't explain it nearly as well as PierreHumbert does. I'm wondering how many other people have tried to explain this to you and you still don't get it? I'm sorry if you find it difficult to understand and have to keep asking. Perhaps try reading a textbook on the foundational sciences?

When infrared radiation (IR) is emitted by the earth's surface, it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere. Some of this energy from the IR is absorbed in each layer of the atmosphere by molecules of CO2 (or water vapor or other GHGs). The molecules radiate the energy back out again in random directions, or they transfer energy into velocity by colliding with other molecules in the air. So each layer of air where the GHG molecules are, becomes warmer.

In each layer of air some of the absorbed energy is radiated downwards back toward the surface and some of it upwards to higher layers. Eventually the energy reaches a layer thin enough that the infrared radiation is able to escape into space, but the higher colder layers do not radiate heat as well. So when we add more CO2, the atmosphere needs to be thinner before the IR is able to escape to space, which means the amount of IR escaping to space is less.

The higher levels radiate some of the excess heat energy back downwards and the lower levels warm up. The imbalance has to continue until the higher levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out into space as the earth is receiving.

CO2 'saturation' at lower levels doesn't change this, as it's the layers at the top of the atmosphere from which radiation escapes that determine the planet's energy balance and hence, global temperature. And we are nowhere near saturating the lower levels, let alone the higher levels.

While a runaway 'greenhouse' effect like on Venus where the oceans boil off may be very unlikely (unless the Earth was receiving more radiation from the sun as it grows stronger-in maybe half a billion years), there can certainly be a very strong 'enhanced greenhouse' effect long before greenhouse gas saturation. Currently, less energy is escaping to space than the earth is receiving (it's been measured)– hence we have been experiencing the beginning of an enhanced 'greenhouse' effect.


I fully understand all you have written.

I also think that I understand the thrust of the paper which you quoted which was an attack aginst another paper which had said that the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation. This would be due to CO2 and more importantly water vapour.

I found that the argument of the paper you linked to was inconsistant within it's self.

Whilst I am no expert in this field I can read. If I am asked why I believe something and use a paper to support my view I will also explain the degree to which I understand the science.

I think it is unreasonable of you to object to me actually reading the paper you linked to even if you don't like what I have to say about it. But moving on...

Given that the IPCC already assumes an enhanced greenhouse effect from positive feedbacks of the direct effect of CO2, do you think that they have underestimated the problem? If so, why?
25-10-2015 12:29
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:Sure you can ask questions. I do all the time. I also go do more research and reading if something doesn't make sense to me at first. I don't automatically assume a scientist who is expert their field is wrong.

But what you are doing is stating that the scientists (who have spent their lives putting in all the effort in studying and researching and working in their fields) are wrong, and you, (who doesn't have the background and hasn't even put in the effort to understand even the foundational knowledge to understand what they are writing), have decided you have found an 'obvious flaw'. When the obvious flaw, is in your understanding.


If you know that my understanding of the paper is flawed then you can show why that is.

Or is it that actually thinking about any argument that does not conform to your bias is painful to you?
25-10-2015 13:26
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:Tim, did it ever cross your mind when you think something in published papers (and textbooks) written by experts in the field of atmospheric physics is 'wrong', it might be worth first questioning if your understanding of the physics involved is wrong? Rather than assume you know more than they do and that they are wrong?


You posted a link to a paper where another paper was being rubbished.

I looked at it and found that it did not hang together, as far as I can tell.

Please explain the science or accept that this area is beyond you.

It should be very easy to test if CO2 can stop all the IR from getting out of the earth to space. Even I could do that. But then I'm sure that such direct physical experimentation would not be your style.


There was no othe paper being 'rubbished' and it all hangs together very well.

It was quite well explained in the papers I linked to. What didn't you understand? I had assumed you at least understood how the 'greenhouse' effect works because of the 'confident' way you put other people down as if you understand the science and they don't. I apologise for making that false assumption.

Okay. I'll try to explain it to you myself in as simple as way as possible, but I'm not the expert and can't explain it nearly as well as PierreHumbert does. I'm wondering how many other people have tried to explain this to you and you still don't get it? I'm sorry if you find it difficult to understand and have to keep asking. Perhaps try reading a textbook on the foundational sciences?

When infrared radiation (IR) is emitted by the earth's surface, it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere. Some of this energy from the IR is absorbed in each layer of the atmosphere by molecules of CO2 (or water vapor or other GHGs). The molecules radiate the energy back out again in random directions, or they transfer energy into velocity by colliding with other molecules in the air. So each layer of air where the GHG molecules are, becomes warmer.

