Do humans contribute to climate change substantially?

[don4l]

kerplunk said:

a quick sanity test:



Gosh, the linear trend since 1990 shows twice as much warming since 1990 to that stated on the wuwt graph.

Cherry-picking fool has just drawn a straight line from 1990 to a La Nina low.

Why does the green line start below the bottom of the first datapoint and finish at the top of the last?

Anybody who thinks that the green line is useful has failed your sanity test.

I'm surprised that they didn't go the whole hog and start at 1993.

Don
--

[turbobloke]

kerplunk said:

Jinx said:

How much?
What would the temperature be if all the CO2 was sequested (we'll forego the all plant life dying bit) and just the CO2?

Very very cold. Non-condensing GHGs in the atmosphere provide the stable temperature structure on which water vapour hangs. Taking away CO2 would cause an immediate drop in temperature and start a water vapour/albedo feedback process leading to a collapse in the planets greenhouse effect. By 10yrs av. temperature will have dropped 4.6C and after 50yrs 34.8C - the earth would be a snowball with a strip of liquid water around the equator.

According to Lacis et al 2010:

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~sgw/ATMS321/2010_...

I appreciate you were answering a specific question, fine.

The key question is not what would happen if all carbon dioxide were taken out of the atmosphere, which is an absurd notion anyway as e.g. oceans would outgas and sun-heated carbonate rocks would replace some immediately without any life (respiration) needing to be present. It would be necessary to remove all aqueous carbon dioxide, carbonate and hydrogencarbonate plus any means of producing these. Quite a feat even for the climate gods at IPCC.

Theq question that matters is what would happen if the (claimed) man-made portion was to go.

The point is that knowing what percentage of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect comes from carbon dioxide alone tells us little of use in determining how much warming might result from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. Spencer has looked at this sensibly.

---

How Much is the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect Enhanced by Adding More CO2?
This is the question we should be asking, and it can be easily answered with a couple of numbers quoted in the Schmidt et al. article.

Schmidt et al. assumes the commonly quoted 33 deg. C as the amount of surface warming due to the Earth’s greenhouse effect, and for the time being I will assume the same.

Thirteen years ago, Danny Braswell and I did our own calculations to explore the greenhouse effect with a built-from-scratch radiative transfer model, incorporating the IR radiative code developed by Ming Dah Chou at NASA Goddard. The Chou code has also been used in some global climate models.

We calculated, as others have, a direct (no feedback) surface warming of about 1 deg. C as a result of doubling CO2 (“2XCO2”).

So, this immediately gives us numbers we can use to compute a percentage increase in the greenhouse effect: Doubling of atmospheric CO2 (which will probably happen by late in this century) enhances the Earth’s greenhouse effect by about (1/33=) 3%.

This value (3%) for the enhancement of the Earth’s greenhouse effect from our addition of CO2 is much smaller than the 20% value that Schmidt et al. get…but remember that we are addressing two different issues. I claim what we should be interested in is the relative size of our enhancement of the greenhouse effect, rather than how much of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is due to CO2. The latter question really proves nothing about how much effect adding MORE CO2 to the atmosphere will have.

---

Good for scaremongering though, as the uninformed and casual reader would think blimey, human carbon dioxide makes all that difference, from ice ball to habitable planet? When of course human tax gas makes an invisibly small difference as there is no visible human signal from it in global climate data.

[kerplunk]

don4l said:

Why does the green line start below the bottom of the first datapoint and finish at the top of the last?

Anybody who thinks that the green line is useful has failed your sanity test.

I'm surprised that they didn't go the whole hog and start at 1993.

Don
--

Coincidence - the latest data just happens to be on the trend.

Here's the trend to 2011 for example:



(actually that's the graph I should have used - same story though)

Edited by kerplunk on Friday 21st December 14:02

[turbobloke]

Shouldn't that designation be CRUTAR?

Substituted and homogenised data including from sensors placed next to airport tarmac, aircon vents, chimneys, trash burners, roads and parked cars, roofs of buildings and any combination of the above will say nothing at all about the non-existent warming from human emissions of carbon dioxide.

[kerplunk]

Guam said:

Ah I see we are back to the bogus wood for trees Graph posting to support an argument, interesting that those with the weakest rationale have to revert to a banned format to make their point.

So as its up there can you explain the options dialed into the trend generation and what the impacts may Be KP, plus post up other trends with differring options dialed in and discuss their impacts and why your approach in selecting the one you did is preferable to the others?

No I won't do that - better things to do with my time. I see it used all over the net by warmists and sceptics alike and never seen any concerns raised about it's veracity. I think it's you that should do the work to support your claims.

