how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

As long as the Y axis shows Watts and not simply sunspot numbers -- I'm happy.. I MUCH HAPPIER if you show the historical context of the TSInsolation graph tho --- and NOT restrict it to a short period of history that doesn't show the overall increase tho...

The point was that the sunspot index makes an excellent proxy for TSI from the pre-satellite days. You would have us believe it's the tool of scammers. It is not.

TSI is a factor but it is a small one. The largest single factor in the Earth's temperature increase has been the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. If you want to believe that you know better than the thousands and thousands of scientists who fully accept that point, your welcome to your fantasy. Just don't expect rational folks to buy it.

Now we know what you think about PMZ. Any comment about GSlack's debating tactics?

TSI a "small" factor? That single statement renders you ignorable.

 

[Abraham3]

How convenient for you.

 

[Abraham3]

As long as the Y axis shows Watts and not simply sunspot numbers -- I'm happy.. I MUCH HAPPIER if you show the historical context of the TSInsolation graph tho --- and NOT restrict it to a short period of history that doesn't show the overall increase tho...

The point was that the sunspot index makes an excellent proxy for TSI from the pre-satellite days. You would have us believe it's the tool of scammers. It is not.

TSI is a factor but it is a small one. The largest single factor in the Earth's temperature increase has been the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. If you want to believe that you know better than the thousands and thousands of scientists who fully accept that point, your welcome to your fantasy. Just don't expect rational folks to buy it.

Now we know what you think about PMZ. Any comment about GSlack's debating tactics?

TSI a "small" factor? That single statement renders you ignorable.

I'm quite certain you pay minimal attention to anyone arguing the validity of AGW. Your position clearly indicates a complete lack of objectivity. The evidence in the matter was completely irrelevant to the process of arriving at your conclusions.

Yes, a small factor.

 

[flacaltenn]

As long as the Y axis shows Watts and not simply sunspot numbers -- I'm happy.. I MUCH HAPPIER if you show the historical context of the TSInsolation graph tho --- and NOT restrict it to a short period of history that doesn't show the overall increase tho...

The point was that the sunspot index makes an excellent proxy for TSI from the pre-satellite days. You would have us believe it's the tool of scammers. It is not.

TSI is a factor but it is a small one. The largest single factor in the Earth's temperature increase has been the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. If you want to believe that you know better than the thousands and thousands of scientists who fully accept that point, your welcome to your fantasy. Just don't expect rational folks to buy it.

Now we know what you think about PMZ. Any comment about GSlack's debating tactics?

Actually -- I was referring to Mr. GSlack. I take PMZ off ignore once a week just to see if he's taking his meds..

No --- now we got a problem.. Because from the Maunder Min.. the same number of Sunspots DOES NOT (by any stretch) predict the TSI absolute levels. TSI is INDEPENDENT of 11 years cycles and is wonderfully documented to have accounted for a rise in solar insolation of at least 1W/m2 (or .5W/m2 at the surface) since the MMin..

How much has CO2 accounted for (even in IPCC terms since 1750) 1.6W/m2 .. You can do that math can'tcha? Their chart is bogus for relative forcing.. That's because in their Charter on Day One of the IPCC --- their mission was to investigate and quantify MAN-MADE warming.. Just doing what the bosses told them to do..

My guess is that THEIR guess about 1.6W/m2 is missing a division by two.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well Gee Abraham.. Thanks for REPOSTING that lying sack of "we're here to investigate MAN-MADE warming" Good timing chief...

Now explain to me how at LEAST 0.35W/m2 becomes 0.14W/m2 with a + 0.2 and -0.nothing error bar..

 

[Abraham3]

1750 to 2005
Long-lived greenhouse gases: 2.6 W/m*2
TSI: Maybe 0.12.

The Greenhouse Effect wins.

 

[IanC]

The biggest problem in comparing solar variation to atmospheric back radiation is that laypersons give a false equality to the W/m2 of the two types of energy. Low entropy, low temperature differential atmospheric radiation has relatively little ability to do work. Highly ordered high energy solar insolation is very capable of making change in any area. Backradiation isn't the source of energy for evaporation or heat sink warming, it only changes the conditions that Allow solar to accomplish work.

 

[PMZ]

For those interested, here's the long and technical 12-part series on how atmospheric radiation works.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

It's not light reading. Naturally, the cultists will scream that it's socialist warmer propaganda and they obviously don't need to look at it. That's one of the things that makes them cultists, their refusal to look at anything that contradicts the cult dogma.

Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias. Thus it cannot be taken seriously.

Who calls it the science of doom? Only deniers. There is absolutely no reason to listen to them as they are all politically motivated. What they say about science is irrelevant.

 

[PMZ]

Backradiation causes the entire planet to warm. That's a pretty powerful change agent.

