First direct observation of carbon dioxide's greenhouse effect at Earth's surface

[1stRambo]

Yo, Al Gore is pushing hard to make a buck?
But Mother Nature will take care of business, and not phony Scientist!!!

"GTP"

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Could be cloud cover, aldebo dust, shift in magnetic field

 

[Billy_Bob]

The TSI has declined slightly in the last few years, we had record years for heat in 1998, 2005, 2010, and 2014. 9 of the 10 hottest years on record have been since 2010. That agrees with exactly what the scientists saw with their instruments.

A..... No...

That is a correlation not proven by this paper. Try again..

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. Those measurements are giving both causation and correlation. Once again the idiot child brigade loses.

 

[Billy_Bob]

once again old crock fails....

here are a few other questions and oddities that should have made the two stations very different but didn't... Things that make you go hmmmmmm

"
1) Barrow is in total darkness for just over two months a year and not a lot of light for probably half that (total 1/3 of a year).
2) because of the snow and ice, albedo and angle of incidence, 70-80% of the incident light is reflected from October until April-May.
3) there aren’t any plants to speak of for this robust absorbtion of CO2.

The responses should be markedly different for Oklahoma and Barrow, unless you are actually measuring something different than you think."

Source

 

[orogenicman]

Would CO2 forcing correlate well with CERES radiation measurements? Given what BEST is crying aloud with this new so called revelation what do other monitoring devices and programs see?

"In fact, it doesn’t correlate at all. Globally, Earth’s surface has strongly strengthened its ability to cool radiatively from 2000 to 2014 (by about 1.5 W/m2 or ~1 W/m2 per decade) according to CERES:



(Note, absolute values, negative means LARGER surface heat loss.)

Not much trace there of any increasing atmospheric retardation of outgoing surface radiative heat, is there? Rather the opposite …

And if you think this is only because the surface has warmed somewhat and so radiates more, think again. Here’s global DWLWIR (“atmospheric back radiation”) over that same period:



(Note, anomalies, negative values mean LESS in.)

Down by ~1 W/m2.

And this is in spite of significantly increasing atmospheric content of both CO2 and H2O (WV & clouds) + allegedly rising temps since 2000.

Go figure …"


So the answer to my question is emphatically, NO! Looks like BEST is pulling things out of their collective asses.. Again!

Source

You post something from "Okulær", some nobody who decided to start a blog (and not a very good one at that)? Really? You guys are truly daft.

 

[orogenicman]

No, Billy Boob, don't pretend you have the ability to make heads or tails of the science that the scientists will present. You have demonstrated that lack amply on this on this board.

Actually, I have had a preprint copy of BEST's latest work for about a week now. Been looking hard at many of their assumptions. Should have the Data, Methods and Math by Friday to begin a full evaluation of their work. Looking forward to tearing it to shreds.

And I'm sure your upcoming rant will be a model for the denier community (model - small facsimile of the real thing). Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

The scientists used spectroscopic instruments operated by the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility. This research site is on the North Slope of Alaska near the town of Barrow. They also collected data from a site in Oklahoma.

The scientists measured atmospheric carbon dioxide's contribution to radiative forcing at two sites, one in Oklahoma and one on the North Slope of Alaska, from 2000 to the end of 2010. Radiative forcing is a measure of how much the planet's energy balance is perturbed by atmospheric changes. Positive radiative forcing occurs when Earth absorbs more energy from solar radiation than it emits as thermal radiation back to space. It can be measured at Earth's surface or high in the atmosphere. In this research, the scientists focused on the surface.

They found that CO2 was responsible for a significant uptick in radiative forcing at both locations, about two-tenths of a Watt per square meter per decade. They linked this trend to the 22 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 between 2000 and 2010. Much of this CO2 is from the burning of fossil fuels, according to a modeling system that tracks CO2 sources around the world.

"We see, for the first time in the field, the amplification of the greenhouse effect because there's more CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb what the Earth emits in response to incoming solar radiation," says Daniel Feldman, a scientist in Berkeley Lab's Earth Sciences Division and lead author of the Nature paper.

First direct observation of carbon dioxide s increasing greenhouse effect at Earth s surface -- ScienceDaily

Pretty definitive experiment validating exactly what has been predicted.

Yep.. A whopping 0.02W/M^2 increase per decade and no proof of attribution(forget that they totued a 3.7W/M^2 per decade... Exaggeration is the name of the game). They measured something and then they failed to meet any scientific requirements showing equipment used and error bars. I will withhold further judgement until they release their data, methodology, and math.

Looking at the article they are making wild assumptions about a great many things. But this is what I have come to expect from alarmists and BEST. Its such a weak link that I doubt it has any merit as they did not rule out other input sources.