[Lost_BMW]

Silver Smudger said:

hairykrishna said:

The GCMs are the best efforts at prediction we have. A lot of people who actually know what they're talking about work on them. They're also very clear about the uncertainties.

So have these climate models made any advance predictions which have agreed with the actual activities of the climate, or not?

Of course, of course. Every time they don't match they can apply a fiddle factor adjustment so they better match real life. When real life is just too far out to map to without raising hares they can just fiddle adjust the raw data so real temperature, hey, becomes presto.

Simple as they say in IPCC global HQ.

[Lost_BMW]

turbobloke said:

hairykrishna said:

turbobloke said:

No, in the sense that there is no Kirchoff howler. There is use of the Kirchoff law and other theoretical considerations which produce verifiable (or refutable) metrics. Clearly the Miskolczi paper is beyond many climate scientists, it's more amenable to astrophysicists and astrochemists who have a sound grasp of science.

So his result isn't based on the atmosphere and surface being in thermal equilibrium?

Yet you are content to cite equations that treat the entire planet as having a single temperature T? What's the equilibrium there? Duh. Junkscience and hypocrisy, what a mix.

The term thermal equilibrium as implied by your cited equation has a similar sense to Miskolczi, does it not? In that the temperature distribution is non-uniform and there are energy transfers.

Anyway - if you can get back to us with something that a) isn't a worse indictment of IPCC junkscience and b) isn't setting a theory against a theory (refutation of either can only come from the data) or c) premature adjudication, it will be interesting to read...that rules out the crude van Dorland and Forster attempt, obviously.

Having read this back and forth argument to the point my eyeballs now ache I just wonder...

You are both, despite being on opposite sides of the mmmgw fence, clearly intelligent, well informed and well qualified - obviously not to the same level as Kp who with all his searching reading must now be the world's leading authority - but how can anyone with even half a brain actually believe that a figure for 'average global temperature' can have any meaning except as a meaningless mathematical nicety?

How can this mathematical point have any point in a world where actual temperature varies so much not just from place to place, season to season, month to month, day to night but even hour by hour. Just where and when does this magical T actually occur?

Should we not devote the considerable money and effort spent to finding this place and then measuring trends from there? Then map how much higher other places are (for dangerously long time spans naturally), work out when they will be scorched and find ways to protect them? Umbrellas maybe? I am of course being rhetorical, though I suspect the serious inent behind this may be missed by some, distracted by the sarcasm. I have a sportsman's bet with myself about the likely response from HQ.

[turbobloke]

Bedazzled said:

turbobloke said:

...
We calculated, as others have, a direct (no feedback) surface warming of about 1 deg. C as a result of doubling CO2 (“2XCO2”).
...

Most papers I've been reading have this basic calculation as their foundation, while the subsequent feedbacks and modelling are more open to discussion. The radiative model physics was figured out decades ago before there was any political agenda about CO2, but this thread seems to be stuck in a circular loop about non-existent greenhouse effect crank theories and physics by intuition; "trace gas" etc.

There's nothing crank about any of it, the theories advanced are capable of confirmation or refutation from the data. Radiative model approaches have yet to be figured out since Trenberth acknowledged that climate scientists of the IPCC variety are nowhere near a grip on the planet's energy budget and cannot explain what's happening in the climate system "it's a travesty!" he says. And as the data has already refuted the manmadeup warming hypothesis, your comments strike me as a tad disingenuous.

There has been no scientific explanation of how, at the current position of carbon dioxide level and temperature, doubling carbon dioxide to achieve the same radiative absorption as now but over half the distance, necessarily corresponds to an automatic permanent bulk temperature increase of the troposphere. Distance is measured in metres not deg C. Data shows that the atmosphere has more degrees of freedom than climate models allow, such that energy can escape to space faster than climate models permit.

Where is the data to show that the last statement above is wrong, and kindly explain the science of a distance being measured in deg C. Use of the Beer Law as a temperature device in that way is junkscience.

[turbobloke]

After Miskolczi ther's more thought-provoking material, likewise not in any way 'crank', here from Dr Robert Brown.

Dr Brown said:

I spent what little of last night that I semi-slept in a learning-dream state chewing over Caballero’s book and radiative transfer, and came to two insights. First, the baseline black-body model (that leads to T_b = 255K) is physically terrible, as a baseline. It treats the planet in question as a nonrotating superconductor of heat with no heat capacity. The reason it is terrible is that it is absolutely incorrect to ascribe 33K as even an estimate for the “greenhouse warming” relative to this baseline, as it is a completely nonphysical baseline; the 33K relative to it is both meaningless and mixes both heating and cooling effects that have absolutely nothing to do with the greenhouse effect. More on that later.

