Climate Sensitivity per the IPCC

[Crick]

Billy_Bob said:
The PV arrays lost 10% of their output, indicating at least that amount of shift in power from the sun

Billy_Bob said:
This graph shows a 16W/m^2 shift in power from the bands that warm our oceans to depth to a region that they cannot absorb

The graph in question:

16 Wm-2 / 1,800 Wm-2 = 0.0089 or 0.89%, not 10%

Solar panels absorb energy from 400 to 1100 nm. Your graph show increases at the left and decreases at the right.

You source the data plotted here but not who broke out their Excel and made it nor a source for your 16 Wm-2 figure or the 10% PV loss you quote.

 

[Crick]

A major portion of climate sensitivity is composed of positive feedbacks. This has been a major point of contention with deniers. AR6 took a much broader look at climate sensitivity and I'd like to simply list the section titles of feedbacks covered in section 7.4 of the Technical Summary of The Physical Science Basis. I'll be abbreviating that to PSB in the future. If any of these topics interest any of you we can explore them in greater depth.

7.4 Climate Feedbacks

7.4.1 Methodology of the Feedback Assessment​

7.4.2 Assessing Climate Feedbacks​

7.4.2.1 Planck Response​

7.4.2.2 Water-vapour and Temperature Lapse-rate Feedbacks​

7.4.2.3 Surface-albedo Feedback​

7.4.2.4 Cloud Feedbacks​

7.4.2.4.1 Decomposition of clouds into regimes​

7.4.2.4.2 Assessment for individual cloud regimes​

High-cloud altitude feedback​

Tropical high-cloud amount feedback​

Tropical high-cloud amount feedback​

Land cloud feedback​

Mid-latitude cloud amount feedback​

Extratropical cloud optical depth feedback​

Arctic cloud feedback​

7.4.2.4.3 Synthesis for the net cloud feedback​

7.4.2.5 Biogeophysical and Non-CO2 Biogeochemical Feedbacks​

7.4.2.5.1 Non-CO2 biogeochemical feedbacks​

7.4.2.5.2 Biogeophysical feedbacks​

7.4.2.5.3 Synthesis of biogeophysical and non-CO2​

biogeochemical feedbacks​

7.4.2.6 Long-Term Radiative Feedbacks Associated​

with Ice Sheets​

7.4.2.7 Synthesis​

7.4.2.8 Climate Feedbacks in ESMs [Earth System Models]​

7.4.3 Dependence of Feedbacks on Climate Mean State​

7.4.3.1 State-dependence of Feedbacks in Models​

7.4.3.2 State-dependence of Feedbacks in​

the Paleoclimate Proxy Record​

7.4.3.3 Synthesis of State-dependence of Feedbacks​

from Modelling and Paleoclimate Records​

7.4.4 Relationship Between Feedbacks​

and Temperature Patterns​

7.4.4.1 Polar Amplification​

7.4.4.1.1 Critical processes driving polar amplification​

7.4.4.1.2 Polar amplification from proxies and models during​

past climates associated with CO2 change​

7.4.4.1.3 Overall assessment of polar amplification​

7.4.4.2 Tropical Pacific Sea Surface Temperature Gradients​

7.4.4.2.1 Critical processes determining changes in tropical​

Pacific sea surface temperature gradients​

7.4.4.2.2 Tropical Pacific temperature gradients​

in past high-CO2 climates​

7.4.4.2.3 Overall assessment of tropical Pacific sea surface temperature gradients under CO2 forcing​

7.4.4.3 Dependence of Feedbacks on Temperature Patterns​

7.5 Estimates of ECS and TCR

Billy Boy put a fake news emoticon on this post. I guess he thinks this is NOT the ToC for the document in question. ; - )

 

[Crick]

People who perceive the lack of logic in the claims of the AGW Faithers.

Do you think poster EMH is using good logic?

 

[BackAgain]

Do you think poster EMH is using good logic?