 

[IanC]

Backradiation causes the entire planet to warm. That's a pretty powerful change agent.

I would be more inclined to agree with your simplistic statements if I believed that you understood that the sun is the dog that wags the tail rather than CO2 as the thermostat for climate.

By Trenberth's energy budget, other than the ' atmospheric window', 75% of the surface energy is already bypassing the near surface bottleneck by non radiative means. You think all incremental CO2 blockage is taken up as atmospheric or surface temperature change, but that is not true because it gets transported by alternate routes. Some does, otherwise the alternates would already be more heavily used but certainly not all, otherwise CO2 theory would not be the failure it is today.

 

[Abraham3]

The biggest problem in comparing solar variation to atmospheric back radiation is that laypersons give a false equality to the W/m2 of the two types of energy. Low entropy, low temperature differential atmospheric radiation has relatively little ability to do work. Highly ordered high energy solar insolation is very capable of making change in any area. Backradiation isn't the source of energy for evaporation or heat sink warming, it only changes the conditions that Allow solar to accomplish work.

Pardon me if I disagree. I have never heard anyone attribute an entropic value to pure energy. Would you care to explain yourself a little more here? You seem to be equating entropy with energy density. I don't believe it works like that.

 

[Abraham3]

I believe the amount of work that will be done causing evaporation or raising temperatures depends on the net value of received radiation. That some of that radiation comes straight from the surface of the sun and some of it comes from atmospheric gases warmed by other solar radiation is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the sum of energies received minus the sum of energies radiated, conducted or convected away.

 

[PMZ]

The fact that what's not changing is large and what is changing is small is irrelevant. What's changing is big enough to screw up significant pieces of our civilization. That’s the only issue. It's all about precipitation distribution for cities and agriculture, sea level in coastal cities, and extreme winds.

It turns out that our ice fields were being maintained by a very small margin. A degree or two of climatic temperature.

There is nothing to be gained by wishing things were less sensitive.

 

[westwall]

Backradiation causes the entire planet to warm. That's a pretty powerful change agent.

So, if the Sun went out the Earth would be OK because it is the CO2 that actually warms the planet....good to know...

 

[Abraham3]

Actually -- I was referring to Mr. GSlack. I take PMZ off ignore once a week just to see if he's taking his meds..

Hmm...

BTW: There is no future in arguing with PMZ -- he will ignore anything you post and simply attack like a rapid mammal. I gave him 8 textbook references on EM IR radiation calculations being BIDIRECTIONAL to back up the concept of "back radiation" in the GreenHouse -- he did 10 pages of ad hominem attacks and posted one 4th grade graphic from NASA on thermo.

I spent 10 hours trying to make the connection for him. About 10 pages long --- that "debate" was...
Wouldn't bother me if he tied you up.. Not jealous or anything...

Why would you argue this material with GSlack? He agrees with you 100%.

 

[westwall]

For those interested, here's the long and technical 12-part series on how atmospheric radiation works.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

It's not light reading. Naturally, the cultists will scream that it's socialist warmer propaganda and they obviously don't need to look at it. That's one of the things that makes them cultists, their refusal to look at anything that contradicts the cult dogma.

Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias. Thus it cannot be taken seriously.

Who calls it the science of doom? Only deniers. There is absolutely no reason to listen to them as they are all politically motivated. What they say about science is irrelevant.

Ummmm you guys do! You're pretty amusing. You're a mix of sheer religious fanaticism with a healthy dose of stupid thrown in.....

Your post reminds me of the male owl..... Priceless!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkR2heO1AbE]Owls Geico TV Commercial Ad - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Abraham3]

otherwise CO2 theory would not be the failure it is today.

At least in your terms, neither this:

Nor this:

indicate a "failure".

These data, on the other hand, DO show a failure:

 

[Abraham3]

Your post reminds me of the male owl..... Priceless!

Yours reminds me of someone avoiding debate.

 

[mamooth]

Anything that calls itself the "science of doom" has already demonstrated bias. Thus it cannot be taken seriously.

And thus my prediction that denialists would find excuses to handwave away the actual science is shown to be correct.

And no, I don't get tired of being proven right. I only get tired of not being listened to. It's kind of a Cassandra curse I have.

Meanwhile, that link again, for those with integrity. Meaning not the denialists.

Visualizing Atmospheric Radiation ? Part One | The Science of Doom

Again, it's difficult reading. I haven't gotten through all 12 parts. Or maybe more now. You have to really dig into it. I take a little bit each day. As Barbie and denialists say, "Math is hard!".

 

[PMZ]

Backradiation causes the entire planet to warm. That's a pretty powerful change agent.

So, if the Sun went out the Earth would be OK because it is the CO2 that actually warms the planet....good to know...

I really wonder if you know how stupid your post is. I really wonder.