The Other Climate Theory

I'm sorry, jackdog, but I don't see the connection at all. If cosmic rays (or rather the lack of them) were causing global warming, then cosmic rays should have been declining as temperature has been increasing. But that's not happening. So even if cosmic rays have something to do with cloud formation (and they might), that doesn't say anything about the cause of the current warming we're seeing now.

Science is a big continent. Some parts are settled and some parts aren't. The frontier of what's settled keeps getting pushed back. But there are some parts of the theory that are, in fact, settled. So let's take a look at what's settled for sure.

1. It's been getting warmer at the surface during the past 60 years.
2. It's been getting cooler in the stratosphere during the past 60 years.
3. Solar activity has overall declined during the past 60 years.
4. CO2 in the atmosphere has been going up since the industrial revolution.
5. Humans are responsible for the increased CO2.
6. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
7. Greenhouse gases make the Earth warmer.

Is there any part of this with which you disagree?

 

Of course you aren't because AGW has never and will never be proven.

That is debatable but even so......so what? It really doesn't matter how many scientists say one thing or another. RESULTS define scientific method. For example: Please predict the next big climate event based on the consensus of global warming....and all the successful climate experimentation.


Climatologists study climate change in order to predict weather. All a climatologist needs is a bachelor's degree in meteorology to call himself a 'climatologist.'

Climatologists that have PHD's are more likely to get government grants to study global warming. Budding climatologists work for them. It is a whole industry revolving around so-called global warming.

Therefore, results positive to the global warming 'consensus' are more likely than not.

 

Yes, I agree with you; because science does not require proof; science requires observations and evidence.

So why did you bring up "tens of thousands of scientists",
Climate does not have "events"; weather has events.

Incorrect. Climatologists do not study climate change in order to predict weather. Meteorologists study weather to predict the weather. Again you do not seem to know the difference between weather and climate. Baseball analogy (again): weather events are analogous to individual at bats. Climate is analogous to batting average. One cannot predict what a hitter will do at a particular at bat by studying his batting average.

OK. You demand proof of AGW; I now demand proof that the amount of government grants is based on the conclusions of the climate researchers.

 

You are the one that brought it up in the first place. I am merely pointing out that there are opinions on BOTH sides...nothing is proven. Yet we see our government trying to shove it down our throats and we have dolts like Al Gore pushing the agenda.

OK then, please predict the next cataclysmic WEATHER event based on AGW research.

Yet we are told that the GLOBE is warming and will continue to do so based on AGW research. Is that not prediction?

If AGW were proven to be completely false, would the government still spend our tax dollars on it?

 

since the entire post is just misinformation and half truths lets just focus on the major portion of your religion. The keystone so to speak. If that is false nothing else matter now does it?

how much of a increase in temperature would you get if you doubled CO2 tomorrow?

I will refer to my earlier post, lets use real world data from the NOAA. Not homogenized or adjusted in any way. You can skip to the spreadsheet or make your own from the NOAA pages I linked.

OLR raw data http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin...ate+Timeseries

Co2 at Mauna Loa ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/tren...nnmean_mlo.txt

excell spreadsheet with the data plugged in http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...1yearNOAA3.xls

.26 degrees Celsius is nothing to worry about

 

No! You are the one that first mentioned "tens of thousands of scientists"

You still do not get it. Climate does not predict weather events.

But it does not predict individual events; it predicts trends.

 

You are either being deceptive or do not understand what you are linking to. Tell me JD, at what wavelengths does CO2 emit and absorb? All OLR is not the same. What wavelengths do your graphs depict? For the graphs to be meaningful to CO2, you need to limit the OLR to the wavelengths that CO2 absorbs and emits.

 

Do you have a source? I mean other than one that ends with "opinion.blog.com" or whatever?

 

In the first place, that depends on the timeframe over which you measure the increase.

In the second place, you've now transitioned from the settled science area to the unsettled area. May I therefore assume that you agree that the seven points above are settled science?

None of your links work, by the way. They're all broken.

 

apologies I tried to link directly to the data, here are the pages which link to NOAA search engine.