Tell me your opinion. Be specific. Be concise. Then, maybe it can be discussed.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy_Bob said:
The PV arrays lost 10% of their output, indicating at least that amount of shift in power from the sun

Billy_Bob said:
This graph shows a 16W/m^2 shift in power from the bands that warm our oceans to depth to a region that they cannot absorb

The graph in question:

16 Wm-2 / 1,800 Wm-2 = 0.0089 or 0.89%, not 10%

Solar panels absorb energy from 400 to 1100 nm. Your graph show increases at the left and decreases at the right.

You source the data plotted here but not who broke out their Excel and made it nor a source for your 16 Wm-2 figure or the 10% PV loss you quote.

You don't have a clue do you... The comparison was of solar output before 2009 and after the change that was observed was verified. The energy of oscillations reduction and the elongating of the wavelength make it nearly impossible for the oceans to uptake the energy that has shifted.

This is Hard Fact DATA.... take your pandering ass somewhere else to peddle your bull shit. Total Solar Output for the affected region. 0.2-0.6um.... I thought you said you were a scientist. you missed the ball entirely.

 

[Crick]

You don't have a clue do you...

We'll see.

The comparison was of solar output before 2009 and after the change that was observed was verified.

Verified by whom? You still have provided no source for your 16 Wm-2 figure, your 10% PV loss figure or identified who made that Excel graph.

The energy of oscillations reduction

The WHAT?!?!? You've got to stop trying to make up techie sounding terms because you SUCK at it.

and the elongating of the wavelength

The "elongating of the wavelength"? Your patent infamiliarity with the terminology in these fields ought to be embarrassing. Your graph does not show a frequency/wavelength change anywhere. No recognizable feature moved horizontally, therefore there was no change in frequency/wavelength. Instead, it shows a very slight, frequency dependent change in amplitude. Not the same thing.

make it nearly impossible for the oceans to uptake the energy that has shifted.

Your data displays NO frequency shift and you have not provided any source that says it has. Aside from your evaporation argument, you have presented no other mechanism that would affect the absorption of IR.

This is Hard Fact DATA.... take your pandering ass somewhere else to peddle your bull shit.

Show us a valid source that says solar radiation has undergone a frequency shift.

 

[Crick]

Tell me your opinion. Be specific. Be concise. Then, maybe it can be discussed.

My opinion on what? EMH or AGW?

 

[BackAgain]

My opinion on what? EMH or AGW?

You asked about EMH. I suggested you should go right ahead and share your views (and the basis for your views) about his logic.

 

[Crick]

You asked about EMH. I suggested you should go right ahead and share your views (and the basis for your views) about his logic.

Off-topic. No thanks.

 

[BackAgain]

Off-topic. No thanks.

Then I wonder why you brought it up?

 

[Crick]

EMH said: IPCC = UN
IPCC cannot explain how Co2 froze Greenland and thawed North America at the same time.. and neither can Crick....

To which Crick replied: Who the fuck cares

To which BackAgain replied: People who perceive the lack of logic in the claims of the AWG Faithers

To which Crick replied: Do you think poster EMH is using good logic?

This makes me think that you believe poster EMH is using logic superior to that of the mainstream scientists who accept AGW. If you do accept his arguments as valid or that mainstream science has made some sort of logical error, I would be glad to discuss that.

 

[mamooth]

One of the most obvious effects of "warming oceans" would be a sharp uptick in cane activity.

Stronger hurricanes were predicted, not more hurricanes. Stronger hurricanes have been observed.

So, as usual, what AGW theory predicted ... happened. That's why AGW theory has so much credibility.

 

[mamooth]

What COOLS the oceans....????

Perhaps ICE????

According to your very peculiar theory, warming is caused by Antarctica dumping less ice into the oceans.

However, direct observation shows that Antarctica has been losing mass. That is, it has been dumping _more_ ice into the oceans.

Thus, your theory is disproved.

 

[mamooth]

All we know for certain is that

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy..." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

It's been pointed out to you how that's a faked quote.

And you _still_ use it. You're an open fraud, and so proud of it.

 

[BackAgain]

EMH said: IPCC = UN
IPCC cannot explain how Co2 froze Greenland and thawed North America at the same time.. and neither can Crick....

