What would it take to convince a climate realist?

You said it was easy to convince a critic

No I didn’t. I stated:

denialists can show their beliefs have scientific support by busting out testable hypotheses, equations, models, journal articles, robust consensus, scribbles on a napkin.

Alas, denialists have none of these to support their beliefs.

And you cannot show science supports your beliefs, as we see.

Best,

D

CO2 is a GHG. And some heat goes out of the atm into space. No GHGs in the atmosphere, and we aren’t here.

Best,

D

Thanks, I’ll take those points on offer!

o Water vapor makes up 95% of the greenhouse effect [30 points]

https://www.facebook.com/ClimateDenialistTalkingPointGame

Best,

D

David that action has been claimed but any amount involved is minor and will be overridden by the negative feed back of plant growth. Last week I visited Mount Etna which is always bubbling away releasing CO2. The plant growth on the slopes below the tree line is incredible, Sicily is famed for its fertility and this is the blessing its Volcanos bestow. Co2 is locked into plant storage producing both Oxogen and stored energy as you know. Scilly is actually cooler than Italy in Summer, not warmer through re radiation as your theory suggests it should. I’m not aware of CO2 Scilly’s concentrations being monitored, but I suspect they must be.

The Venus CO2 mechanism is described in the Planke effect (I think thats the spelling) This was demonstrated, but the temperature was seemingly cherry red on Venus. Far hotter, and the effect is not apparent at lower temperatures it seems. Climate changes plotted from reconstructed data, overlaid by Sun spot activity suggests the peaks and troughs co-incide, I understand Sunspot activity is only a relatively recent study, I met a Physicist in California in the late 1970’s researching this. Climate change I believe to be entirely Solar driven and directly so.

Our atmosphere acts as an insulation blanket, with increased cloud cover (water vapor) the planets temp drops dramatically and swiftly. As a cloud clears the suns rays warm the surface quickly. Insulation works both ways stopping incoming radiation and re-radadiation.

To convince me would require a credible explanation by some real person who knows the mechanism, not links.

little

Again, no more than 10%, according to recent peer-reviewed “science”.

No more than 10%, according to recent peer-reviewed “science”.

What exactly do you mean by “by the negative feed back of plant growth?”

But what do you mean by a “negative feed back of plant growth?”
Feedback on what?
What is the mechanism?

Why can’t you simply explain what you mean?
What is a “negative feed back of plant growth?”
Feedback on what?
Why is it negative?

I can’t speak for him, but it is well understood that as the planet warms and CO2 increases, plant growth increases.

More plants mean more carbon dioxide sequestered.

Not sure that is the negative feedback he was talking about – another is more transpiration, leading to more water vapor, leading to more clouds that reduce the incoming solar energy.

“…leading to more water vapor, leading to more clouds that reduce the incoming solar energy.”

Clouds both reflect sunlight and trap IR. The science is increasingly looking like the net cloud feedback is positive:

Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.

Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.

“Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,”
Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.

Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.

Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.

What is your point? I’m not going to try to guess….

When I wrote, “3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?”

you answered “not necessarily.”

So when doesn’t that happen?

No it doesn’t.

Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.

Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.

“Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,”
Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.

Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.

Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.

Since you haven’t rebutted these studies, I take it that you can’t.

Plants absorb CO2. Plant’s “work ethic” (NPP) has been going up, 15%-25% … Plants now store more CO2 per season than they used to.

Let’s take a look at the literature, and see …

Most models’ simulations (during concentration-driven scenarios) do not include any feedback, from CO2 fertilization of plants, or changes of carbon stored in the oceans, since the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is defined, and fixed, by the scenario.

”Technically, there is no carbon cycle feedback in concentration-driven simulations [CMIP5], since changes in the amount of carbon stored in the ocean and on land do not influence the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

”We note that none of the models considered here, implement a sensitivity of biological production to increasing carbon availability (e.g., a change in organic carbon to nutrients ratio in organic matter) as, for instance, in Oschlies et al. (2008) or Tagliabue et al. (2011) with implications for carbon uptake. Likewise, none of the models implement a sensitivity of calcification to decreasing seawater pH.”

Schwinger, Jörg, et al. 2014 “Non-linearity of ocean carbon cycle feedbacks in CMIP5 earth system models.” Journal of Climate

http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/filea…

”The future of the land carbon cycle is significantly more uncertain, even for a given RCP scenario. There is no overall agreement across models on the sign of the land carbon sink by the end of the 21st century, …”

They cannot even agree on the polarity, being a plus, or a minus, let alone the magnitude of the land carbon sink. Scientists disagree on whether the land will emit carbon dioxide, or store it.

Friedlingstein, Pierre, et al. 2014 “Historical and future land carbon cycle, results from the 5th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5).” EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/…

Well, come back with specifics. A general taint of ” You try to fool everyone…” or “I find that you either misrepresented the paper …” aren’t detailed enough to rebut.
… wait, WHAT??
IS THAT AN ADMISSION … that you have not read the paper that I cited, before?
“Yet ever time I’ve looked into one of your links…” Ha! You’ve never read the paper before. You’re not familiar with the subject, unless it has been outlined for you by “skeptical science” …

“…who knows the science and can read scientific papers for themselves.”
But, you don’t “know the science” except for a force-fed viewpoint from “SkS”
But, you don’t read the scientific papers … else my words would not surprise you so…

“…fool some of the ill-informed. You can’t fool me…”
Oh, gee, an exact quote from the authors of the paper, with quote marks and italics, so you won’t be confused … bibliographic citations, mostly with accompanying URLs … how, exactly, is that fooling anyone?

“Scilly is actually cooler than Italy in Summer, not warmer through re radiation as your theory suggests it should.”

This is a very poor understanding of how climate change works.
What is the temperature trend in Sicily?

I think you can’t prove your claim, and don’t like being asked to do so.

I see this all the time from climate change deniers — big opinions, until they’re asked to justify them, and then they can’t.

He does love to argue, even when he’s been repeatedly decisively proven wrong.

Well you have not corrected matters with your explanation. You have only attacked and never once explained. Typical of a paid lackey.

Ok, your just a shouter with little ability to debate or explain. Thanks for you illustrations.

Because it is based on false assumptions based on laboratory conditions that don’t exist in the real world. Sure, if our atmosphere was primarily CO2 it would be something – but it’ isn’t, nor is the relatively minuscule increase in atmospheric CO2 anything that we need to worry about.

I’m just someone who doesn’t take kindly to calling all the scientists wrong, when they have no evidence or understanding to back it up.

Typical troll tactic, He would never concede that the actual data disproves the computer models, He would never adjust a computer model so it would match reality. Thank god that political AGW trolls don’t provide our daily weather forecasts else we would all be wearing CO2 scrubbers and they would predict Barbecue summers. LoL
TO LATE http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/7157635/Met-Office-to-look-at-more-information-in-forecasts-after-barbecue-summer.html

Was I talking about you ?

Thank GOD we climate realists are only calling the climate alarmists posing as scientists wrong then!

Once would be nice.

Appell, you’re either an idiot or a willfully lying troublemaker. Clouds are the visible water vapor in the atmosphere and humidity is the invisible water vapor! And to make it really simple for you so you can understand, rain is a whole bunch of water vapor all in one drop.

Clouds aren’t water vapour … water vapour is not clouds…
Yet water vapour totally dominates, as a greenhouse gas, over CO2, and Clouds thermostatically regulate the planet’s temperature.

And yet, it is a strong NEGATIVE feedback, as there is no runaway greenhouse effect as their would have to be were your ridiculous claims correct. Water vapor contributes both positive and negative feebacks, but the net effect, clearly, since the temperature remains relatively stable, is a negative, self-limiting one.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/51422b160dff745d5030692fd2b6a86411e79a8d8384c697d6138d027e74df40.jpg

Look at the ENSO space in the Pacific equatorial region: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/327b1b14536e475a7adc8369e8d145027adefb70d8055e7b368eeef3c2d6c50a.jpg Where’s the water vapour feedback? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/36aa08b93173afc08ce0445c5e0ad0b3ac637629bd8ddfccbf394ade9c421620.jpg

I agree with your analysis… and agree DavidAppell really doesn’t have a clue, despite his silly assertions to the contrary.

Clouds are visible because they contain drops or droplets of liquid water, or crystals, flakes or hail stones of solid water.

Clouds are capable of absorbing a radiation from a broad spectrum, both from insolation, and from other parts of the atmosphere or surface. The radiation they emit depends on their temperature,

The latent heats of evaporation and sublimation are enormous compared with the specific heats of ice, water, steam (aka water vapor) and atmospheric gas.

This allows clouds to absorb or emit radiation for relatively long durations without appreciably changing temperature.

No, clouds are not water vapor, and water vapor isn’t clouds.

Water vapor is a gas. Clouds are particulates on nucleating particles.

So you have solved The theory of everything. And how did you measure that warming, With Mann made hockey sticks.

Mann v Steyn

What problem with hockey sticks. It’s settled science.

The IPCC doesn’t do science. You didn’t know that, did you?

You’re just figuring that out?

Josh again

Junk science that just won’t die.

When your peers doing the review are an echo chamber it simply reveals the flaws inherent in the peer-review system.

http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-the-peer-review-scam-1.16400

When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/37798/title/Fake-Paper-Exposes-Failed-Peer-Review/

Having an authentic name, representing a real research institution, and offering actual scientific results are apparently not required for publication in many open access journals, Science has found. A completely invented scientist—“Ocorrafoo Cobange”—who worked at a fabricated institution—“the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara”—was able to get the same terribly faked paper accepted for publication in 157 journals.

And, hilariously, this:

Dr. Melba Ketchum Bigfoot DNA paper passes peer review, now awaiting publication date.

Checking in with sources inside in the Ketchum camp, we were able to confirm from multiple persons that the paper is finished and has finally passed peer review. Now all Ketchum is waiting for is a publication date, and she has no idea when that is coming. This is great news!

One of the unethical things revealed in the climategate email release was that those involved were plotting to, and deliberately did, pervert the peer review system to prevent perfectly valid papers, that they simply did not like, from being published.

Cartoons don’t trump peer reviewed science….

Wrong. You need to read the 5AR WG1 more carefully. Mann’s work is prominent throughout its chapter 5.

See the 5AR WG1 Table 5.A.6. Mann’s work is referred to 4 times there. And, by the abbreviations given in this table, many other times throughout the chapter.

Actually the hockey stick is required by the laws of physics.

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-thing-is-hockey-stick-isnt.html
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/09/an-even-easier-way-to-get-hockey-stick.html

Anyone who understands basic physics knows that the hockey stick is an obvious consequence of our CO2 emissions. The math is trivial.

Marcel: Mann et al’s hockey stick does not extend past about 1960, due to the so-called Divergence Problem. You should have known this.

“On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289–305.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf

Required …

If you want to make a point, state it… I don’t go chasing URLs.

Don’t want to address the decreasing solar intensity?

Didn’t think you would respond to a direct question about data.

Here’s the data:

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/160c85bcab8b1065483c93de3b1a058763ec883f85f98f872d722dbb042fec34.jpg

If you think 1 W/m2 of solar forcing matters, explain why the same amount of forcing from carbon dioxide DOES NOT matter.

Hmm?

Right — the sun is not responsible for modern warming.

Easy – the Sun’s irradiance has been on a slowly declining trend since the 1960s.

Data and graphs here:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

What is problematic with the “accuracy?”

Maybe, about ½W/m^2 apparent decrease, since 1960?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/44d3415b1e0e2d61734052917f479805a8d31e1c538f3c0d18c8e1ba88ab77ea.jpg
…considering the accuracy (65W/m^2) and stability (13W/m^2 per decade), that is a laughable conclusion.

”SORCE/SOLSTICE … with an absolute calibration uncertainty of approximately 5% [about 65W/m^2]… The long-term stability in the latest data version is about 1% per year [around 13 W/m^2 per year] ….”

But, so it would seem that there may be a ½W of decrease … but there are lots of statements which caution what you can, legitimately, conclude …

”… none of the current solar proxies can properly reconstruct the solar UV irradiance, on all timescales (Dudok de Wit et al. 2009), …”

Cessateur, Gaël, et al. 2016 “Solar irradiance observations with PREMOS filter radiometers on the PICARD mission: In-flight performance and data release.” Astronomy and Astrophysics

https://hal-insu.archives-ouvertes.fr/insu-01286003/document

”This shows that current knowledge of variations in spectral irradiance is not sufficient to warrant robust conclusions concerning the impact of solar variability on the atmosphere and climate.”

”… While TSI is a good indicator of the total solar forcing on the climate, it cannot be used to understand the physical interaction between the solar radiation and the atmosphere, since spectral solar irradiance (SSI) variability, and the altitude in the atmosphere, at which it is absorbed, is highly wavelength-dependent

”… (PMOD) composite of TSI observations (Fröhlich 2006) and the modelled TSI by Ball et al. (2012) are consistent, within the error bars, with no change between the last three minima.” Not quite what DA claims, from the sixties, but … close.