Click

Shades of recent comments on here from me about the absurdity of the fiddlefactored black body considerations at the heart of the failed version of radiative forcing in the context of a planet with continents and an atmosphere, clouds, oceans, internal energy transfers and no single definitive thermodynamic temperature. Yet all of that was apparently figured out ages ago ho ho ho which is why we have data at odds with manmadeup warming, it could hardly be any other way.

At the moment, additional carbon dioxide can only add a transient and insignificant additional delay to cooling from insolation.

[hairykrishna]

Lost_BMW said:

Having read this back and forth argument to the point my eyeballs now ache I just wonder...

You are both, despite being on opposite sides of the mmmgw fence, clearly intelligent, well informed and well qualified - obviously not to the same level as Kp who with all his searching reading must now be the world's leading authority - but how can anyone with even half a brain actually believe that a figure for 'average global temperature' can have any meaning except as a meaningless mathematical nicety?

How can this mathematical point have any point in a world where actual temperature varies so much not just from place to place, season to season, month to month, day to night but even hour by hour. Just where and when does this magical T actually occur?

Should we not devote the considerable money and effort spent to finding this place and then measuring trends from there? Then map how much higher other places are (for dangerously long time spans naturally), work out when they will be scorched and find ways to protect them? Umbrellas maybe? I am of course being rhetorical, though I suspect the serious inent behind this may be missed by some, distracted by the sarcasm. I have a sportsman's bet with myself about the likely response from HQ.

It was an idealized equation. It's just a simple calculation - if the earths not warming or cooling then the emitted radiation to space must equal the incoming radiation.

In no way am I claiming that it calculates a real temperature for the earth. What it does is put an upper bound on the no greenhouse effect temperature of a body at the earths distance from the sun, with the earths emission and albedo. i.e. for a planet with no greenhouse gas absorption. Yes, the albedo value included uses clouds which is daft for the 'no atmosphere' case but it's easier than getting into faffing about with what the albedo would be without clouds.

The average temperature thing is a total red herring. The reason being that for a body with hot and cold spots, it can be shown that the resulting average temperature (i.e. add them up divide over surface) is always lower - it's just a function of the maths. This is also for the case with temperatures varying over time from some average - with a spinning Earth for example. (If you're interested in the proof that various changes always result in a colder effective emission temperature you can find a good paper here; http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324)

The whole point was/is that, without a greenhouse effect, the earth would be a lot colder. This is not remotely controversial.

Edited by hairykrishna on Friday 21st December 12:55

[turbobloke]

What is very much controversial, is what the Greenhouse Effect actually is, and more importantly, what the effects are of adding marginally more of a trace gas. As it happens the data tells us somethnig and I described it consistently with that voice a post ago.

As to that single temperature note from Dr B in that link "...while the term “average temperature” has some meaning, that is before making the system chaotic..." so kiss it goodbye along with the rest.

[Lost_BMW]

hairykrishna said:

It was an idealized equation. It's just a simple calculation - if the earths not warming or cooling then the emitted radiation to space must equal the incoming radiation.

In no way am I claiming that it calculates a real temperature for the earth. What it does is put an upper bound on the no greenhouse effect temperature of a body at the earths distance from the sun, with the earths emission and albedo. i.e. for a planet with no greenhouse gas absorption. Yes, the albedo value included uses clouds which is daft for the 'no atmosphere' case but it's easier than getting into faffing about with what the albedo would be without clouds.

[b] The average temperature thing is a total red herring.[b] The reason being that for a body with hot and cold spots, it can be shown that the resulting average temperature (i.e. add them up divide over surface) is always lower - it's just a function of the maths. This is also for the case with temperatures varying over time from some average - with a spinning Earth for example.

The whole point was/is that, without a greenhouse effect, the earth would be a lot colder. This is not remotely controversial.

Thank god you agree then!

And I'm sure you'll agree that the Earth is not a spot. So meaningless, as well as a simplified red fish recipe.

[hairykrishna]

Lost_BMW said:

Thank god you agree then!

And I'm sure you'll agree that the Earth is not a spot. So meaningless, as well as a simplified red fish recipe.

It's not meaningless. It's an upper bound. Any similar calculation with added finesse, like adding in heat capacity or varying surface temperature is going to result in a lower average emission temperature. Anyone who disagrees is invited to prove it.

[Lost_BMW]

hairykrishna said:

Lost_BMW said:

Thank god you agree then!

And I'm sure you'll agree that the Earth is not a spot. So meaningless, as well as a simplified red fish recipe.

It's not meaningless. It's an upper bound. Any similar calculation with added finesse, like adding in heat capacity or varying surface temperature is going to result in a lower average emission temperature. Anyone who disagrees is invited to prove it.