OLR - http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

@mannie the OLR is given in total watts per meter format it includes the 15 micron band

CO2 ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

spreadsheet - http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/hartcode_61yearNOAA3.xls

amazingly or maybe not, the data shows that Beers Lambert works in the atmosphere just exactly as it works in a laboratory environment

I know you guys hate Anthony Watts but a here's quick explanation for the ignorant

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

now I expect nothing but ad homs from you kids but is you look at the real world measured data read that article you will see that CO2 molar absorption is indeed logarithmic not linear in nature, just as the article explains

if you want to rebut I suggest you link some reliable data source showing a linear decrease in OLR as Co2 increased. Other wise your hypothesis is false

 

new knowledge helps to improve current theories, lol.
By the way, no one at any time, but idiots has ever said that Global warming is caused entirely by human actions, duhhhhhhhhhhh!
Global warming, in fact all weather is quite complicated with many factors, including but not limited to the solar cycles, sunspots and the like, and human actions. Get over it. Humans DO have an effect on the weather, of that there is NO doubt by any legitimate scientist anywhere. NOR does any legitimate scientist anywhere claim that global warming is caused entirely by human action. Get over the 'this or that' black or white and learn to accept reality.

 

Amazing indeed. CO2 is included in the spreadsheet, but it's not actually used in any calculations. You can check this yourself by doing a "trace dependents" to see where the arrows go.

Yet somehow, they still manage to come up with a climate sensitivity for CO2? Please explain for us ignorant types exactly how they arrived at this conclusion. Because Anthony Watts doesn't explain it either.

The logarithmic nature of absorption (for any absorber, not just CO2) is also part of settled science. You can find it in the IPCC report. And this disproves global warming how, exactly?

 

simple question has outgoing OLR decreased in direct proportion to increased CO2 ..yes or no ?

 

from the article I linked earlier

now do you see a linear decrease in OLR compared to the increase in Co2 from 1960 to 2010? The IPCC models have it all wrong as has been pointed out time and time again

 

No. Nor should we expect it to.

1. OLR as a whole responds to the fourth power of temp, not linearly to CO2.

2. See your previous post: CO2 absorption is logarithmic, not linear.

3. In spite of (1), the true enlightenment is in the details. While absorption is actually going down in the CO2-absorbing bands, it must therefore increase elsewhere in the spectrum to keep the energy budget in balance. Both of these effects have been observed. Also actually observed is increased downwelling IR in the CO2 bands.

 

You mean like the inaccurate predictions of the warming trend?

 

Linky??

No, of course not!!

 

so where does the IPPC get the 3C to 6 C temp increases?

My whole point here is that the models are wrong, and the predictions are wrong. Once you get away from the land based "adjusted" temps the warming is no where near what the models predict and it comes no where close to correlating with the Co2 increase. Go play with the UAH and RSS temps

wood for trees has a great little browser based database and graphing utility

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rs...ot/uah/from:1997.5/plot/uah/from:1997.5/trend

another fun plot is to compare UAH to RSS to GISS to HADCrut 3

 

Boy you cherry picked the starting date right down to the half year.

 

3 to 6 C is the generally accepted range of climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling. Since we're going to hit CO2 doubling (from pre-industrial levels) in mid-century, that's about the temp increase we should expect at that time, above pre-industrial levels (or actually, will eventually see: there's a significant lag. But we've already seen a degree of that.)

Can you state exactly what model has been wrong, and what prediction has been wrong?

UAH and RSS show almost exactly the same rate of warming as HAD, GISS, and NCDC over the satellite era. And adjusting data isn't wrong: it's exactly the right thing to do. Here's a plot from your favorite utility, Wood for Trees:


These are linear trends for GISS, HAD, RSS, and UAH on the same graph. Same rate of change.

 

OK..I provide the link...You say my link is no good and so it goes...Been there done that. The fact remains that the warming trend predicted did not materialize. I think there are other posts here with links to the info. Why don't you go tell them their links are no good?

 

Actually, 3 C is the midpoint, or the best estimate, for climate sensitivity. The 90% range is 1.5-4.5 C with most of the remaining uncertainty on the upper bound.

The rest of your post is absolutely correct, but jackdog is a lost cause on that.

 

##ROFL### You did not see the posts above you did you?

And there has been a warming trend

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

And the models did predict it

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

And quite frankly old chap I cannot ever remember you providing a link of any sort at any time

 

From YOUR link 'old gal'

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

While the nation's weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987."

Computer models are made by a bunch of computer nerd tweakers. Anyway, your link still sucks...: )

 

Okay - spent enough time looking - it can't find it there but it DOES google match a couple of other sites so it probably is in the blog responses which, contrary to conspiracy theories about "hiding the truth" they leave up, but respond to. I do not need to respond more than to say

America is not the whole globe.

OH! CRAP! Edited to add - found the original of that quote and it is from.................................





1989!! Bwa hahahahahahah!!!!

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/1989-nyt-no-warming-in-us-since-1895