To which Crick replied: Who the fuck cares

To which BackAgain replied: People who perceive the lack of logic in the claims of the AWG Faithers

To which Crick replied: Do you think poster EMH is using good logic?

This makes me think that you believe poster EMH is using logic superior to that of the mainstream scientists who accept AGW. If you do accept his arguments as valid or that mainstream science has made some sort of logical error, I would be glad to discuss that.

This seems like you have a specific criticism of the logic of EMH. But you haven’t shared what that criticism is.

 

[BackAgain]

All we know for certain is that

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy..." Ottmar Edenhofer, IPCC

I saw one of the usual suspects suggest that this quote is a fraud of some kind. I don’t believe it is.

«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu» (Schweiz, NZZ Online)

Laufend aktualisierte Nachrichten, Analysen und Hintergründe zu Politik, Wirtschaft, Kultur und Sport

web.archive.org

He said what he said. If anyone wants to claim it is taken out of context, that’s silly.

I saw a pretty verbatim translation. (I can’t find it right now.) But, he said it. And it may be that he was merely acknowledging that there are economic consequences from trying to reduce atmospheric carbon emissions. But if you are seeking to engage deliberately in wealth redistribution to “achieve” those emission reductions, then you are necessarily engaging in an effort to accomplish international socialism.

 

[Crick]

I saw one of the usual suspects suggest that this quote is a fraud of some kind. I don’t believe it is.

«Klimapolitik verteilt das Weltvermögen neu» (Schweiz, NZZ Online)

Laufend aktualisierte Nachrichten, Analysen und Hintergründe zu Politik, Wirtschaft, Kultur und Sport

web.archive.org

He said what he said. If anyone wants to claim it is taken out of context, that’s silly.

I saw a pretty verbatim translation. (I can’t find it right now.) But, he said it. And it may be that he was merely acknowledging that there are economic consequences from trying to reduce atmospheric carbon emissions. But if you are seeking to engage deliberately in wealth redistribution to “achieve” those emission reductions, then you are necessarily engaging in an effort to accomplish international socialism.

Numerous sites claim that Edenhofer had inadvertently given away the secret of the Paris Climate Accord. Unforunately, Edenhofer made this statement in 2010 and the Paris meeting didn't take place till 2015. A spokesperson for Edenhofer said the quote was used “to imply that Prof. Edenhofer ‘admits’ that there is some kind of ‘hidden agenda’ behind climate policy.“ The spokesperson added: “Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”

---

When we are discussing the need to limit climate change by limiting the emission of greenhouse gasses, we are, inescapably, talking altering the economic value of natural resources, and thus, altering the world’s distribution of wealth.

A policy to limit carbon emissions (via tax, via cap and trade, or even via shaming in the media) will reduce the value of owning a coal deposit or an oil well. And in the presence of a continued demand for energy, will increase the value of other assets, like a high plateau suitable for wind farms, or a great river suitable for hydropower, or a deposit of pitchblende from which one can refine fuel for a reactor.

Most people don’t think as deeply on these matters as Edenhoffer. (It is, after all, his job to think deeply on these matters.) And Americans in particular have for many years associated the phrase “redistribution of wealth” with active schemes to tax the wealthy in order to provide economic support to the poor. In the context of the quote, though, it’s clear that Edenhoffer is not discussing transfer payments at all, but rather the fact that climate policy alters the value of national assets world wide.

Technology does the same thing - Saudi Arabia was a kingdom (or set of kingdoms ) of less than three million people living principally in a subsistence economy until the discovery of oil in 1938 and the systematic exploitation of that oil in the 1940s. Today, thanks to the value of oil, Saudi Arabia has one of the highest per capita GDP figures in the world and a population of 23 million (28 million if you include foreign guest workers.).

If the planet decides we can no longer afford to burn oil, Saudi Arabia won’t go back entirely to its pre-1930 economy. But it would lose a lot of its present economic position.