Erm, did you not see the image of the equipment, above? And that's 0.2W/M^2 per decade averaged out over the whole planet, dude, not 0.02.

What wild assumptions are you claiming that they are making? Simply making a wild assed accusation doesn't get it.

Even at 0.2W/M^2 it is statistically insignificant. Given that Oklahoma was measured 2.5 times per day and the arctic was measured just one time per day there are serious error bar issues. Not to mention that they targeted DWLWIR in specific bands only and did not consider other factors such as water vapor and its interactions.

Simple convection effects can completely swamp any tiny radiative changes, and that doesn’t require decades of data fiddling, name calling, bad science, government grants, increased taxes, etc. This paper appears to be a hope and poke by Berkley Earth Sciences.

0.2W/Meter^2 per decade increase averaged over the entire globe. That is not an insignificant increase in energy. And you lie when you say that they didn't consider water vapor and other factors. They stated specifically that they did, and even present that data in their paper. You did read the paper, right? Right. You didn't read it. I'm not surprised.

 

[orogenicman]

0.2W/M^2 per Decade = 2 watts in 100 years...

You all do realize that our sunspots dwarf that change daily during active times.. As does solar wind pressures against our atmosphere.

Evidence...

 

[orogenicman]

once again old crock fails....

here are a few other questions and oddities that should have made the two stations very different but didn't... Things that make you go hmmmmmm

"
1) Barrow is in total darkness for just over two months a year and not a lot of light for probably half that (total 1/3 of a year).
2) because of the snow and ice, albedo and angle of incidence, 70-80% of the incident light is reflected from October until April-May.
3) there aren’t any plants to speak of for this robust absorbtion of CO2.

The responses should be markedly different for Oklahoma and Barrow, unless you are actually measuring something different than you think."

Source

And yet Barrow is seeing more warming that most temperate regions, as is most of the rest of the arctic.

 

[IanC]

0.2W/Meter^2 per decade increase averaged over the entire globe. That is not an insignificant increase in energy. And you lie when you say that they didn't consider water vapor and other factors. They stated specifically that they did, and even present that data in their paper. You did read the paper, right? Right. You didn't read it. I'm not surprised.

have you read the paper? or just the press releases? I havent found a non-paywalled version yet.

I like how you take two data points and declare "0.2W/Meter^2 per decade increase averaged over the entire globe". hahahaha

the 2000-2010 timeline is odd. why oldish data? how sensitive is this study to start/stop dates? I wonder what 1998-2008 would look like? warm to cold/ ElNino to LaNina instead of the opposite case in the study.

I must admit I am stoked to see this paper when it 'comes out on video'.

 

[Billy_Bob]

0.2W/Meter^2 per decade increase averaged over the entire globe. That is not an insignificant increase in energy. And you lie when you say that they didn't consider water vapor and other factors. They stated specifically that they did, and even present that data in their paper. You did read the paper, right? Right. You didn't read it. I'm not surprised.

have you read the paper? or just the press releases? I havent found a non-paywalled version yet.

I like how you take two data points and declare "0.2W/Meter^2 per decade increase averaged over the entire globe". hahahaha

the 2000-2010 timeline is odd. why oldish data? how sensitive is this study to start/stop dates? I wonder what 1998-2008 would look like? warm to cold/ ElNino to LaNina instead of the opposite case in the study.

I must admit I am stoked to see this paper when it 'comes out on video'.

One of those things which make you go hmmmmmm. The paper is very specific about certain spectral intensities but refuse to look at counters (negative feedbacks) to those spectral areas. There are huge holes in the paper that should have been addressed. They had to have looked at water vapor to get their results but they failed to publish what that water vapor did to the spectrum. did it strength it or did it dampen it? had it been positive it most certainly would have been published. This leads me to believe it was left out because it dampens the result significantly which would leave them with no positive trend at all.

I am supposed to get access to the data on Friday. Its should be interesting.

 

[jc456]

Thanks Billy. I always enjoy reading your info. And as is their nature, those warmers attack instead of ask questions themselves. it is just accepted by them. Me the outsider, I read it and I don't see any data. The video is useless for me to understand anything other than they charted CO2. That hasn't been any part of the argument at all. It has been temperature. the question I have is, if this is so significant, why did it take five years to be published.

Just wanted to send out a personal thanks!!!!

 

[mamooth]

The paper, or at least a good part of it. Some of it is paywalled, but there's a big heap of data available in the extended data links.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html#extended-data

I am curious as to whether Billy has abandoned his Sky Dragon Slayer cult, as in this thread, he seems to be admitting that the scientists actually are measuring backradiation, just not in a way that he likes.