In each layer of air some of the absorbed energy is radiated downwards back toward the surface and some of it upwards to higher layers. Eventually the energy reaches a layer thin enough that the infrared radiation is able to escape into space, but the higher colder layers do not radiate heat as well. So when we add more CO2, the atmosphere needs to be thinner before the IR is able to escape to space, which means the amount of IR escaping to space is less.

The higher levels radiate some of the excess heat energy back downwards and the lower levels warm up. The imbalance has to continue until the higher levels get hot enough to radiate as much energy back out into space as the earth is receiving.

CO2 'saturation' at lower levels doesn't change this, as it's the layers at the top of the atmosphere from which radiation escapes that determine the planet's energy balance and hence, global temperature. And we are nowhere near saturating the lower levels, let alone the higher levels.

While a runaway 'greenhouse' effect like on Venus where the oceans boil off may be very unlikely (unless the Earth was receiving more radiation from the sun as it grows stronger-in maybe half a billion years), there can certainly be a very strong 'enhanced greenhouse' effect long before greenhouse gas saturation. Currently, less energy is escaping to space than the earth is receiving (it's been measured)– hence we have been experiencing the beginning of an enhanced 'greenhouse' effect.


[color=blue]I fully understand all you have written.

I also think that I understand the thrust of the paper which you quoted which was an attack aginst another paper which had said that the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation. This would be due to CO2 and more importantly water vapour.

I found that the argument of the paper you linked to was inconsistant within it's self.
No. It wasn't inconsistent and it wasn't "attacking another paper". It did not say that "the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation"

Perhaps it's your comprehension and understanding that is inconsistent?

Already answered your other question. Moving on. You still haven't answered several of mine.



Edited on 25-10-2015 13:28
25-10-2015 13:44
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Ceist wrote:Sure you can ask questions. I do all the time. I also go do more research and reading if something doesn't make sense to me at first. I don't automatically assume a scientist who is expert their field is wrong.

But what you are doing is stating that the scientists (who have spent their lives putting in all the effort in studying and researching and working in their fields) are wrong, and you, (who doesn't have the background and hasn't even put in the effort to understand even the foundational knowledge to understand what they are writing), have decided you have found an 'obvious flaw'. When the obvious flaw, is in your understanding.


If you know that my understanding of the paper is flawed then you can show why that is.


I already showed how your understanding was flawed. Perhaps your understanding of my explanation was also flawed?

I noticed you still haven't answered my request for you to explain what you meant by:

Tim the Plumber: "What sensativity do you ascribe to what gasses?"

because your question didn't actually make any sense. (and I don't mean the typo)



Edited on 25-10-2015 13:47
25-10-2015 15:51
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Ceist, you broadcast your insecurity and you project it well.

Ceist wrote: Do you expect anyone but you cares what an anonymous forum poster with no background in science 'expects'?


Isn't that what you are?

Ceist wrote: I expect that you will never accept anything that contradicts your ideology, no matter how much evidence there is.


You're describing yourself again.

Ceist wrote: Which is probably why you have had to convince yourself that all the scientists must be 'fudging data' and that the 'greenhouse' effect 'violates' the laws of physics ...


You're telling us that you now realize that this is the case.

Ceist wrote: I provided thousands of links that lead to mountains of data from millions of measurements of surface radiation from all over the world over a period of years.

Exactly. You pointed to the internet and expected him to just go away pointlessly chasing link after link.

Next time provide a clear thesis statement and then provide only the data that supports that thesis statement. You can't even make a clear point. It's always Ceist at the Tower of Babble-on.

Ceist wrote: It would be impossible to post that 'raw data' in a forum post.

You are not the first to babble that lame (and invalid) excuse. All the greatest scientists have been able to formulate and explain history's greatest science without any supercomputers.

The reason you cannot provide data to support your dogma is that your dogma is unfalsifiable and, thus, unsupportable. Where's all the data that God exists? Where's all the data on "Climate?" There isn't any.

Ceist wrote: And why would you even think you would know what it is or what to do with it even if it were possible?

Data is data. This is the second time that you have expressed your mistaken notion that Global Warming data is somehow inherently different from other data, that it is sacred, divine, and somehow beyond human comprehension...and certainly not processable by a computer application.

You have a religion on your hands.