But you are still talking about an average.

[turbobloke]

Lost_BMW said:

hairykrishna said:

Lost_BMW said:

Thank god you agree then!

And I'm sure you'll agree that the Earth is not a spot. So meaningless, as well as a simplified red fish recipe.

It's not meaningless. It's an upper bound. Any similar calculation with added finesse, like adding in heat capacity or varying surface temperature is going to result in a lower average emission temperature. Anyone who disagrees is invited to prove it.

But you are still talking about an average.

Yes a meaningless average.

Waste of time Lost_BMW, believer reasoning by assertion is driven by faith and lack of a fully informed position. It's already clear how far away reality is from any current manmadeup warming theory. Neither you nor me have anything to prove as the IPCC greenhouse theory gravy Train departed from the data Station long ago and is blowing smoke up IPCC Central.

[hairykrishna]

Lost_BMW said:

But you are still talking about an average.

Yes. It's the effective emission temperature. What's your point?

[Lost_BMW]

hairykrishna said:

Yes. It's the effective emission temperature. What's your point?

My point was - though probably extending in my mind the focus you were debating with TB? - is that, beyond looking at an effective emission temperature, the models and predictions that forecast the supposedly dangerous temperature increases are too broad - too widely distributed to have any real use on the real Earth, let alone likely accuracy for anywhere in particular. Even assuming that co2 will rise to the levels assumed and will have the impact on emissions, energy budget etc.

So, potentially scaring people in a particular area(s) of the world - or leading them to call for cash for damage prevention/mitigation even when no attributable damage has yet been caused! - unnecessarily.

That's the 'average' I meant and assumed you were, at least in part, debating. The idea that the temperatures around the world at different times of year/day can be aggregated together and averaged in any meaningful (or useful?) way except as the mathematical use of the term. That 'one wodge' average world temperature (as if it's real and here and there and present and will be at date and time x, y or z) that the likes of Greenpeas keep quoting. Giving a figure that has bugger all to do with "a place near you" except - if at all - sometimes. But that some people have been led to st themselves over.

But maybe you were discussing some other meaning of average world temp, as your text suggests and I've missed your point.

[turbobloke]

Junkscience via wood for old rope, lucky us.

[hairykrishna]

Lost_BMW said:

My point was - though probably extending in my mind the focus you were debating with TB? - is that, beyond looking at an effective emission temperature, the models and predictions that forecast the supposedly dangerous temperature increases are too broad - too widely distributed to have any real use on the real Earth, let alone likely accuracy for anywhere in particular. Even assuming that co2 will rise to the levels assumed and will have the impact on emissions, energy budget etc.

So, potentially scaring people in a particular area(s) of the world - or leading them to call for cash for damage prevention/mitigation even when no attributable damage has yet been caused! - unnecessarily.

That's the 'average' I meant and assumed you were, at least in part, debating. The idea that the temperatures around the world at different times of year/day can be aggregated together and averaged in any meaningful (or useful?) way except as the mathematical use of the term. That 'one wodge' average world temperature (as if it's real and here and there and present and will be at date and time x, y or z) that the likes of Greenpeas keep quoting. Giving a figure that has bugger all to do with "a place near you" except - if at all - sometimes. But that some people have been led to st themselves over.

But maybe you were discussing some other meaning of average world temp, as your text suggests and I've missed your point.

I'm sorry - we were talking about a calculation from stefan-boltzman. It's a straightforward average temperature i.e. integrate the temperature all over the surface, divide by surface area. With no greenhouse gas you get 255. No amount of messing with how the averaging is done (some bits hot, some bits cold), SHC etc will get you a higher value of the average for a given incoming energy. This is what I meant by an upper bound.

You can do this summing voer the surface for the 'real' earth too. Gets you to ~288K ish, depending on some assumptions. The point is that this is very much higher than the value you get without a greenhouse effect. This 33K discrepancy can't be resolved without a significantly IR absorbing atmosphere being involved.

What a change in this average means to real temperatures at various points around the earth is obviously not straightforward. It certainly doesn't mean it has to get hotter everywhere for example. I didn't mean to imply that it does.

My point was that going from 255K -> whatever the earths current average temperature is requires an explanation. That's the greenhouse effect and it's responsible for at least an increase of 33K in the average temperature.

[hairykrishna]

Guam said:

So basically you have no clue what the various settings do to the trendline or why, but insist on posting them as though they mean something significant?

This is why they were banned in the first place.

Are you going to hold all posted graphs to the same high standard? The one from Turbobloke published in the daily mail for example? Or the ones culled from various 'skeptic' blogs?