”While considerable progress has been made in determining the absolute value of the total solar irradiance (Kopp and Lean 2011), the absolute spectral solar irradiance is still poorly constrained and a number of different ‘standard’ absolute solar spectra are available (see Thuillier et al. (2003) for a discussion of this).”

Ball, William T., et al. 2014 “A new SATIRE-S spectral solar irradiance reconstruction for solar cycles 21–23 and its implications for stratospheric ozone.”

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0365v1.pdf

”There have been previous efforts to compile solar irradiance, but it is still uncertain, by how much the spectral, and total solar irradiance changed, on yearly, decadal, and longer time scales.”

http://projects.pmodwrc.ch/solid/index.php/research

”SORCE/SOLSTICE … with an absolute calibration uncertainty of approximately 5% [about 65W/m^2] SORCE/SOLSTICE … cover the spectral regions 115–180nm and 170– 320nm. The long-term stability in the latest data version is about 1% per year [around 13 W/m^2 per year] (M. Snow, personal communication, 2012).”

”SORCE/SIM (Harder et al., 2005a,b) … It achieves an absolute calibration uncertainty of approximately 2% [about 25 W/m^2]”

”Solar UV variability … exceed the variability observed … by a factor of 3–10 depending on wavelength (DeLand and Cebula, 2012; Figs. 2, 4, and 8).”

”ISS/SOLSPEC has been calibrated to an absolute scale at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) using the BB3200pg blackbody radiator (Sperfeld et al., 1998). Over the whole spectral range, SOLSPEC accuracy is within 2 to 3% [about 27 W/m^2 to about 40 W/m^2].”

i>”Lee et al. (1995) estimated the absolute accuracy of the Nimbus7/HF instrument to be 0.5% [about 6 to 7 W/m^2] and that of ERBS/ERBE (Earth Radiation Budget Satellite/Earth Radi- ation Budget Experiment) 0.2%. [about 2½ W/m^2]”

”Fröhlich and Lean (1998) state that the absolute measurements of the early radiometers are uncertain to about 0.4%, which corresponds to 5.5 W/m^2 . ”

”However, the SORCE/TIM experiment proved to be a new outlier. Lawrence et al. (2003) claim an uncertainty of 0.5 W/m^2 , i.e. accurate to 350 ppm. Because SORCE/TIM is 4.5 and 5 W/m^2 below SOHO/VIRGO and ACRIM/ACRIM-III, respectively, the uncertainties given by the instrument teams do not overlap (Kopp and Lean, 2011).”

Ermolli et al. 2013 Spectral irradiance and climate Atmos. Chem. Phys

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf

Wow, DA, I took a look at the data… https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dedf46297ab4e6b6ac5ab4a51d37af782b49935608ec2d8ecd6b49a8c401bd3a.jpg The data, mind you, not their graph. Well, the data is a splice, much like Mann’s hockey schtick …a model’s reconstruction spliced with SOURCE/TIM data (and the model’s output adjusted to match)

Over the years with the WARMIST YEAH, EVAH? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/177d2d713ad1c402e25caba38e1c0509d61970e9373e7657d6f88f62421c669d.jpg
TSI data:http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt
Convenient, on-line calculator: http://www.alcula.com/calculators/statistics/linear-regression/

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/97b0abed6b4df5e86e94ba1e3273c7d0db4f00ab5eee3410e2c1284bc111daf9.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/67674c938aba801f9f2278f0830dfa06826162d70dbdd7a7600a61672ceb79c6.jpg
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/cc68d0b91aa7676369333837162e1afdfa19614cd521d63ba4b5a9803132a690.jpg

Ok, so where is YOUR chart showing the onset or continuation of “stratospheric cooling”?

“Ok, so where is YOUR chart showing the onset or continuation of “stratospheric cooling”?”

See IPCC 5AR WG1 Ch 10 Fig 10.8.

Suggest that you read: Ball, William T., et al. 2014 “A new SATIRE-S spectral solar irradiance reconstruction for solar cycles 21–23 and its implications for stratospheric ozone.”

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0365v1.pdf

Ermolli, Ilaria, et al. 2013 “Recent variability of the solar spectral irradiance and its impact on climate modelling.” Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/3945/2013/acp-13-3945-2013.pdf

Short Quotes

”…even though TSI varies only by about 0.1 % over the solar cycle, larger variations of several percent occur in the UV part of the spectrum,… are important for photochemical processes (e.g. Haigh, 1994). … statistically significant ozone, temperature, and zonal wind solar signals in the stratosphere (Austin et al., 2008; Gray et al., 2010).”

”TSI alone, does not adequately describe the solar forcing on the atmosphere, and therefore, SSI variations have to be taken into account, in climate models.”

DA, please note, that, when making a citation, I’m simply referring you to that paper as the source of what I indicated that I found in that paper. It does not mean that I agree with, or even disagree with, the conclusions of the authors. I am, on the other hand, using the weight of the other scientists, in that my opinion is, well, an opinion, but, that opinion is fortified by the authors. I often use this example: I find some Earth Sciences paper from a long, long time ago. The authors are the first, in literature, to have ‘discovered’ that water is wet. I want to add weight to my opinion that ‘water is wet’, so I cite that ancient paper. However, that paper also concludes that the earth is flat, and sitting on the back of a giant turtle. So, from the perspective of the discovery of ‘water is wet’ – the authors deserve the credit of having discovered that, or, just so I can proclaim, ‘water is wet, and I’m not the only person who thinks so!’ … thus adding weight to my opinion. Just because I cite those authors as my source for the discovery that ‘water is wet’ does not also include that I agree, the world is flat. It is a citation, not an endorsement!

So, the TSI is the integral of the SSI over the entire spectrum. Let’s say TSI = A+B+Y+Z The TSI doesn’t vary much, but the SSI has parts that do vary, but when “Y” varies up, “Z” varies, but down. So the TSI remains the same … but SSI does vary. As Ermolli states, some of that spectra affects stratospheric ozone, which you just pointed out, has significance. Stay focused, and don’t go off on a rant about how the world is not flat, just because I pointed out that ‘water is wet’.

The science is certainly not ‘settled’.

If the “science” is settled, what is the science, and what does a greenhouse gas physically do?

I’m not fooling. There is no theory supporting the mistaken idea that “greenhouse gasses” determine or explain the surface temperature.

There are charlatans promoting the “greenhouse gas” nonsense, and fools who believe them.

What physics do you think the “greenhouse gas” hypothesis is a basic piece of?

You can give no physical explanation of how it is supposed to work other than your non physical assertion that radiation from a cold gas in the sky irradiates and warms warmer gasses and surfaces, but you offer no example where this ever occurs.

Ridiculous.

“There is no proof that increased atmospheric CO2 causes increased temperatures. None.”

Bull — what you mean is that YOU don’t know the evidence.

Try these:

“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

Press release for the latter: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

Lots of people know of Philipona et al, except the ignorant like you. And there’s no reason to think her conclusions have changed in 12 years.

Feldman worked under clear sky conditions. It proves the enhanced greenhouse effect in a spectacular way.

Feldman et al’s purpose want to analyze compensatory effects (obviously). It was to examine whether CO2’s greenhouse effect is increaseing. It is — and at the rate that models calculate.

It’s an important paper. So is Feldman et al.

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2015/07/from-warming-estimates-to-measurements/

So what? I can’t help it if you don’t need proof to believe something. It gets annoying though, when you continue to argue without it.

In the end and above all, climate is a matter of energy conservation. A different SSI but the same TSI doesn’t pump any more energy into the Earth’s system. If that can’t account for the vast majority of this heat increase — the ocean — then the changes in SSI aren’t creating the observed changes.

If you think changes in SSI are warming the Earth’s ocean, then prove it.

Simple: prove that a different SSI is responsible for modern warming — or some part of it.

Where is the PROOF?

The measurement of SSI is fraught with errors and uncertainties:

”Generally, space instrumentation suffers significantly from degradation and signal contamination, which is particularly severe for instruments devoted to SSI observations (BenMoussa et al. 2013). … the SSI variability over the long-term (i.e. 11-year solar cycle) is highly uncertain … There are indeed conflicting trends … over the whole spectrum (see Yeo et al. 2014, for a review).” Cessateur, Gaël, et al. 2016 “Solar irradiance observations with PREMOS filter radiometers on the PICARD mission: In-flight performance and data release.” Astronomy and Astrophysics

”This shows that current knowledge of variations in spectral irradiance is not sufficient to warrant robust conclusions concerning the impact of solar variability on the atmosphere and climate.” … ”While TSI is a good indicator of the total solar forcing on the climate, it cannot be used to understand the physical interaction between the solar radiation and the atmosphere, since spectral solar irradiance (SSI) variability, and the altitude in the atmosphere, at which it is absorbed, is highly wavelength-dependent (Meier 1991; Lean et al. 1997; Krivova et al. 2006). There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that TSI, and as a consequence SSI, may vary on secular timescales exceeding the 11-year solar cycle.”…”While considerable progress has been made in determining the absolute value of the total solar irradiance (Kopp and Lean 2011), the absolute spectral solar irradiance is still poorly constrained and a number of different ‘standard’ absolute solar spectra are available (see Thuillier et al. (2003) for a discussion of this).” Ball, William T., et al. 2014 “A new SATIRE-S spectral solar irradiance reconstruction for solar cycles 21–23 and its implications for stratospheric ozone.”

”101 The extant database of space era observations of TSI and SSI (for TSI, 37 years or 102 approximately 3 solar cycles and less for SSI) lacks the length and, with respect to SSI, the stability to quantify true solar variability over multiple 11-year solar activity cycles. Most of the individual observations made thus far have neither sufficiently small uncertainties nor adequate repeatability to achieve the measurement requirements for a climate data record of total and spectral solar irradiance.”…”…108 the challenge is to detect variations of less than 0.01% per decade in TSI and 0.1-0.5% per decade for SSI…” Coddington, O., et al. 2015 “A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

”… levels of accuracy and stability are not achieved with the existing SSI instruments (Skupin et al. 2005; Harder et al. 2009), and there is considerable uncertainty in the long-term stabilities of the measurements, leading to disparate conclusions of solar variability, even on solar cycle time scales (Matthes 2011; Lean & DeLand 2012).”…”The relative solar variability, at these shorter wavelengths, is much greater than in the visible, and the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to variations in this spectral region, is large.” Kopp, Greg 2014. “An assessment of the solar irradiance record for climate studies.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

“…In the UV, the amplitude of the variations is much higher, with relative changes of 1 to 20% observed in the UV band … In the visible and near infrared bands, the amplitude of the variations rarely exceeds 0.5% over a solar cycle. Spectral solar irradiance (SSI) … changes are more delicate to be observed during the 11- year cycle. Indeed, the degradation of the instruments limits this observation, and more particularly in the UV…” Meftah, Mustapha, et al. 2014 “Sovap/picard, a spaceborne radiometer to measure the total solar irradiance.” Solar Physics

”Nevertheless, we need to keep in mind that the true nature of solar variability lies in the magnetic field of the Sun itself.” Zacharias, Pia 2014. “An Independent Review of Existing Total Solar Irradiance Records.” Surveys in Geophysics

”Changes in the spectral solar irradiance (SSI) are a key driver of the variability of the Earth’s environment, strongly affecting the upper atmosphere, but also impacting climate. However, its measurements have been sparse and of different quality.” Schöll, Micha, et al. 2016 “Making of a solar spectral irradiance dataset I: observations, uncertainties, and methods.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

“…we have good science on the warming caused by GHGs.”

What “good science” do you have?

An object doesn’t absorb radiation from a cooler source.

Please show some real life (testable and on Earth) example where a warmer object absorbs and is warmed by radiation from a cooler source. How does the cooler object’s radiation excite the warmer object?

>> How does the object know the temperature of the cooler source? <<
"Why would it care?"

You tell me — you're the one who claimed that radiation isn't always absorbed, like if it came from a colder object.

“Radiation from a colder object just doesn’t excite it.”

Why not?

I take it by your efforts to deflect, that you can cite no real world example of cold heating hot , correct?

“Radiation from a colder object just doesn’t excite it.”

Ice radiates.
It is colder than you.
So how can you see it, if no radiation from it enters your eyeball?

“What do your beliefs about EM have to do why you can present no example of cold warming hot in the real world?”

It’s happening all around you, all the time, everywhere, constantly.

Literally, everywhere.

“Climate scientists “have no justification in assuming the rates are” low enough to rule out a large solar influence in climate”

Absolutely, totally, utterly false.

The sun simply hasn’t added enough heat to account for modern warming — no even close.

And no one has ever shown it has — except maybe Willie Soon, who was paid to come to certain conclusions.

You might be willing to sell your opinions for money. But most of us are more honest and will not do that.

And a cartoon — a cartoon! — does not prove they will.

I don’t have a “boss”.

Misguided, mostly – not corrupt. You’re misguided, DA … I don’t think you are corrupt (i.e. malicious) … you’re corrupted (garbage in, garbage out) … but not corrupt.

“… the SSI may show the key interaction. We just don’t know.”

Then you have no science.

Meanwhile, modern warming is nicely accounted for by an increased greenhouse effect.