And if anyone wants the raw data, it's all available. Of course, that hasn't stopped Watts and other kooks from claiming that it's hidden.
---
Methods
Code and data availability
The measurement data sets used for this analysis are freely available through the ARM data repository (ARM Climate Research Facility The radiative transfer codes are also freely available at - AER s Radiative Transfer Working Group- Main Window CarbonTracker results were provided by NOAA/ESRL (CarbonTracker CT2013B - ESRL Global Monitoring Division CarbonTracker-CH4 results were provided by NOAA/ESRL (CarbonTracker 2010 - ESRL Global Monitoring Division The MERRA data used in this analysis are freely available for download at ftp://goldsmr3.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/s4pa/MERRA/MAI3CPASM.5.2.0/. The Broadband Heating Rate Profile (BBHRP) data files, used to assess fair-weather bias, are freely available on the ARM BBHRP web page at ARM - Evaluation Product - Broadband Heating Rate Profile Project BBHRP under ARM - Evaluation Product - Broadband Heating Rate Profile Project BBHRP for the time-varying data stream and ARM - Evaluation Product - Broadband Heating Rate Profile Project BBHRP for the fixed CO2 data stream. The computer routines used in this analysis will be made available upon request.
---

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[mamooth]

And once more, Frank tries to compare observations from one time frame to a model prediction for a completely different time frame.

That's been pointed out to Frank before. And he still does it. He's being deliberately dishonest, as that's what his cult commands. He's trying to shit on and derail this thread because he can't address the issue, which is how the science keeps showing that all the denier are pathologically dishonest, just like Frank was in that last post.

 

[jc456]

And once more, Frank tries to compare observations from one time frame to a model prediction for a completely different time frame.

That's been pointed out to Frank before. And he still does it. He's being deliberately dishonest, as that's what his cult commands. He's trying to shit on and derail this thread because he can't address the issue, which is how the science keeps showing that all the denier are pathologically dishonest, just like Frank was in that last post.

what science? I haven't seen anything to prove your side of the argument. You still have jack. Billy has provided info, let's wait to see his final write up on this. he was looking for actual data since none was provided here.

BTW, all you all did was go...see...see...see, nanny nanny boo boo. Well that might not be true! How does Skooks put it.....oooooppssss

 

[jc456]

The paper, or at least a good part of it. Some of it is paywalled, but there's a big heap of data available in the extended data links.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14240.html#extended-data

I am curious as to whether Billy has abandoned his Sky Dragon Slayer cult, as in this thread, he seems to be admitting that the scientists actually are measuring backradiation, just not in a way that he likes.

And if anyone wants the raw data, it's all available. Of course, that hasn't stopped Watts and other kooks from claiming that it's hidden.
---
Methods
Code and data availability
The measurement data sets used for this analysis are freely available through the ARM data repository (ARM Climate Research Facility The radiative transfer codes are also freely available at - AER s Radiative Transfer Working Group- Main Window CarbonTracker results were provided by NOAA/ESRL (CarbonTracker CT2013B - ESRL Global Monitoring Division CarbonTracker-CH4 results were provided by NOAA/ESRL (CarbonTracker 2010 - ESRL Global Monitoring Division The MERRA data used in this analysis are freely available for download at ftp://goldsmr3.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/s4pa/MERRA/MAI3CPASM.5.2.0/. The Broadband Heating Rate Profile (BBHRP) data files, used to assess fair-weather bias, are freely available on the ARM BBHRP web page at ARM - Evaluation Product - Broadband Heating Rate Profile Project BBHRP under ARM - Evaluation Product - Broadband Heating Rate Profile Project BBHRP for the time-varying data stream and ARM - Evaluation Product - Broadband Heating Rate Profile Project BBHRP for the fixed CO2 data stream. The computer routines used in this analysis will be made available upon request.
---

which link shows the proof of manmade CO2?

 

[Old Rocks]

Do you fellows have to constantly update your status as dumb fucks? Burn a ton of coal, and your produce 3 2/3 tons of CO2. In 2011, about 14,500 million tons of CO2 was put into the atmosphere from the burning of coal. Given that we have been burning coal at an increasing rate since the start of the industrial revolution, and that the atmospheric CO2 was then 280 ppm, today it is over 400 ppm.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And once more, Frank tries to compare observations from one time frame to a model prediction for a completely different time frame.

That's been pointed out to Frank before. And he still does it. He's being deliberately dishonest, as that's what his cult commands. He's trying to shit on and derail this thread because he can't address the issue, which is how the science keeps showing that all the denier are pathologically dishonest, just like Frank was in that last post.

Yes, we know. When the observation don't fit your insane theory, you alter the observations