Here’s the context of Edenhofer’s comments (emphasis mine) :

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
(NZZ AM SONNTAG): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

 

[BackAgain]

Numerous sites claim that Edenhofer had inadvertently given away the secret of the Paris Climate Accord. Unforunately, Edenhofer made this statement in 2010 and the Paris meeting didn't take place till 2015. A spokesperson for Edenhofer said the quote was used “to imply that Prof. Edenhofer ‘admits’ that there is some kind of ‘hidden agenda’ behind climate policy.“ The spokesperson added: “Of course, this is not what he was saying. These quotes are taken out of context to be misused. The devaluation of fossil fuel reserves of course leads in a way to wealth redistribution — but this is rather a consequence of the necessity to stop using fossil fuels, and not the actual goal of climate policy.”

---

When we are discussing the need to limit climate change by limiting the emission of greenhouse gasses, we are, inescapably, talking altering the economic value of natural resources, and thus, altering the world’s distribution of wealth.

A policy to limit carbon emissions (via tax, via cap and trade, or even via shaming in the media) will reduce the value of owning a coal deposit or an oil well. And in the presence of a continued demand for energy, will increase the value of other assets, like a high plateau suitable for wind farms, or a great river suitable for hydropower, or a deposit of pitchblende from which one can refine fuel for a reactor.

Most people don’t think as deeply on these matters as Edenhoffer. (It is, after all, his job to think deeply on these matters.) And Americans in particular have for many years associated the phrase “redistribution of wealth” with active schemes to tax the wealthy in order to provide economic support to the poor. In the context of the quote, though, it’s clear that Edenhoffer is not discussing transfer payments at all, but rather the fact that climate policy alters the value of national assets world wide.

Technology does the same thing - Saudi Arabia was a kingdom (or set of kingdoms ) of less than three million people living principally in a subsistence economy until the discovery of oil in 1938 and the systematic exploitation of that oil in the 1940s. Today, thanks to the value of oil, Saudi Arabia has one of the highest per capita GDP figures in the world and a population of 23 million (28 million if you include foreign guest workers.).

If the planet decides we can no longer afford to burn oil, Saudi Arabia won’t go back entirely to its pre-1930 economy. But it would lose a lot of its present economic position.

Here’s the context of Edenhofer’s comments (emphasis mine) :

Whenever it was said, he did let out the dirty not so secret premise. This shit is socialism. On a world wide scale.

Worse yet, the canard is premised on a scientific notion that doesn’t withstand the test of logic. But hey. People end up believing lots of silly shit. Like, some people think that Brandon hasn’t been suffering from severe dementia.

 

[BackAgain]

Yep. It’s the truth. So shit for brain motherfuckers, like apu afuk, cannot grasp it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Stupid and Dishonest FrusaderCrank keeps posting an IRRELEVANT graph at least once daily.

Asked and answered many times by me you Blithering Clocksucker.

Scientists have been able to measure radiation-in/radiation-out directly and precisely for more than 50 years.
Radiation-in has not changed as the earth warmed.
Radiation reflected back out is being blocked at the exact spectral wavelengths of the GHGs (Greenhouse gases)

CO2 is not the only GHG. (water vapor, Methane, etc)
Methane/CH4 is 20-80 as powerful. (from livestock), and the snowball effect of other GHG warming which releases more methane from the warming oceans and melting tundra.
CO2 is up from 280 PPM to 410, mainly in the last 70 (of 170) years.
Methane has Tripled.

Previous warming cycles were caused by orbital changes of angle or distance leading to more radiation-in, aka 'solar forcing.'
We/they know that is/was Not the case this time.

GHGs, as serious Deniers know/use, usually LAG that solar forcing... but this time are leading it! Because they also contribute to warming even in a natural cycle. (GHG definition).
This cycle was Not caused by increased solar energy but rather those gases increased/blanket thickened at an unprecedented rate Compared to natural cycles.


Get a New TOY you DISHONEST CLOCKSUCKER.

``

A side by side temperature vs CO2 graph for 450,000 years is only "irrelevant" because IT SHOWS YOUR THEORY FAILS FAILS!

SUCKS TO BE YOU