Death threats … RICO laws … what, are you kidding?
No, DA, I’m an engineer.

I suppose you might get death threats from rabid “deniers” – not my kind of people. Please don’t lump me in with them.

David, you seem unusually rabid, today.

You people are so gullible. The Sun does this https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0a9e45fe96fff059939fa3097859b5b94e7460a227473d5a67676af0ed1fee23.jpg all the time. Why don’t you plot TSI for 2015, or 2014, or any year? You’ll see exactly the same patterns:

TIM reconstruction data: http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt

Convenient, on-line linear regression analysis web site:

http://www.alcula.com/calculators/statistics/linear-regression/

Plug in the data … cut-n-paste.

Kopp & Lean 2011: ”The most accurate value of total solar irradiance during the 2008 solar minimum period is 1360.8 ± 0.5 W/m^2 according to measurements from the Total Irradiance Monitor (TIM) on NASA’s Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) and a series of new radiometric laboratory tests.”

Kopp, Greg, and Judith L. Lean 2011. “A new, lower value of total solar irradiance: Evidence and climate significance.” Geophysical Research Letters

http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/strong/phy392/Kopp_Lean_solar_irradiance_GRL_38_L01706_2011.pdf

“I’m just saying that the scientists can’t find their butts, even if they use both hands, metaphorically speaking of the TSI and ¾W of “warming”.”

What about that science — specifically — is lacking?

I bet you can’t say.

“The science is lacking absoulte accuracy.”

ALL SCIENCE lacks absolute accuracy, dummy.

All of it. Yet you rely on it each and every day in a great many ways. Explain.

Nonsense. Instead of making up numbers, why don’t you actually look at the data and see what their error bars are:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

You still aren’t LOOKING AT THE DATA.

The data is readily available. And it doesn’t support your claim.

“The data you refer to is just a table. (Show me the journal-published, peer reviewed calculationss that the table is derrived from)”

Learn to read — it’s all there in the header atop the data page:

http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

The TSI, as noted earlier, has a remarkably steady deliverance of wattage, over time. However, the SSI shows that the spectral components of this apparently steady TSI, vary in quite a large way. The wattage seems to be constant, but the ultraviolet goes up as the soft X-ray goes down, so the TSI appears to be uniform, while the interaction between earth’s climate and the large increases or decreases, of the X-ray and ultraviolet, well, we just don’t know, do we? That’s the thing, with this “settled science” … It changes, all the time.

”The relative solar variability, at these shorter wavelengths, is much greater than in the visible, and the sensitivity of the Earth’s atmosphere to variations in this spectral region, is large.”

Kopp, Greg 2014. “An assessment of the solar irradiance record for climate studies.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

http://www.leif.org/EOS/swsc130036-TSI-Climate.pdf

”… While TSI is a good indicator of the total solar forcing on the climate, it cannot be used to understand the physical interaction between the solar radiation and the atmosphere, since spectral solar irradiance (SSI) variability, and the altitude in the atmosphere, at which it is absorbed, is highly wavelength-dependent (Meier 1991; Lean et al. 1997; Krivova et al. 2006). There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that TSI, and as a consequence SSI, may vary on secular timescales exceeding the 11-year solar cycle.”

”While considerable progress has been made in determining the absolute value of the total solar irradiance (Kopp and Lean 2011), the absolute spectral solar irradiance is still poorly constrained …”

Ball, William T., et al. 2014 “A new SATIRE-S spectral solar irradiance reconstruction for solar cycles 21–23 and its implications for stratospheric ozone.”

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1408.0365v1.pdf

Listen to yourself — arguing that global warming is due to the sun at the same time arguing that the TSI data is to uncertain to conclude anything.

From the abstract of the paper you linked to:

“Results. We present a unified database of solar activity records with accompanying meta-data and uncertainties.
Conclusions. This dataset can be used for further investigations of the long-term trend of solar activity and the construction of a homogeneous SSI record.”

What? That caption is tutti-frutti colour highlighted! Here, I’ll reproduce it again…

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/29dce20ccf563693592c5b5cdd34c48b09d4beb768b48bb62d7492308cb2e750.jpg

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2542db6c4f984edfed0db4276f0cbdeeac9135eb2836658d5f6d84baa9256df1.jpg

So, what are the definitions of the uncertainty, for that table, you keep pointing to?

A key “conclusion” in “Global Warming” is that the sun did not do it because the Total Solar Irradience (TSI) variance is really small. Only recently, however, did scientists notice that the variations in the energy from the sun are actually LARGE, but complimentary to the total. The variations in one part of the spectrum tend to cancel the other variations in another part of the spectrum, leaving the total … the TSI, somewhat invariant, but the SSI (Spectral Solar Irradience) is LARGE.

”TSI variations are observed to be on the order of about 0.5% standard deviation from the mean value.” … ”TSI alone, does not adequately describe the solar forcing on the atmosphere, and therefore, SSI variations have to be taken into account, in climate models.” … ”…although the UV radiation shortward of 400 nm represents less than 8% of the TSI, its variability may have a significant impact on climate.” … ”The TSI is the spectral integral of SSI over all wavelengths, but its weak [low] variability masks the fact that relative SSI variations show a strong [high] wavelength dependence (Fig. 1). In particular, the visible and NIR bands are the least variable of the solar spectrum, with a relative solar cycle amplitude of the same order as for the TSI (0.1 %), whereas values of 1 to 100% are observed in the UV variations, and in excess of 100% in the soft X-ray range (below 10 nm). Each individual spectral band has a markedly different impact on the terrestrial atmosphere, which depends on the atmospheric processes affected by the given band, the amount of the spectral flux, and its variation.” … Ermolli et al. 2013

The interaction between different spectra from the sun, and the climate of the earth, is also LARGE. ”Long-term variations, such as the solar magnetic cycle modulation, have a more marked impact on the shorter wavelengths, especially in the XUV and EUV ranges where the intrinsic variability can reach 100%–1000% as shown in Figure 1.”

”Solar irradiance in the UV (UltraViolet) range is a key parameter for space climate studies (Lilensten et al. 2008; Mikhailov et al. 2012).”

”The solar spectral variability in the UV is dynamic, and affects the thermosphere/ionosphere system differently on various time scales.”

”The solar UV flux with the magnetospheric energetic inputs induces a large panel of processes such as ionization, dissociation, or excitation of the gases in the upper atmosphere. These processes induce electron production and photo-excitation that can be measured remotely, and give rise to a large panel of observable quantities.”

Barthelemy, Mathieu, and Gaël Cessateur 2014. “Sensitivity of upper atmospheric emissions calculations to solar/stellar UV flux.” Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate

http://www.swsc-journal.org/articles/swsc/full_html/2014/01/swsc130040/swsc130040.html

”The solar UV flux with the magnetospheric energetic inputs induces a large panel of processes such as ionization, dissociation, or excitation of the gases in the upper atmosphere. These processes induce electron production and photo-excitation that can be measured remotely, and give rise to a large panel of observable quantities.”

Says nothing about atmospheric or surface temperatures, does it?

UAH relies on a string of about 7 different satellites, extrapolating across their entire records.

Satellites don’t last forever, so such extrapolations unavoidable.

Just last year, Coddington published: ”101 The extant database of space era observations of TSI and SSI (for TSI, 37 years or 102 approximately 3 solar cycles and less for SSI) lacks the length and, with respect to SSI, the stability to quantify true solar variability over multiple 11-year solar activity cycles. Most of the individual observations made thus far have neither sufficiently small uncertainties nor adequate repeatability to achieve the measurement requirements for a climate data record of total and spectral solar irradiance.”

”…108 the challenge is to detect variations of less than 0.01% per decade in TSI and 0.1-0.5% per decade for SSI…”

Coddington, O., et al. 2015 “A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00265.1

Diversion into temperatures; this discussion is about absolute accuracy & climate-quality measurements … which, for the TSI, do not exist … When CLARREO hits, the necessary accuracy might be there … but, it takes decades to accumulate the data.

“You can’t say that about the TSI, where instruments were calibrated, at best, to non-SI-traceable 0.3% (about 4W/m^2)”

Wrong. LOOK AT THE DATA:

new:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt

Graphs:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/

You climate deniers are such liars — we have to check every little thing you say, and they always turn out to be lies.

THIS PAPER IS OLD! Didn’t you notice?

SOLAR IRRADIANCE IS NO LONGER MEASURED VIA ERBS.

THE PAPER ONLY LOOKS AT DATA UP UNTIL 1993.

Really, this is just despicable dishonesty.

What part of Lee’s statement:

“The current database is too short and imprecise to establish the magnitude of long‐term irradiance changes, …” is inapplicable to your claim of TSI declining since 1960? True, Lee’s paper was in 1993. Did someone go back in time, to correct the data from 1960?

In 2012, Kopp said the data is only approching the necessary accuracy … : ”Continuity of the 33-year long total solar irradiance [TSI] record has been facilitated by corrections for offsets due to calibration differences between instruments, providing a solar data record with precision approaching that needed for Earth climate studies.”

Kopp, Greg, M. et al. 2012 “Total solar irradiance data record accuracy and consistency improvements.” Metrologia

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/49/2/S29/meta;jsessionid=A3CEEBDEEB01B1C1A43E0CCD4220C076.c4

In 2014, Pia Zacharias had this to say: ”Modern instruments require an absolute accuracy of one-tenth of the solar cycle variability, and repeatability (relative precision per year) of at least one-tenth of the accuracy…”

”…absolute accuracy has recently been shown to be important for estimates of Earth’s energy balance (Wild et al. 2013). ”

”In the 1990s, it was generally considered that measurements were converging to an absolute TSI value of 1366 ± 1 W/m^2 … However, after data from TIM/SORCE (launched in 2003) had become available, a new absolute TSI value was published that was approximately 5 W/m^2 lower compared to previous measurements … Lately, … have favored a TSI value of (1360.8 ± 0.5) W/m^2 as being the best representative value of solar minimum.”

”Finally, PREMOS/PICARD measurements helped to resolve the discrepancy … PREMOS obtained in July 2010 yielded a solar constant of 1360.9 ± 0.4 W/m^2 …”

”Dewitte et al. (2004) identified a difference of +0.15 ± 0.35 W/m^2 between the 1986 and the 1996 activity minima. However, due to the large uncertainty of the values, this result is not statistically significant.”

”…(Fröhlich 2009). The given TSI values are (1,365.45±0.10) W/m^2 (for the 1996 minimum) and (1365.26±0.16) W/m^2 (for the 2008 minimum), respectively. However, in the 2013 review paper, no data uncertainties are included (Fröhlich 2013), neither for the activity proxies that are used, nor for the reported solar cycle amplitude variations. This omission limits the assessment of the significance of the results presented.”

”Offsets due to calibration differences between the instruments generally exceed the stated instrument uncertainties, and long-lasting controversial debates among the representatives of the respective TSI composites (PMOD, ACRIM, IRMB) on the cross-calibration and cross-validation of the independent observations have prevented the TSI community from coming up with a conclusive TSI composite since the first TSI composite became available in the late 1990s.”

”The main problems that have been identified include the assumption and correction of effects that have not been verified by the instrument teams, reference to work that has never been published, inappropriate use of models (and instrument data) to support results and the omission of measurement uncertainties preventing an evaluation of the validity of the results presented.”

Zacharias, Pia 2014. “An Independent Review of Existing Total Solar Irradiance Records.” Surveys in Geophysics

What Lee said about the database being too short and imprecise was echoed by Coddington, just last year: ”The extant database of space era observations of TSI and SSI (for TSI, 37 years or 102 approximately 3 solar cycles and less for SSI) lacks the length and, with respect to SSI, the stability to quantify true solar variability over multiple 11-year solar activity cycles. Most of the individual observations made thus far have neither sufficiently small uncertainties nor adequate repeatability to achieve the measurement requirements for a climate data record of total and spectral solar irradiance.”

Coddington, O., et al. 2015 “A Solar Irradiance Climate Data Record.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00265.1

Orbital drift is different than instrumental drift. With Spencer and Christie, their satellites were taking readings at slightly different times of day, so the diurnal temperature rise and fall was being sampled at different times. The brightness temperature does not drift as a result of orbit.

Josh

The sun is perhaps, according to some studies, a ‘variable star’ and yes, as you point out, maybe it’s a GOOD THING that CO2 is going up. We may be very glad for that if current solar science is correct!

I’m sorry to bombard you with replies, but your comment was full of pure gibberish. THings that made no sense at all.

The astounding thing is you don’t even know this, but are completely sure the canonical science is wrong.

How does that happen? I’m truly interested in this? Your science background is obviously weak, as I’m sure you know. So how are you so confident you are right and all the scientists in the world are wrong, about so many basic things?

I gave you the simple mechanism — CO2 absorbs some of the radiation given off by the Earth, and re-emits some of that back downward.

That’s as simple as it gets. What don’t you understand?

CO2 quickly absorbs all the IR given off by the Earth.

This is then re-radiated in all directions. Then absorbed again, re-radiated again, etc. Above about 3 km, there is net radiation escaping to space. Below it, it warms the planet.

All of the scientists in the world are not in agreement. Why should we believe your theory’s if there is doubt among the people who are supposed know what is fact do not agree?

Seems there must be a special set of fizziques books that only the contrarians have access to….
Kinda wonder if they used their special books in a class, what their grade in general would wind up being. Seems what they are claiming here would require some changes other places also…..

I was thinking along the lines of how a person using an xtian or ID biology book would fare in a biology class (be it MS, HS, 4 year) .

Sorry, nope — nor have you shown any qualifications or expertise to be taken seriously on this topic. This is what physics finds, whether you like or not.

BigWaveDave wrote:
“….not one of them has been able to describe the “greenhouse effect” in quantifiable and testable terms.”

Ridiculous — you are woefully uninformed.

“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

Their press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

Dave: The Earth emits infrared radiation, and atmospheric CO2 absorbs it. What more do you need to know? Anyway, here you go:

“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract

“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html

Their press release: “First Direct Observation of Carbon Dioxide’s Increasing Greenhouse Effect at the Earth’s Surface,” Berkeley Lab, 2/25/15
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2015/02/25/co2-greenhouse-effect-increase/

You didn’t answer either question. I presume that is because you know of no physical reason that CO2 should be affecting temperature. Instead you ask me if I want to drink some poison.

What could my not wanting to drink poison have anything to do with effects of a non toxic compound essential for all life on Earth?

Any change in CO2 concentration will cause a very slight change in the overall mass and specific heat of the atmosphere. Other than the very very slight influences these two changes have, there is no physical reason for any CO2 affect on Earth’s temperature. If there were, someone could state it .

But since you can’t state and no one has stated why and how in real physical, testable terms, you should at least wonder why.

Not very much at all. Can you answer the questions, please?

The surface temperature would not change enough to measure with any ordinary thermometer.

What heat trapping ability are you talking about? Please explain what this is, and how this can be shown to work in the atmosphere.

“What heat trapping ability are you talking about? Please explain what this is, and how this can be shown to work in the atmosphere.”

Umm, are you really unaware the carbon dioxide absorbs infrared (heat) radiation?

This was discovered around 1859, and it forms the entire basis for manmade global warming….

“What could my not wanting to drink poison have anything to do with effects of a non toxic compound essential for all life on Earth?”

Because one shows that your ideas are inconsistent and faulty.

You assume that a small amount of a substance can have no effect. But the example of 400 ppm of cyanide shows this assumption to be wrong.

So perhaps you’re wrong in the same way about atmospheric CO2….

Of course I can show this — because I know the science.

Do you know how to determine how much warming results from an atmospheric concentration of X% CO2?

“…but I don’t believe that you can show a valid physical explanation for that belief…”

Wrong.
It’s this simple: the Earth emits infrared radiation. CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs it.

You should have learned this in 6th grade science.

“So, what happens after the CO2 in the atmosphere “absorbs” the infrared radiation?”

Again, your ignorance is showing. You need to learn some science. Badly.

After CO2 absorbs upwelling IR, it reemits it, some of which goes downward.

That *IS* global warming.

See how simple it is?

Chapter 8 of AR5 does a thorough job as well..

There’s also the NASA for Kids site…..

“In my opinion, he offers only a rather myopic….”

Who cares? Your opinion about a noted expert like Pierrehumbert is irrelevant and doesn’t matter in the least.

Yes, inapplicable.

“The main thing that you keep missing is the “how?”.”

I’ve told you many times by now.

Atmospheric CO2 absorbs IR given off by the surface. It them reemits it, in a random direction. Some of this reemitted IR goes downward. That *IS* global warming.

Got it finally?

“I’m familiar with the simplistic ‘X deg temp increase for a doubling of CO2 concentration from 280 ppm”, but I don’t believe that you can show a valid physical explanation for that belief or any other way that CO2 concentration drives temperature.”

How exactly do you think climate sensitivity is calculated??

“We can live without that, but we can’t live without CO2.”

Nobody — NOBODY — suggests removing all CO2 from the atmosphere.

What was the problem when the atmosphere had only 280 ppmv CO2?

What difficulty in growing crops?

Please specify these difficulties.

Show that they were more difficult than today.

What was the difficulty growing crops back then?

Please specify, with documentation.

Bullshit from someone else isn’t going to excuse your failure to answer the question.

“canonical science” like “the Earth is the absolute center of the universe, the sun and all the planets revolve around it”.

Yeah, actually, “canonical science” is routinely proven wrong. That is why the absolute refusal to accept any sort of questioning and debate of “canonical science” is so anti-science!

Prove how either has anything to do with temperature anywhere on Earth.

CO2 is plant food. Plant “work ethic” (Net Primary Productivity) is up 15%-20% …

Ok. That argument convinced me!

Water vapour absorbs those same frequencies (wavelengths) of infrared radiation. Like a pirate’s eye-patch. If you put sunglasses on, over your eye-patch, are the sunglasses going to reduce the light that reaches your retina?

”Water vapor is the greenhouse gas occurring in the atmosphere in concentrations about 2%, and is the most abundant greenhouse gas. … Water vapor is so plentiful in the atmosphere already that additional emissions are unlikely to absorb any significant amount of infrared radiation. It is also likely that the amount of water vapor held in the atmosphere is generally in equilibium, and that increasing emissions would not increase atmospheric concentrations.”

“According to currently available information, anthropogenic water vapor emissions at the Earth’s surface are unlikely to be an important element in climate change.”

Zámostný, Petr, Pavel Kukula, and John S. Young 1999. “Possible green house gases and global climate change.” Chemické listy (Prague)

http://www.chemicke-listy.cz/docs/full/1999_04_238-242.pdf

DOE/EIA-0573: ”Water vapour is by far the most common, with an atmospheric concentration of nearly 1 percent, compared with less than 0.04 percent for carbon dioxide. The effect of human activity on global water vapor concentrations is considered negligible … ,”

”Water vapor, as noted above, is the most common greenhouse gas present in the atmosphere. … Water vapor is so plentiful in the atmosphere that additional emissions are unlikely to absorb any significant amount of infrared radiation. It is also likely that the amount of water vapor held in the atmosphere is generally in equilibrium, and that increasing emissions of water vapor would not increase atmospheric concentrations (4). According to currently available information, anthropogenic water vapor emissions at the Earth’s surface are unlikely to be an important element in either causing or ameliorating climate change.”

”Each [greenhouse] gas absorbs radiation in a particular set of wavelengths, or “window,” in the spectrum. In some cases, where concentrations of the gas are low, and no other gases block radiation in the same window, small emissions of the gas will have a disproportionate absorptive effect. However, if concentrations of the [that] gas rise over time, a larger and larger portion of the total light passing through the “window” will already have been captured, and the marginal effects of additional emissions will not be as large. Therefore, the effect of an additional unit of emission of a gas

that is relatively plentiful in the atmosphere, such as water vapor or carbon dioxide, tends to be less than that of a rare gas, such as sulfur hexafluoride. This “diminishing return” effect implies that increasing the concentration of a particular gas reduces the impact of additional quantities of that gas. Thus, the relative impacts of various gases will change as their relative concentrations in the atmosphere change.”

DOE/EIA-0573 (99) Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 1999 (published October 2000)

http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/4265704/FID3754/pdf/environ/057399.pdf

While anyone can cut-n-paste, my points are emboldened using the author’s own words. For example, we were discussing water vapour as a “feedback” which would be “amplified” – a key point in the warmist arsenal… Yet, “Water vapor is so plentiful in the atmosphere that additional emissions are unlikely to absorb any significant amount of infrared radiation“

… completely negating the warmist mantra of amplification of CO2 via additional water vapour … not my words, but properly cited and quoted from journal-published, peer reviewed research…

To avoid a redundant post, this URL links to a comment elsewhere in this post:

https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/what_would_it_take_to_convince_a_climate_realist/#comment-2036270037

The point he is demolishing your claims and you’re busy pissing into a strong wind in response.

The relationship between surface temperature, total column water vapour (and the resultant infrared effects), and precipitation, is not very clear… Increased temperature drives more water vapour, but that relationship dies a quick death, very close to the surface of the earth, as other effects dominate – like cloud-microphysics, and precipitation microphysics. These are the biggest flaws in General Circulation Models; they can’t deal with the fine spatial resolution (less than 1°) necessary to model cloud-microphysics, and precipitation microphysics, because of the geometric increase in computing power (or, elapsed time) necessary, so this is fudge-factored-in (parameter-ized) … and doesn’t match reality. A factor of two – doubled, or halved would be an excellent mismatch rate for today’s models… In general, they are worse than that. They cannot simulate the correct sign, let alone agree on the magnitude, comparing simulation to observation. In general terms, the claimed mismatch of radiative effects of about 2.5 watts per square meter, is the “Global Warming” factor. Hansen said it was 0.58W per square meter …

“… a 5% increase of [Stratocumulus clouds’] coverage would be sufficient to offset the global warming induced by doubling CO2”

Other scientists: Randall et al. (1984), Slingo (1990), Bretherton et al. (2004) and Wood (2012) say essentially the same thing.

Lin, Jia-Lin, Taotao Qian, and Toshiaki Shinoda 2014. “Stratocumulus Clouds in Southeastern Pacific Simulated by Eight CMIP5–CFMIP Global Climate Models.” Journal of Climate

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00376.1

Foley 2010: ”… According to Schwarz (2008: 439), ‘a 10% error in treatment of clouds in the climate model would result in an error of some 4.8 W/m2’.”

Scaling that figure, a 2% error in treatment of clouds in the climate model would result in an error of some 0.96 W/m^2; that is enough to eclipse James Hansen’s 0.58W/m^2 of “Global Warming” …

Foley, A. M. 2010 Uncertainty in regional climate modelling: A review Progress in Physical Geography

http://www.wou.edu/~vanstem/490.S14/Uncertainty%20in%20Climate%20Modelling.pdf

“…but not a single model has a statistically significant agreement with the observational datasets on yearly averaged values of [Cloud Fraction] and on the amplitude of the seasonal cycle, over all analysed areas.”

“The multi-model ensemble mean [total cloud fraction] (57.6 %) is, on average, underestimated by nearly 8% (between 65°N/S) when compared to CERES–MODIS (CM) and ISCCP results…”

“…while an even larger negative bias (17.1 %) exists compared to the CloudSat/CALIPSO results.”

Probst, P., et al.. “Total cloud cover from satellite observations and climate models.” Atmospheric Research 107 (2012): 161-170.

http://www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/files/forschung/theomet/docs/pdf_2012/2012_Probstetal_cloud_cover_AtmosRes.pdf

Researchers, comparing models to the real world, document many parameters that are off by a factor of two … double, or half … or some, by an order of magnitude…
Researchers have documented large errors in the models, which are of opposite sign (thus, they cancel each other) … yet, predictions made from these models, like Hansen’s 0.58 watts per square meter of “imbalance” is the supposed factor that warms the planet. Of all the energy that slams into the planet, Hansen says, 240 watts per square meter are absorbed, and his 0.58 out of 240 is about ¼ of one percent – a tiny fraction. That is assuming the previous calculations are correct – Over a thousand watts per square meter, at the top of the atmosphere, peak, slam into the planet… about 340, averaged out. Hansen’s 0.58 out of that portion, is an even smaller percentage.

How do you know the “uncertanties” are so minute as to not change your perceived belief that climate change is due to AGW?

Your last link is 404.

Now it fails to download, but looking at the picture you posted…. yes, climate models don’t exactly replicate the precise thermal structure of the atmosphere….. That’s why modelers express their results with confidence limits. For CO2’s climate sensitivity it’s 1.5 – 4.5 C. There’s just as much chance of the 4.5 C happening as of the 1.5 C happening. So it’s a question of addressing risk — do you feel lucky?

Quote what you think is relevant — I”m not going on a wild goose chase.

Dr. George Edward Pelham Box: “essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”

Box, George E. P.; Norman R. Draper (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces, p. 424, Wiley. ISBN 0-471-81033-9.

I don’t present models to back up my point. I seldom have a “point” of my own. I quote scientists (mostly) with citations and URLs. The time-series graphs are not my own, but cut-n-paste from the cited web site (even my cartoons are cited and have a URL). For web sites that don’t compute a linear regression, I sometimes do, and usually paste the results, and draw, graphically, on the chart… I generally don’ t opine or predict, I cite and quote others.

See my comments to Christopher at https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dialoguesonglobalwarmingblogspotcom/dialogues_on_global_warming_what_if_climate_change_is_real/#comment-2036450316

I don’t present models. I present critiques of models by others. 0.9°C? Compared to the detrended standard deviation (from ice cores) in the last 8ka of the Holocene, that is less than one standard deviation, and then again, ”about a quarter of the claimed global warming since 1900 is actually an artifact of adjustments.”

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/07/how-much-have-adjustments-contributed-to-global-warming/
And a significant disagreement exists between NOAA satellite measurements of TLT, and estimates of 2m air temperature … plus, the numerous disagreements with proxy reconstructions of 2m air temperature. I will agree that it warmed, I do not agree on the 0.9K, especially when not tied to a time frame.

please explain please…..CO2 vs warming

” — it’s a feedback.”
Feedbacks can be positive or negative.
Evaporation follows temperature, but atmospheric total-column water vapour does not.

Yes, it is a feedback, and clearly a strong negative one. Completely overwhelming any positive effect of CO2, obviously!

This is getting to be a greatest hits of common CO2 internet myths. There is not overlap at all frequencies nor is there the same amount of mixing up into the highest levels of the atmosphere.

Some bands of CO2 wavelength have different magnitudes of absorption… Where a chance exists for CO2 to beat water vapour, well, it would appear that those bands are already pretty saturated…

Methane and Nitrous appear to be pretty well eclipsed:

I’ve never seen such information presented as a blog comment, anywhere in Disqus. True, the journal-published scientific papers that so much stuff actually comes from, are the real pioneers – I just echo what they say. Tonnes of it.
The diagram that I made comments on has a URL showing where I got it from … I don’t create my own charts like that, and I give credit with the URL.

Correcting Brin: “Brin: The Earth emits infrared radiation. CO2 the ensemble of greenhouse gases, the majority of which is water vapour, absorbs it. The CO2 greenhouse gases then re-emits that radiation, and some of it goes downward. That warms the surface.

It’s this mechanism that keeps the Earth’s surface about 30 °C warmer than the sun can make it.”

This is an area of contention, but precipitation fights against evaporation, and thus, a thin layer against the oceans (or an isolated chamber in experiments), it seems that warmer air holds more water … but in the real world, it isn’t that simple.

In the real world, atmospheric water vapor content has increased generally consistent with Clausius-Clapyeron according to observations so far.

Water vapor contributes to the negative adiabatic lapse rate feedback effect, but this is quite small compared to the (positive) enhanced greenhouse water vapor feedback in terms of energy impact. The water vapor feedback is not incredibly contentious in reality, it is directly observed and relatively well quantified.

Yes, they can. They also emit energy to the surface. The science is showing that the cloud feedback is very likely positive:

Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.
https://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523.abstract?related-urls=yes&legid=sci;330/6010/1523

negative for the shortwave component…positive for the longwave component….. that doesn’t mean the overall cloud feedback is negative.

Yes, clouds both cool and warm.

So what is your point, in your own words? Can you do more than cut-and-paste? (I’m not convinced.)

The science is looking more and more like the cloud feedback is positive:

Dessler, A.E., A determination of the cloud feedback from climate variations over the past decade, Science, 330, DOI: 10.1126/science.1192546, 1523-1527, 2010.

Dessler, A.E., Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models, J. Climate, 26, 333-342, doi: 10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00640.1, 2013.

“Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback,”
Amy C. Clement et al, Science 24 July 2009: Vol. 325 no. 5939 pp. 460-464
DOI: 10.1126/science.1171255.

Zhou, C., M.D. Zelinka, A.E. Dessler, P. Yang, An analysis of the short-term cloud feedback using MODIS data, J. Climate, 26, 4803-4815, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00547.1, 2013.

Dessler, A.E., Cloud variations and the Earth’s energy budget, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011.

Actually H2O is the most common, most powerful GHG, responsible for 90%+ of the greenhouse effect.

A recent paper claimed that only 10% of the downwelling radiation was due to CO2, though their methodology for determining that is suspect. Are you aware of any portion of the IR spectrum where CO2 acts that H2O and other GHGs don’t?

The warmer the Earth gets, the more the entire spectrum of radiation increases ACROSS THE SPECTRUM, including the parts that aren’t affected by CO2. The peak of the radiation also shifts as the planet warms. Not all the re-radiated heat that you speak of makes it to the ground, some of it is re-absorbed by CO2 on the way then re-radiated back up. CO2 only delays the inevitable. It’s annoying how many supposedly authoritative sites and persons say it “traps” heat when it does nothing of the sort.

What you & your ilk don’t seem to get is while you are often PART right you are MOSTLY wrong, and this FACT is borne out by the following:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

How old are you? I had thought you were an adult, but your answers are those of a child… a poorly educated one at that.

What you are describing is not “global warming” – what you are describing is what has been misnamed the “greenhouse effect” but that is a misnomer because a greenhouse uses a physical barrier that does actually “trap” heat. Misnamed “greenhouse gasses” merely delay the inevitable loss of heat to space.

Now, well before humans even evolved, the Earth reached temperatures that were not only what we enjoy today, but actually significantly warmer. I know, I know, you & your ilk didn’t like that fact so you tried to erase it but there’s too much evidence to deny – funny how you people call US the “deniers” when it’s you who keep denying well established scientific FACTS that conclusively disprove what you insist on believing.

This occurred because of the real primary “greenhouse gas”, and I really don’t like using that term because it’s WRONG, INCORRECT, but in common use so I have little choice. The primary “greenhouse gas” is water vapor. Even your own theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism admit this – go back and read the iPCC’s explanation, which said (and I’m paraphrasing here, so don’t try to catch me out on some minor detail) that as CO2 levels rise, this would cause some heating, which would lead to more evaporation and the increased water vapor in the atmosphere would be the key to the warming that SHOULD ALREADY HAVE TAKEN PLACE!

If you bother to read the IPCC reports, to look at their predictions, REAL WORLD temperatures, even with the multiple fraudulent adjustments by people like KARL, JONES and HANSEN, still are falling behind the lowest predictions, the ones that the IPCC would only result from immediate, drastic reductions in human CO2 output. And human CO2 output has continued to INCREASE.

As for your claim that

“Actually essentially ALL of the IR radiated by the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere.”

that’s pretty amusing. If you have ANY peer-reviewed, published science that makes that claim, please present it.

What you’ve described is not “global warming”, it’s the misnamed “greenhouse effect”.

And any quanta of IR that manages to get caught can either be re-radiated or it can become mechanical energy.

And if it is re-radiated it has an equal probability to be radiated in ANY DIRECTION, so only a tiny fraction of the heat that gets caught on the way up ever makes it back down to the surface, because EACH TIME it gets caught, going in EITHER DIRECTION, it can be re-radiated in ANY DIRECTION, up, down sideways at any angle…

Your thinking is flawed, apparently. You suggest that you believe all re-radiated IR goes downward. This is not the case. Best brush up and do so with a more open mind.

In any case, the primary GREENHOUSE GAS is water vapor, not CO2. If the atmosphere were a stadium of 10,000 atmospheric molecules, 4 of them would be CO2 and the rest other gasses. You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000, overwhelming 9,996 fans of the home team, basically. Even if we add in the other greenhouse gasses, particularly water vapor (around 3%), or 300 more fans, you’re still claiming that somewhere around 300 fans somehow out-shout the other 9,700. Wrong. And silly.

I know that is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo you people love to repeat to make it sound like you’re smart. I know what is MEANT by it, but it’s a misstatement of real world physics.

You can wave your hands about all you want, doesn’t change the fact that most of the residual warming due to gasses in the atmosphere is caused by water vapor, not CO2. You can get an idea of how this works if you hang around a desert as night falls. All that CO2 doesn’t stop the temperature from dropping rapidly, but the right kind of clouds will.

There you go lying about me. I am the one saying it is NOT like a greenhouse and that this is perhaps one of the worst possible similes because it is NOT like a greenhouse because it does NOT physically TRAP heat. YOU are the one trying to attribute the argument of people like yourself, who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, to me.

At least you admit that to call it a “GREENHOUSE EFFECT” and to call them “GREENHOUSE GASSES” is incorrect and misleading.

Which was the point I was making.

So let’s leave this one, unless you want to lie some more about it.

No, it is DISSIMILAR to a greenhouse, because a greenhouse actually TRAPS heat using a physical barrier. These gasses merely DELAY the transmission of heat without actually TRAPPING anything.

He says, after he posts 25 (and counting) replies to my comment.

I was just about to ignore the rest of yours, since I’ve scanned through them and you have only referenced propaganda sites – sites full of propaganda, lies and talking points, in response to my posting peer-reviewed, published works written by people who actually take a similar stance as yours but at least seem to be finally admitting the truths you still refuse to acknowledge.

FACT: Despite the admission that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere in the last two decades, it is as “SETTLED SCIENCE” as is anything that the surface warming actually slowed down with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

Pretty much demolishes your belief that CO2 is the master control knob for surface temperature.

I already saw that your response to that is to cherry pick end points to come up with a line with a constant slope and to ignore the variation that occurs within that period.

The lengths you go to in order to remain deliberately deluded are fascinating.

Not at all. We have no idea what the total ocean pH is doing. We take a few measurements from a tiny fraction of the surface on rare occasions and that is not adequate to state what the entire ocean is doing.

Plus as I pointed out, the pH is near neutral and moved, over the last 250 years or so, 0.11 units closer to NEUTRAL, or less reactive.

Your claim the ocean (implying the ENTIRE ocean the way you write it and say it) is turning to acid is the typical scare mongering you and your ilk use to try to fool those who are even less intelligent than yourselves. A small change, when the pH is near neutral, can be disingenuously expressed as “30%”, but remember, we’re talking about a change of 0.11 over almost 250 years here. Nothing to get your panties in a twist over, Dave.

“NO, because there is ZERO evidence to support any claim that the entire ocean’s pH has been measured to the level necessary to support such a claim.”

Marcel, you don’t read much science, do you?

Perhaps too much time spent spouting your opinions while hiding your true identity?

You keep avoiding that when I wrote, “3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?”

you answered “not necessarily.”

So when doesn’t that happen?

“I thought I had already categorically answered by saying that a cold object can’t warm a hotter object.”

Ok, back to the beginning.

Do all objects emit radiation?

OK, you’ve finally admitted that “any matter that has heat, radiates.”

(Of course, all matter has heat, so we can dispense with that stage of the argument.)

When that heat is radiated, where do its photons go?

“Of course there is [reason to need “greenhouse gasses” to explain Earth’s average surface temperature of ~14°C], and you can’t prove otherwise.”

No, there is only the silly trick of calculating temperature from average insolation reaching but not reflected by Earth’s surface.

The silly trick ignores the all of the heat that is stored in the oceans, atmosphere and regolith, and the chemical storage of energy in plants. The storage of heat causes a time delay between insolation and loss by radiation, and a stored energy hysteresis in the diurnal and annual cycles

It is obvious that the Sun can heat parts of Earth’s surface to much higher than 50 deg C without needing “greenhouse gases”, and that Earth’s surface cools mainly by convection and latent heat transport, and not primarily by radiation.

What reason explains why you have not fallen for a silly trick?

BTW the greenhouse effect on Earth is 30-35°C, not “~14°C.”

Wrong — that calculation assumes no clouds. It was claimed that if temperatures were low enough there would be no clouds.

Clearly this is wrong, since clouds appear in the Arctic and in the cold stratosphere.

You should read this from Roy Spencer, a prominent skeptic and serious scientist:

“Yes, Virginia, Cooler Objects Can Make Warmer Objects Even Warmer Still,” July 23rd, 2010.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/07/yes-virginia-cooler-objects-can-make-warmer-objects-even-warmer-still/

Note he writes:

“…this is happening all around us, all the time.”

I will take your continued failure to present ANY evidence that backs up your RIDICULOUS claim that the oceans are turning into acid as your admission you have none.

And I’ll take your failure to provide ANY evidence that even SUGGESTS that there’s been a comprehensive sampling program as your admission you know there wasn’t one.

Thanks for playing, do come again soon!

I’m way ahead of you. When the pH is above 7, any reduction is moving towards neutral.

You and your despicable ilk carefully craft your claims in ways that are designed to mislead. This borders on a criminal act, as it is deliberate deception, calculated chicanery,

Of course any negative change in pH is a move towards acidity, but when the pH is >7 it is a move towards LESS REACTIVE.

And you also make a big deal about how a tiny change (when the pH is >7) can be expressed as a seemingly larger percentage in the prevalence of negative ions since there are so few of them about that any tiny change seems larger the further above 7 you get.

You’re an example of how a tiny bit of knowledge can be misused in significant ways.

Yeah you said you would ignore them, BUT YOU DIDN’T, DID YOU?

LIAR!

No, that’s just you spouting nonsense again. The 300 fans that represent water vapor are arguably much louder. If you look at the total IR spectrum of the two gasses, that is.

Ever bother to do that?

Now before I respond to your comment, which I note has NOTHING TO DO WITH OCEAN ACIDIFICATION, I will point out you said you are going to ignore any comments that aren’t on that topic, so I expect you to keep your word and NOT reply to this one.

Here you display a fundamental misunderstanding of both atmospheric physics AND basic theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

You and others who hold such theories to be dogma, unassailable, suggest that there is some limit to the amount of water vapor that can be in the air and there is in fact a temperature dependent limit – air of a certain temperature can only hold so much water vapor.

However, as water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the more water vapor that is in the air, the higher the temperature goes, and the more water vapor can be added… up to a point. There must be some limiting factor, because if that were all there was to it, the oceans would boil and all the water would be in the atmosphere.

Now your modification to my analogy suggests that, somehow, once the 4 fans representing carbon dioxide start yelling, they somehow supercharge the 300 fans that represent water… but that is not what even your theory claims happens. Your alarmist warming theory says the power of water stays the same, but the QUANTITY of water changes because, as discussed briefly above, warmer air can hold more water vapor before becoming saturated. There should be detectable increases in:

1) evaporation and atmospheric water vapor
2) convection
3) release of latent heat in the lower troposphere and
4) measured temperature due to that release of heat

You may remember how the models predicted an atmospheric “hot spot” that stubbornly refused to appear for a great length of time, to the embarrassment of the acolytes of the Church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism. And even when they finally claimed they found it they had to admit it was nowhere near what their models said it would be.

So in this case the proof, which you still have not provided, is that, according to Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism theory, we should have seen a measurable increase in atmospheric water vapor by now, more convection and significantly more warming in the middle to upper troposphere.

Before you deny or discuss it, first, remember you said you were only going to talk about ocean acidification (after talking about, presumably, 25 other things, then expecting me to just not rebut your fallacious arguments on each, I guess), and second, if you ARE going to try to argue the point, do it with peer reviewed, published SCIENCE, not sites that are full of lies, propaganda and talking points like you always do.

Based on theoretical considerations and simulations with General Circulation Models (GCMs), it is expected that any warming at the surface will be amplified in the upper troposphere. The reason for this is quite simple.

More warming at the surface means more evaporation and more convection. Higher in the troposphere the (extra) water vapour condenses and heat is released. Calculations with GCMs show that the lower troposphere warms about 1.2 times faster than the surface. For the tropics, where most of the moist is, the amplification is larger, about 1.4.

This change in thermal structure of the troposphere is known as the lapse rate feedback. It is a negative feedback, i.e. attenuating the surface temperature response due to whatever cause, since the additional condensation heat in the upper air results in more radiative heat loss.

In the IPCC AR4 (2007) this was presented graphically. I’ll pause while you look it up.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-1.html

The figure shows the response of the atmosphere to different forcings in a GCM. As one can see, over the past century, the greenhouse forcing was expected to dominate all other forcings. The expected warming is highest in the tropical troposphere, dubbed the tropical hot spot.

The discrepancy between the strength of the hot spot in the models and the observations has been a controversial topic in climate science for over 25 years. The controversy [i] goes all the way back to the first paper of Roy Spencer and John Christy [ii] about their UAH tropospheric temperature dataset in the early nineties. At the time their data didn’t show warming of the troposphere. Later a second group (Carl Mears and Frank Wentz of RSS) joined in, using the same satellite data to convert them into a time series of the tropospheric temperature. Several corrections, e.g. for the orbital changes of the satellite, were made in the course of years with a warming trend as a result. However the controversy remains because the tropical troposphere is still showing a smaller amplification of the surface warming which is contrary to expectations.

That’s a deliberate misrepresentation and also wrong. The total ocean has changed little. The surface waters have ALLEGEDLY changed their pH value by 0.11 units over a period approaching 250 years. But this is based on limited, questionable measurements. Furthermore, this change is smaller than daily and seasonal changes in pH that have been measured so it’s pretty much meaningless.

To recap – NO, the entire ocean is not 30% more acid, the INSUFFICIENT measurements I referenced above suggest that a limited and INSUFFICIENT sampling of the SURFACE WATERS leads to a dubious claim of a pH change of .11 units TOWARDS NEUTRAL, or LESS REACTIVE, but the pH is still alkaline, not acidic.

When the pH is close to neutral, as it is, a small change can be expressed, in deliberately disingenuous fashion, as if it were a large one. Typical of your past behavior and that of your ilk, that is exactly what you are doing – doing your best to mislead by sensationalizing a perfectly normal, natural process.

Never went to that page… wrong again.

Never went to that page. Wrong again.

Does Bodhisattva = Marcel Crok? (whoever he is)

Yeah, I’m going to have to find the comment where you used “Skeptical Science” as your source, since, according to the admission of the website’s owner/author:

About Skeptical Science

This site was created by John Cook. I’m not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080213042858/http://www.skepticalscience.com/page.php?p=3

So, basically, you get your climate science from a self-employed cartoonist.

Nice.

I did make a quote… and I gave the website it came from.

No such luck, we’re sticking to the topics of your previous posts. No moving the goal posts – another of your favorite tactics when you won’t admit you’re losing the debate.

No making this about me. This is not about me. If you think I failed to attribute something properly, indicate what it is. I’m not perfect, I make mistakes too. You haven’t attributed much of the nonsense you’ve been spewing, not since I tumbled onto the fact you get your ‘science’ from a site that is run by a hack cartoonist.

And as noted, I gave a reference to the site I got that information from – HIS OWN SITE. Of course he’s changed the page since then. I used the way back machine to recover his earlier quote.

Marcel, you went quiet all of a sudden…..

Marcel, why are you afraid to reveal your identity? Did you think your cutting and pasting would never be noticed???

So you are afraid to comment under your real name.

That’s what I see — you are a coward.

We’ve already seen that Bodhisattva = Marcel Cook, because you have heavily copied his work, word-for-word.

Didn’t you write a couple of forgotten papers with Nic Lewis?

You said:
“Actually essentially ALL of the IR radiated by the Earth is absorbed by the atmosphere. Then the atmosphere re-radiates it, some of it downward”
The first part “essentially ALL” is probably less than 90%, so you only stretched it a little, but you completely missed the obvious point of Bodhisattva’s
“Not all the re-radiated heat that you speak of makes it to the ground, some of it is re-absorbed by CO2 on the way then re-radiated back up.”,
which is that a share of downward re-radiation must get re-re-radiated upward again (and perhaps again and again so I’ll call it re^n-radiation).

What is the downward fraction of the “ghg” re^n-radiation that is attributable to CO2?
Bodhisattva analogizes the preposterous hypothesis that CO2 contributes significantly to surface temperature with:
“You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000….”
to which you zealously replied:
“Yes. Because each of those 4 fans is EXTREMELY LOUD.”

Yep, they are at least as loud as you are ignorant.

“You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000….”

Know how much ozone is in the ozone layer? 10 ppm (1 molecule in 100,000).

Know what you’d be without that seemingly miniscule amount?

Dead.

The average concentration of ozone in the ozone layer is 10 ppm.

In the atmosphere it’s only 0.3 ppm.

The current discussion is about pH, not ozone.

Well, I just said

Let’s speak no more of [ozone] yet there you are continuing to bring it up and speaking about it.

Hey, if you didn’t want to talk about ozone, why did you bring it up in the first place?

You going to take my advice and stop talking about it, or you going to keep talking about it after saying let’s not?

And by the way, you already lied and broke your promise to only talk about pH in other ways, too.

I don’t know what nonsense you’re trying to peddle claiming I’m Marcel Cook. But you can keep it up, it only makes you look silly.

Yes, the exact value of pH IS the ONLY thing that is relevant. You cited an article that claims that snail shells are dissolving due to acid oceans but that is a blatant lie. The oceans are not acid, they’re alkaline. And all they saw was an ALLEGED change in the weight of the shells, which could be due to any number of things OTHER than ocean pH.

But the other thing is that ocean pH is not a static value, it is ALWAYS CHANGING. And CO2 is not the only thing that causes it to change. And human CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total carbon budget of the planet. I know these facts make you so uncomfortable you refuse to acknowledge or discuss them, so we really can’t begin to have a discussion since you refuse to accept reality.

“Acidic oceans are dissolving shells of tiny sea snails, researchers find” ABC.au, 5/2/16
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-02/acidic-oceans-are-dissolving-shells-on-tiny-sea-snails/7376696

Oceans are acidifying — their acidity has increased by 30% since the pre-industrial era.

This isn’t controversial.

No, what is controversial is your deliberately deceptive decision to describe it in percentage terms.

Since the pH is above 7, instead of giving a more reasonable, descriptive explanation of what is going on (the pH OF THE SURFACE WATERS has allegedly changed on the order of -.11 over around 150 years or so) you deliberately try to make it sound as bad as you can by expressing it in the way that maximizes it. You leave out that the only reason it’s a 30% change is because, with so few negative ions, a tiny change is proportionally large.

This is the same deliberately deceptive way you express the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the change in that amount over time.

Now fortunately there’s a fairly large portion of the population that won’t react with fear the way you and your ilk hope, but rather will ask more questions – well how much is 30% and over what time frame? How was this figure determined? And the most important question, IS IT VALID?

You avoid answering where these measurements were taken, when, how, over what period of time, during what times of the year – all questions that involve a real understanding of what’s going on, since ocean pH changes NORMALLY AND NATURALLY throughout the day, throughout the year and over time.

You still don’t seem to get it. I will let the membership and leadership of the American Chemical Society know you’ve decreed that pH is meaningless, a made-up number. That happens to be critical to a number of industrial and end user processes right down to making sure it’s safe to swim in my pool or jump into my hot tub!

Talk about KNOW NOTHING!

And here’s another direct quote example from you:

The acidify of the ocean is increasing

You just used a verb where a noun belongs. Talk about KNOW NOTHING!

And no, this whole kerfuffle is based on

seawater that is undersaturated with respect to aragonite upwelling onto large portions of the continental shelf, reaching depths of ~40 to 120 meters along most transect lines and all the way to the surface on one transect off northern California.

and an experiment where they took a bunch of Limacina helicina and tortured them until they found a level of pH that would dissolve their shells in a month and a half, then said that level is what they expect the whole ocean will become by the year 2100. Someone should have reported this blatant example of animal cruelty to PETA.

As usual with you who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, they also take single bits anecdotal evidence and falsely claim there’s a trend, when in fact the trend is exactly the opposite: See the claims about more, and more powerful tropical cyclones while the global Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) index has been generally declining since that prediction was made. One of the anecdotes involved a company that took certain fish out of their natural environment and tried to raise them in surface waters of a different pH than the fish normally experienced in their natural habitat. It didn’t work out so bueno.

And there you are with your “but… but… but… 30%!” claim.

Yes, indeed, it has, but only because, at pH values that HIGH there’s such a DEFICIT of positive ions that a tiny change equals 30%! I already explained this to you!

And no, pH is not a “made up number”, it is a tool to describe the number of moles of hydrogen ions per cubic decimeter. The name stands for “potential of Hydrogen” and it is determined by the logarithm of the reciprocal of hydrogen ion concentration in gram atoms per liter. It’s not made up, it’s a DIRECT and VITAL measurement.

I was going to ask you WHICH LOG because you probably don’t know. But I decided to just move on.

By claiming it’s irrelevant you prove who the KNOW NOTHING IS!

It’s you!

Over nearly 250 years (from around 1751 to around 1994) the CLAIM is that surface ocean pH is estimated to have decreased from approximately 8.25 to 8.14.

A decrease of 0.11. Over about 250 years.

That’s a change of 0.00044 per year. Doesn’t sound so scary when you use the actual numbers instead of finding and using the scariest way to express it (which still isn’t that scary – 30% over 250 years works out to 0.0012 per year).

Because the number of free hydrogen ions is so scarce at this pH level (less than 10 to the negative 8 power), because expressing it APPROPRIATELY does not invoke the FALSE FEAR that the ocean is turning to acid (see the definition of ACIDIFY – which is defined as TURNING TO ACID) when in fact it is becoming LESS REACTIVE, moving towards neutral, ever so slightly, a tiny change can be accurately expressed as 30% by those wishing to give the false impression that this change, at this level, is significant.

You keep making semantic and misleading arguments:

Yes, just as we measure speed in MPH or KPH, and we measure distance in miles or km and we measure time in hours, minutes and seconds – all of these things being HUMAN CONSTRUCTS and none being something you can just dismiss if you live in the real world like I do.

Why don’t you go jump into a large, deep pool of liquid with pH of 2 then tell me how pH isn’t important? Do that and let us know how that works out for you!

As I explained, the only reason this MINUSCULE change in pH can be expressed as “30%” was because the “acidity” (which was actually alkalinity) was SO LOW that a TINY CHANGE still works out to 30%.

Plus as I pointed out, there are areas of the ocean (and other bodies of water) which are routinely a LOT LOWER IN pH (i.e. a lot more ‘acidic’, and yet still alkaline) than this average level that resulted – and yet life THRIVES there. These measurements are not representative of the entire ocean – this is what you don’t seem to understand – or, if you do, it just proves you’re even more of a deliberate liar than I’ve already proven you to be.

The point you seem to stubbornly refuse to admit or discuss, but you just slipped up and did mention it, is that yes, nature responds to acidity OR IT’S CONVERSE, ALKALINITY (sic: alkalanity).

And the oceans, according to ALL, have become LESS REACTIVE. Have MOVED TOWARDS NEUTRAL.

This is not scary enough. Hence your continued yammering about how the oceans are turning to acid – yes, you never used those words, but you know that is the intent. To fool liberals, who are easily fooled, into believing that yes, the oceans are turning to acid when the chance is so minuscule that human blood pH changes that much with no significant issues, the ocean pH changes that much sometimes in a day or over the course of a year with no problems.

You can continue to be frightened by what is normal and natural. Don’t expect us to join you.

But I do recommend you make an appointment to have your medications checked.

“Hence your continued yammering about how the oceans are turning to acid”

I have never said the ocean is turning to acid.

You are a cheap slut whore liar.

You should be ashamed of yourself, for continually lying about this.

You seem to think that the entire ocean has experienced a pH change of 30%.

This in fact is another false idea and yet you can’t seem to grasp that you’re wrong, or purposefully misleading others, in this respect.

In review – we’re talking about limited measurements of limited areas over limited times, many of the measurements being nonstandard and suspect, only recent measurements considered to be standardized and trustworthy. Basically those from about 1980 on. And even those don’t cover the whole ocean surface or the ocean depths.

And, as noted, the change in pH we’re talking about is LESS THAN SOME BODIES OF WATER EXPERIENCE IN A DAY, OR OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR.

And you can’t seem to grasp that this isn’t something to get all excited about because it’s normal and natural, not the dire emergency you keep lying and claiming it is.

A pH change of -0.1 corresponds to an increase in acidity of 30%.

The calculation is laid out here, very clearly:

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-ocean-acidity-has-increased-by-30.html

A 30% increase in acidity is a 30% increase in acidity.

It’s not your right to call it large or small.

That depends only on the organisms that have adapted to a particular ocean chemistry and now must adapt to a rapidly changing one.

You are a coward, who can only twist words and bitch and whine. Shameful.

This is EXACTLY the sort of lie I was talking about. And yes, I know that I answered this one before.

“ACIDIC OCEANS” is a lie. The oceans are not acidic. They’re alkaline. Using the words “ACIDIC OCEANS” is a deliberate lie.

No, I’m not Einstein either.

Yes, you said “acidifying”.

Now you’re playing silly semantic games to avoid having a rational, adult discussion because you know you can only lose if we do that.

The definition of “acidify” is “become acid”.

But thanks for playing and do come again soon!

You’re so fired!

FROM: Diurnal fluctuations in seawater pH influence the response of a calcifying macroalga to ocean acidification

…predicted to cause a decrease in pH of 0.3–0.5 units by the end of the century

And yet to date it ALLEGEDLY only managed a change of 0.11 over 250 years. Suddenly in the next 80 years it’s going to change the pH 3-5 times as much?

I smell Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism!

In this same paper they admit that:

…near-shore marine organisms live in a highly variable pH environment where daily pH fluctuations owing to biological activity can exceed 1 unit. These changes are often driven by primary producers increasing pH in the surrounding seawater during the day via photosynthesis, and decreasing pH at night owing to respiration

And… wait for it!

In some regions, night-time decreases in pH (to less than 7.4) exceed those predicted owing to [alleged] OA over the next 100 years (pH ∼ 7.65).

But… but… this is a change to well below the actual values cited as the average before and after the 250 years! Those were 8.25 and 8.14! How can ANYTHING survive in waters that are as ACIDIC as pH 7.4!

And there’s so much more…

Currently, it is not known how daily shifts in pH within near-shore ecosystems influence the physiology or the ecology of calcifying organisms, nor is it understood how these pH fluctuations could interact with the effects of [alleged] OA. It is difficult to reproduce the environmental heterogeneity that occurs in the field within a laboratory setting. For example, experimental manipulations of light and temperature in experiments with marine species usually use tightly controlled continuous levels, even though these environmental factors are much more variable in the field. To date, only one study has manipulated pH over a diurnal cycle mimicking ecologically relevant pH shifts (daytime pH = 8.00, night-time pH = 7.77)…

I’m guessing the significance of all that will go right past you & none of it will stick.

And didn’t they get the memo that you weren’t supposed to admit that this alleged climate change is actually GOOD?

… in some instances coral recruits responded positively to both daily fluctuations in pH and to OA.

Wow, there goes your whole belief system. And that’s just one paper that killed it. There’s many more!

There you go again, engaging in personification/anthropomorphism.

Nature doesn’t care because it can’t care. It doesn’t have a brain or an intellect.

And you’re wrong. “Acidification” is an increase in positive ions.

In this case we’re actually likely experiencing a reduction on negative ions, not an increase in positive ions, but I haven’t looked into it to verify that, not that it matters, BECAUSE THE SEA WATER IS STILL CHANGING A TINY, TINY BIT, BECOMING LESS REACTIVE.

A lot of the scary ‘evidence’ you and your ilk use came not from actual real world settings but from lab work that was done by biased people determined to strike fear into the hearts of people, as your side does, AS YOU DO WITH YOUR STUBBORN INSISTENCE THAT 30% IS SIGNIFICANT WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT A TINY CHANGE IN A TINY VALUE.

30% of next to nothing is even less than next to nothing. This is why you want to avoid using REAL VALUES. Now when the real values are huge numbers and the percentage is what seems insignificant you switch and studiously avoid speaking in terms of the percentage.

In terms of percentage, what was the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere versus everything else 150 years ago and what is the percentage of CO2 versus everything else now?

Do you know how to convert 270 ppmv and 400 ppmv to percentages?

Now I’m being distracted as I rush to finish this, so if I get the math wrong do correct it, will you? But we’re talking about a percent of the atmosphere that went from 0.0270% to 0.0400%, for a total change of what, 0.0130% – which you’re claiming is exerting a dominant influence on the other 99.96% of the atmosphere?

Really?

And what’s more the ocean had VASTLY more carbon stored in it than the atmosphere did – or did you know that?

And you’re claiming that the TINY change in the SMALLER reservoir is driving the change in the LARGER reservoir?

Really?

You seem to think that if you call me by some other name it will bother me. You sure are childish! Are you ever going to grow up?

Keep calling me whatever you like – it only shows how petulant and ridiculous you are!

You clearly don’t understand chemistry. Because on this end of the pH scale the actual physical change is likely just a reduction in excess OH negative ions, not an increase in H plus ions. But the change, due to where we are on the scale (near neutral) is so small (in relative terms) that even your insistence on using percentage indicates either your profound ignorance or your deliberate attempt to make it into something scary when it really isn’t.

Keep on using scare tactics, it only reveals what a paranoid fool you are to believe your own nonsense. As for me I’m still going to continue to jump in the water, though today was not that great a day for it and I had a previous musical engagement, three of them in fact, it turned out, as some very talented folks asked me to sit in despite the fact I was originally scheduled to only appear once.

“But we’re talking about a percent of the atmosphere that went from 0.0270% to 0.0400%, for a total change of what, 0.0130%.”

How much has the absorption cross section of the atmosphere changed because of this increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

How much has global average ocean acidity changed since the beginning of the industrial era?

“REAL WORLD temperatures…still are falling behind the lowest predictions,”

False.

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/625d5a6271f649628edaab1c49a61ab2485d6ca5c0ca5d39725ac54eaffd21fb.jpg

I gave you Hansen’s projections.
You can see how it compared to reality.

Again, the discussion is about ocean acidity.

I’m not willing to discuss several items at once, because nothing ever gets resolved that way.

I am only willing to discuss one topic at a time.

That topic is about ocean acidity. Until we agree on that, I’m not interested in chasing a dozen different threads to no effect.

I’ve made myself clear — I will only discuss one topic at a time, and to begin that topic is ocean acidification.

Until then, there’s nothing to discuss.

Because you’re tired of being shot down on so many subjects and you think you’re safe on that one – yet you’ve already been blown out of the water on it, too.

And you lied – despite the fact you posted 25 replies to me then started posting this every time I replied to one of those 25 replies on the topics YOU replied about, you immediately went off on a tangent, claiming that I had committed plagiarism and claiming I was someone I was not, claimed I got something from three different websites, or was it four.

At best I might have failed to include ONE link at ONE point due to being interrupted while answering the flurry of SPAM POSTINGS you were in the middle of producing. But it’s clear you KNEW, as I knew you would, as was OBVIOUS FROM THE CONTEXT that they were not my words, nor was I trying to suggest they were. So you’re false claims of plagiarism were just a lame excuse to break your promise to only discuss your absurd claim that the oceans are turning to acid, which we both know is not the case.

The entire ocean probably has not experienced a significant change in pH. A limited sample of surface waters suggests a change that is smaller than that which occurs daily in some parts of the world and annually in others.

In other words, INSIGNIFICANT.

You know, after posting ONE or TWO responses to a couple of your earlier posts, I stepped off the deck and took a walk down the beach and back. When I got back I found about 25 responses by you, on about as many topics, including some that were way out in far left field. I started to respond to each of them and your response, to me continuing to discuss topics YOU chose to write about, was that you were not going to talk about any of those topics YOU chose to write about, you were only going to try to press the ABSURD claim that the oceans are turning to acid.

When they’re actually becoming less reactive, moving towards neutral. But only by a tiny bit – what was it? A pH change of 0.11 over about 250 years? And that’s just a guess, an estimate, and it’s just for a very limited (insufficient) sampling of the surface waters, probably not appropriately corrected for location, time of day, time of year, etc.

And, based on that, you’re still attempting to press the ABSURD claim that THE ENTIRE OCEAN is turning into acid?

Really Dave? That’s what you want to continue to make a fool of yourself asserting?

Be my guest!

(Only you didn’t. Right after posting this LIE, variants of it, about 25 times, you turned right around and went off on different tangents. You haven’t changed. You were a liar before and you’re a liar now.)

THIS JUST IN:

MEMO TO THE WORLD:

Dave Appell says that nobody anywhere should ever schedule any sort of meeting where more than one item is on the agenda because attempting to discuss more than one thing ALWAYS results in NOTHING getting resolved.

You know, Davie, as far as myself and the people I generally choose to associate with, we have no problem multitasking, covering multiple topics at once. Though I can understand someone with severe cognitive deficits might not be able to do that.

And if you hadn’t said that, or variants of that, 25 times THEN IMMEDIATELY TRIED TO SHIFT THE TOPIC TO BEING ALL ABOUT ME your nonsense might have worked.

But I can’t blame you for quickly changing the subject. It only took me 1 post to make a complete fool of you on your chosen topic about how you claim the whole ocean has turned to acid.

You must not get out much, at least not to the beach, eh?

Naturally you would use the dated evidence of another person who’s full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

But even there you can see that reality, even the fraudulently adjusted reality, is beginning to lag predictions.

Let’s use the most current and while it also includes some questionable ‘adjustments”, arguably the more accurate:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/fig_tab/nclimate2938_F1.html

You will note that once Jones retired and stopped “adjusting” HadCRUT it quickly fell below the lowest predictions. So did NOAA and GISTEMP – until they were fraudulently adjusted back into the very lower range of predictions, still well below the CMIP-5 line though.

And, unfortunately, now we are at adaption ….

Well, ….. politics….

“You’re suggesting 4 fans rooting for the away team control the crowd noise in a stadium of 10,000, overwhelming 9,996 fans of the home team, basically.”

The vast, vast majority of those 9,996 fans are impervious to infrared radiation. They don’t even notice it.

Imagine you are asked to throw a ball and hit one of mulitiple targets on the side of a barn.

On the barn are N targets, each of area A.

Does the probability of your hitting a target depend only on N?

No, of course not. It also depends on how large the targets are. It depends on the product N*A.

It’s the same with CO2. You are only considering N, and not considering the product N*A.

And CO2 has a large A for the infrared light emitted by the Earth and atmosphere.

“I doubt you understand the invalidity of your argument, but exactly how many times bigger do you claim the N*A is for CO2 than the N*A for other atmospheric constituents.”

In the IR spectrum, A peaks at about 10,000 m2/kg.

I told you, one issue at a time. We’re currently discussing ocean acidity. When we agree on that science we can move on.

Well, since you’re apparently NEVER going to admit that the ocean isn’t turning to acid, and still claiming that insufficient measurements of only surface waters are the last word, we’re not going to agree since the ocean isn’t turning to acid and insufficient measurements of the surface aren’t even enough to accurately state what’s happening there, let alone in the rest of the ocean.

And you still haven’t admitted that the claimed change is on the order of a tiny drop of 0.11 on the pH scale, TOWARDS NEUTRAL, or LESS REACTIVE, leaving the ocean waters still in the ALKALINE range, not ACIDIC.

This is EXACTLY why people like me throw up our hands and just wonder how someone can be so ignorant of reality.

The higher the pH, the more scarce the negative ions – in fact there’s a DEFICIT, which is why the pH is ALKALINE. You don’t seem to understand basic chemistry! The 30% is only 30% because it takes such a little change to seem, when you deliberately express it in the most deceiving way, like more than it really is. You’re talking about a change of 0.11 in 150 years or so. There is nothing abnormal or unnatural about that.

“And you still haven’t admitted that the claimed change is on the order of a tiny drop of 0.11 on the pH scale, TOWARDS NEUTRAL, or LESS REACTIVE, leaving the ocean waters still in the ALKALINE range, not ACIDIC.”

Dumb, Marcel Cook. Organisms adapted to pre-industrial acidification levels, and don’t give a toss how how you classify the ocean’s acidification.

Why did you plagarize Marcel Cook?

Why are you afraid to simply state who you are?

You’re the one who made the claim. And I note the claim you made had NOTHING TO DO ABOUT ACIDITY.

But again, no, your attempt to claim the oceans are turning into acid is a huge lie. They are not. They’re becoming LESS REACTIVE. Don’t you know how the pH scale works? What number represents the strongest acid, what number represents the strongest alkaline and what number represents neutral? I think you do. I think you’re just PRETENDING to be stupid.

But I’ve been wrong before!

This is the second time I’ve run across him preaching the Gospel according to the church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism (most people don’t bother to try to work out the acronym) and he’s making even less sense this time around.

Indeed only the willfully ignorant could possibly claim that humans have usurped the orders of magnitude greater natural forces that dominate weather, temperature and climate.

Do humans have some influence?

What living thing does not have some influence on it’s environment?

The short answer is none.

So while I am all for finding ways to reduce any NEGATIVE effects we have on the environment, this senseless war against CO2 is sheer insanity – because the science PROVES that increasing CO2 is GOOD for the biosphere (see links below) and history proves that the warm wet times are GOOD for the human species as well as the biosphere.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1804

http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2001/09/greening-in-the-northern-hemisphere.html

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-carbon-dioxide-desert-greening-01209.html

http://principia-scientific.org/tag/us-geophysical-research-letters/
A new study, based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU) reported that the rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused deserts to start greening and increased foliage cover by 11 percent from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.

Also, the evidence is UNDENIABLE that there is no direct link between surface warming and CO2 levels in the direction they claim:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

It is true that you can speak of pH decreases from any point on the scale as “acidification” and in fact that is often done BY THOSE WHO DO SO WHILE KEEPING THINGS IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE.

The important issue, which David Appell refuses to even discuss, is that this “increase in acidity” was miniscule – it matters WHERE on the scale we are at any given moment. Plus it has the result that the waters affected by it become LESS REACTIVE while his whole goal and that of his ilk is to make people fear the false belief that the water is becoming MORE REACTIVE as ACID is thought of as something dangerous that will burn and even dissolve you. Finally, we have not done enough measurements often enough to support a claim the oceans (as a whole) are actually becoming more acidic.

These arguments he and his ilk use are chosen both carefully and deliberately to cause an emotional reaction that leads the target audience to a false conclusion – a most despicable form of misdirection I find is common among every single aspect of the typical liberal/progressive/Democrat, on every current issue.

Once there were honest, good Democrats, but I think they all died. Or changed party affiliation. Or perhaps were driven into hiding due to the shame and guilt any thinking person would feel when associating with today’s Democrats. Do you know any honest, good Democrats?

10^4 m2/kg is well known. Read any climate textbook, like Pierrehumbert’s.

Calling him names is just a sign you have no better science.

You are jealous, Marcel Cook.

You’re a coward because you are afraid to post under your real name, insulting me and others while you hide behind your mommy’s skirt. It’s that simple.

BTW, if you think Pierrehumbert’s 10,000 m2/kg is junk, what is your value for the maximum absorption rate of CO2 in the infrared? And prove it.

I read science fiction, not science fraud. While his book has some limited value, that value is overwhelmed by his nonsensical notion that humans have somehow overpowered the natural forces that still clearly control our weather, temperature and climate, as admitted by the IPCC and Michael Mann (among others):

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

How can CO2 be the dominant player when the rate of warming was LOWER during the time atmospheric CO2 was HIGHER?

You have not provided any evidence that this effect is ‘enhanced’ in any way. Further, you have not provided any evidence that the Earth has not been warmer, has not warmed faster, in the past. Because it has been warmer, it has warmed faster.

Climate change is normal, natural, INEVITABLE. Thinking humans are a primary driver of climate change trends is a form of narcissism.

None of these links has any proof that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic. They also don’t claim the magnitude of change in downwelling radiation that your ridiculous theories do. Finally, they don’t prove the claimed forcing values are correct. In the end they CLAIM to have measured a slight increase in downwelling IR which they attribute to CO2. But they also admit:

Over the length of the observation period (2000–2010), the modelled spectra at both SGP and NSA are dominated by trends associated with the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere rather than the smaller signal from CO2. The seasonal and annual trends in calculated clear-sky spectra at SGP (Fig. 2a) and NSA (Fig. 2d) are dominated by changes in the atmospheric thermodynamic state and are of opposite sign depending on the season.

Among other things.

One reference (the oldest) claims a statistically significant result at a level that is three times what the most recent work claims exists. The more recent work admits that they are maximizing their result by using only clear sky conditions. AGW catastrophe scenarios depend on higher temperatures causing more evaporation and warmer air to carry more water vapor, which is to do the bulk of the actual warming (the ‘amplification’) yet the paper talks about how the CO2 effect is greatest when there are no clouds. Clear sky conditions. So they are basically admitting to the strong negative feedback present as a built-in feature of our atmosphere.

And, as usual, you provided a link that refers to the same thing as your other link to make it look like you had more studies than you really do. The “newscenter” link is a repeat of what is at the “nature” link.

In conclusion, I will repeat that they CLAIM that, after much hand waving, they’ve detected a very slight increase in downwelling IR that they ATTRIBUTE to CO2. And I’m not saying they’re incorrect, mind you, perhaps they did. There might be a statistically insignificant amount of increased downward IR there, perhaps. Because CO2 is increasing and CO2 is a gas that absorbs and re-radiates IR radiation, as I’ve always agreed. But they provide no proof, nor have you, that the CO2 that is increasing has anything to do with humans. Only speculation to that effect.

And even if, in the end, you are able to establish a clear link between humans and any major fraction of the CO2 trend, what do you expect us to do?

Stop breathing?

You go first. After a year of no breathing get back to us and let us know how it worked out for you.

Prove WHAT?

That YOUR SOURCES said,

“Over the length of the observation period (2000–2010), the modelled spectra at both SGP and NSA are dominated by trends associated with the temperature and humidity structure of the atmosphere rather than the smaller signal from CO2.”

That’s your source. Go back and read it from YOUR SOURCE if you don’t believe it. It CLEARLY STATES that CO2 is NOT the major player you & your deluded ilk claim it to be!

And since I’m not the one demanding we make foolish, radical, disastrous, dangerous policy changes BASED ON FRAUD I don’t have to prove ANYTHING.

But I still just did.

What a cop out! Wrong! Your theory depends on the oft-repeated FALSE claim that it’s not been warmer and can’t warm as fast. Those are both lies.

“Climate change is normal, natural, INEVITABLE.”

Then simply provide the evidence that natural factors account for modern warming……

“Thinking humans are a primary driver of climate change trends is a form of narcissism.”

That is what the science shows.

And in all your ranting, you have yet to prove otherwise.

Yes, but what is the “greenhouse effect”?

Do I understand correctly that your definition requires that radiation from colder atmosphere above warms warmer atmosphere or surface below?

When I wrote, “3) When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?”

you answered “not necessarily.”

When doesn’t that happen?

Re: your Nature paper.

So what?

Before this 15-yr period, temperature trends were, for several years, ABOVE expectations.

The most important fact is that since about 1990, the 30-yr trend in surface temperatures has been a consistent 0.15-0.20 C/decade.

“The most important fact is that with more CO2 in the atmosphere, the rate of warming actually slowed….”

Completely, utterly wrong:

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

I think I know why you are avoiding this question.

When I wrote, “3. When EM radiation is absorbed by an object, does that object gain the radiation’s energy?”

you answered “not necessarily.”

When doesn’t that happen?

Rubbish. Say, didn’t you say you were only going to talk about how you were convinced the world’s oceans were turning to acid when they’re actually becoming LESS reactive? When the pH is moving towards NEUTRAL?

In any case, you said you were going to ignore any posts that didn’t have to do with that single topic so surely you will keep your word and NOT respond to this one!

In any case, good old KARL at NOAA decided that some cherry picking and falsification (or at least deliberate misrepersentation) of data was in order and decided he was just the guy to do it. Since the ARGO floats were quickly disproving the claims that the “missing heat” was hiding in the oceans, the data from that program (and appaerntly other programs) was “adjusted”. There’s even a roundabout mention of the “adjustment” on the page you referenced above.

Basically what KARL and his co-consiprators are trying to claim is that the monster (missing heat) is hiding under the bed (somewhere in the oceans of the world) and is going to jump out and eat us all at some point (cause that runaway global warming you folks have been insisting should have already been here several times).

However, the IPCC and a group of apparently repentant former co-consiprators both say you’re wrong, and so is NOAA’s fraudulent attempt to save theories that are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism:

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

Now when I told you I expected you to respond with peer-reviewed, published science that supports your ridiculous views, I knew you most likely wouldn’t, because every such work is full of caveats, attributions, escape hatches, etc.

I am surprised that you still haven’t provided a single link to a single peer-reviewed, published work of any recent vintage.

Now keep your word and ignore this post.

Sorry, both the IPCC and peer-reviewed science say your propaganda from NOAA is wrong, basically they cherry picked your end points and used fraudulently adjusted data for that anyway.

… the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

The latter paper was written as a direct rebuttal to KARL at NOAA, who was likely at least somewhat responsible for that propaganda piece you offered. Take his adjustments out of the data and a different picture emerges.

Incorrect. Evidence that we have burned fossil fuels does not prove that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic.

And a blog written by hacks is not peer reviewed science.

Uber-FAIL, as expected. The first paragraph on your reference makes the ridiculous, false claim that this idea is “settled science”. Yeah, just like the Earth is flat and is the center of the entire universe, with everything else revolving around it. Also examples of “settled science”.

Other than identifying yourself as a ‘flat Earth’ believer, you have failed to present any valid evidence that humans are the cause of the measured increase in atmospheric CO2.

Your “simple accounting approach” fails, since all we have to do is look at the derivatives of the increase and that logic fails quickly:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

What did we do differently in 2012, 2010, 2005, 2002 and 1998 that accounts for those measured spikes?

And how do you account for 1962, 1964, 1967, 1971, 1974, 1976, 1982, 1991, 1992 and 1999?
How is it that the increase in atmospheric CO2 varies so much when human CO2 output does not vary in a corresponding way? When human CO2 output goes the OPPOSITE way in some of those years?

I told you that if you did not present actual science your answer would be considered a fail and so far EVERY ONE OF YOUR MANY ANSWERS ARE FAILS!

“First of all, the pH of the ocean is moving towards NEUTRAL, becoming LESS REACTIVE,”

The acidity of the ocean has increased by 30% since the preindustrial era. Yes?

(This has been your one comment for this exchange. Any more and the conversation is too diluted.)

“The pH of the ocean has gone DOWN, it has moved TOWARDS NEUTRAL, TOWARDS LESS REACTIVE.”

A decreasing pH = an increased acidity.

Just as I said. Details here:

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/07/yes-ocean-acidity-has-increased-by-30.html

Yeah, you said that, right after you made a bunch of other nonsense comments that you hoped I would just overlook, I guess. No, the ocean is not 30% more acid. At best, if you insist on using a percentage to try to make the change look drastic, the very few areas sampled, only surface water by the way, a very limited number of surface samples, indicate the surface waters in those areas, at those times, have become 0.11 pH units less alkaline over a 250 year or so period. When you approach neutral and wish to mislead you can express it as a percentage, but I find admitting the change is a paltry 0.11 pH units over 250 years or so is a more honest, accurate and understandable way of expressing it. Unless your intent is to deceive and produce unnecessary, irrational fear in a deliberately irresponsible manner.

Oh, wait, that IS your intent!

Are you saying you reject the direct evidence that outgoing longwave radiation, as observed from earth’s orbit, is affected (reduced) by enhanced greenhouse?

http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=1690262

Or do you reject the first law of thermodynamics, application of which here means that if less energy is escaping into space then it is being retained in the climate system, i.e. warming?

It must be one of the two…

And his response was to give you a basic physics lesson – and your response was trollish personal attacks.

You lose.

You are just a troll, and not a very good one. Take your own advice.

BIOYA!

TTTH!

TTFN!

CO2 is a GHG, thanks, it traps some of the sun’s energy, warming the planet.

/basic

Best,

D

Weird.

Best,

D

Learn something about the topic so you don’t embarrass yourself.

Best,

D

NIPCC! Fossil fuel lobbying firm!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Best,

D

“Your” “argument” is based on suggestions from a fossil fuel lobbying firm. Aren’t you precious?

Best,

D

Your comedy skit is certainly original, that’s for sure.

Smart people know that if they have a question about the science, they go to the science, not a fossil fuel lobbying firm.

BTW, since you are clearly a smartie and know sooooo much about…physical properties and so must…”study” the science, how many papers have come out since the FAR (the report you quoted) on the hiatus?

Just answer with a number. The number of papers since the report. On the hiatus. Just a number please.

Best,

D

That doesn’t work on me lad.

What is the number.

Best,

D

Not brave enough to admit it can’t speak to the literature regarding the hiatus.

Why are denialists almost always cowards?

Best,

D

Still not speaking to the latest literature on the hiatus, got it.

As It refutes you, I’d do anything to avoid mentioning it too.

Best,

D