Ceist wrote: Do you really think you can use a PC and Excel spreadsheets to download and crunch data from the GCMs that are used today? Do you have any idea at all what computer climate models do and how much data is input into them?


What is clear is that you don't. You're not a computer scientist, are you?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-10-2015 16:37
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3688)
Ceist wrote:
So some people look at those energy balance diagrams and say that the top numbers don't add up, and just dismiss the diagrams as 'wrong'

Exactly. The 1st LoT, or the law of conservation of energy, clearly states this to be a violation of physics.

Do you deny any other laws of thermodynamics? ...or would you care to enlighten us to how this is supposedly possible?

[I sense another ad hominem projection forthcoming.]


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-10-2015 17:09
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1285)
Ceist wrote:No. It wasn't inconsistent and it wasn't "attacking another paper". It did not say that "the IR spectrum which CO2 was effective in could easily reach saturation"

Perhaps it's your comprehension and understanding that is inconsistent?

Already answered your other question. Moving on. You still haven't answered several of mine.

Saturation fallacies

The path to the present understanding of the effect of carbon
dioxide on climate was not without its missteps. Notably, in
1900 Knut Ångström (son of Anders Ångström, whose name
graces a unit of length widely used among spectroscopists)
argued in opposition to his fellow Swedish scientist Svante
Arrhenius that increasing CO2 could not affect Earth's climate. Ångström claimed that IR absorption by CO2 was saturated in the sense that, for those wavelengths CO2 could absorb at all, the CO2 already present in Earth's atmosphere was absorbing essentially all of the IR. With regard to Earthlike atmospheres,
Ångström was doubly wrong. First, modern spectroscopy
shows that CO2 is nowhere near being saturated. Ångström's
laboratory experiments were simply too inaccurate to show the
additional absorption in the wings of the 667-cm
−1 CO2 feature that follows upon increasing CO2 . But even if CO2 were saturated in Ångström's sense—as indeed it is on Venus—his argument
would nonetheless be fallacious. The Venusian atmosphere as a
whole may be saturated with regard to IR absorption, but the
radiation only escapes from the thin upper portions of the
atmosphere that are not saturated. Hot as Venus is, it would
become still hotter if one added CO to its atmosphere.
A related saturation fallacy, also popularized by Ångström, is
that CO could have no influence on radiation balance because
water vapor already absorbs all the IR that CO would absorb.
Earth's very moist, near-surface tropical atmosphere is nearly
saturated in that sense, but the flaw in Ångström's argument is
that radiation in the portion of the spectrum affected by CO escapes to space from the cold, dry upper portions of the
atmosphere, not from the warm, moist lower portions. Also, as
displayed in the inset to figure 2, the individual water-vapor
and CO2 spectral lines interleave but do not totally overlap. That
structure limits the competition between CO and water vapor.


My bold.

The paper you linked to;

https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

is an attack on the origonal paper by Angstrom.

I have looked at it. I have tried to discuss the science of that paper with you. You have reacted to that as though I have called your messiah a pig. Grow up. This is a science focused area of debate. Politeness is not required. Understanding and honesty are.

I have asked you to explain why you think that the IPCC has underestimated the trouble. If you have asked me any question other than what right I have to have an opinion what was the question?
25-10-2015 18:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
No. You are moving the goalposts. The original discussion started with you demanding a source of data concerning Atlantic hurricanes.

Quote the post where I said that or go boil your lying head.
25-10-2015 20:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(7976)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
No. You are moving the goalposts. The original discussion started with you demanding a source of data concerning Atlantic hurricanes.

Quote the post where I said that or go boil your lying head.

IBdaMann wrote:
It seems like Atlantic storm activity has been in a nosedive since 2005.

Surface Detail wrote:
What is the source of your data?

IBdaMann wrote:
My source is terrible. If you don't accept it, I'll understand. I grabbed the first datums I encountered.

Surface Detail wrote:
Just provide a link to the source of your data, please.

[Surface Detail and IBdaMann:
...conversation dissolves over the meaning of 'cherry picking'....


Go boil yours.

You have the data in both Atlantic and Pacific basins. You no longer have an excuse to evade the conversation. Stop calling people names and proceed with your discussion.
Page 4 of 7<<<23456>>>





Join the debate The Data Mine:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Faith Basis for Radiometric Data627-05-2019 21:00
Satellite confirms key NASA temperature data: The planet is warming — and fast422-05-2019 18:30
Serious question, is there any data on how many people that believe in AGW106-01-2019 21:35
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 03:44
Ideas of Mine3611-02-2018 21:41
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact