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

[SSDD]

Has Slacksack figured out photosynthesis yet?

I am still looking through the IPCC site for this statement where they say they use 4-5 as a parameter for total global mean radiative forcing in the forward looking predictions.

So far, it comes up as more bullshit.

Why are you dodging so? Do you really not know what the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one entropy state to another?

 

[PMZ]

I asked you a simple question and you apparently find yourself unable to answer. When someone asks you what the Second Law has to say on the topic of energy moving from one region to another region, the correct response is to state what the second law has to say regarding the movement of energy from one region to another region. Here, let me help you out....this from the highly respected University of Georgia Physics Department:

Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Now, let me ask you an even easier question that doesn't involve you having to actually look up complicated stuff like physical laws.

What do you think phrases like "not possible" and "will not" mean? If you need help, with such complex phrases just let me know and I will help you out.



So you (and a lot of other warmers) say but I have looked and can't find a single credible reference that says that the second law doesn't mean exactly what it says. It is written in absolute terms...not possible...will not.

The second law is all about entropy and it states explicitly that energy won't move from a state of higher entropy to a state of lower entropy. Energy in the atmosphere is at a higher state of entropy than energy in the surface of the earth. Now once again, what does the second law say about the movement of energy from a higher entropy state to a lower entropy state?

If you like, by all means provide a single repeatable laboratory experiment that demonstrates a two way energy flow in definance of the statement of the Second Law.

And this statement by you is pure sophistry:



What does knowing have to do with anything? Do you think a stone dropped from your hand needs to know which way to move or do the forces of nature simply dictate to it which way it will move and the stone itself is only along for the ride?

Do you think a marble placed on an incline needs to know which way to move when it is released, or do you think the forces of nature simply don't give it any choice in which way to move?

How about water in a stream bed? Do you think it needs to know which way is downhill?

How about electricity moving down a line? Do you think those electrons need to know which direction is a higher entropy state or do you think that the forces of nature simply move them along whether the "know" any thing or not?



You really are a laugh. I have asked you simple questions that you can't answer and you claim that there is something that I can learn? I have learned that you are an idiot...I have learned that you are incapable of having a rational conversation on the topic because you don't have the slightest grasp of the topic. You will not discuss the topic because it is so far over your head that you don't even know where, or how to begin. You will pick random phrases that you have read and attempt to fit them into a conversation and end up looking even more foolish than you already do.

Here's an idea that I've learned from smart people.

When faced with a question, even if you think that you're right, do some research.

For instance you could Google keywords like, "radiation from a cool body to a warm body".

If you did, here is one of the millions of responses that you'd get.

http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/tenthings/IRThermometer.pdf

Hmmmmm. "physics.colostate.edu". They ought to know.

Try some other credible sites.

And learn.

Cool stuff.

Your linked PDF doesn't state any such thing. It's a PDF that asks and answers a question regarding clear or cloudy nights and temperature.

An insulator does not create additional warming. It slows heat loss hence the articles premise... Jesus you guys get dumber and dumber..

It answered the question do colder objects radiate energy to warmer objects but, not surprisingly, that went right over your head.

I have revised my assessment of the human race thanks to you. I now believe that no matter how it's explained, a certain portion of the human race are incapable of understanding AGW.

The only good news? That's not a problem in doing what has to be done.

 

[PMZ]

Please take a look at what you wrote....NORMAL TRAVEL CONDITIONS. Yes, they are experts at getting better mileage from a vehicle. However we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated. The point is the TDI was driven normally and the hybrid WASN'T.

Have you always been this gullible or did you land on your head after a fall?

Do you think that they were just extraordinarily lucky that day?

I have had two Priuses. Both got nearly exactly the EPA mileage. So why would I believe "we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated"?

If you use caps when typing "know" does that make your assertions more true?

When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, first, stop digging.

No, they are just skilled. You put up some cute hybrid where the guys averaged 29 mph over a flat 15 mile stretch of highway and thought that was the same as a real couple driving a real car on real roads at real speeds.


"I measured Olga's fuel economy in three tests: combined city/highway driving with a normal driving style; combined city/highway driving with an economy-minded driving style; and highway only.

Both combined city/highway tests included an even mix of urban, suburban and interstate trips. In the first, I drove with no regard for economy, operating the vehicle as I do in typical driving and enjoying the occasional acceleration sprint. In the second, I accelerated softly and kept speed down, but otherwise did not employ "hypermiling" techniques. In the highway segment, I kept up with traffic, running the Jetta at 5 to 10 mph above the speed limit, which ranged from 55 mph to 70 mph on my stretch.

Combined, normal driving: EPA Estimate - 34 mpg; Jetta computer display - 34.9 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 36.5 mpg, 7% greater than EPA estimate
Combined, efficient driving: EPA Estimate - 34 mpg; Jetta computer display - 41.7 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 43.7 mpg, 29% greater than EPA estimate
Highway, normal driving: EPA Estimate - 42 mpg; Jetta computer display - 48.0 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 47.5 mpg, 13% greater than EPA estimate
These results are significantly better than the EPA estimates. Plus, the numbers show that economy-minded driving can return nearly ten extra miles for every gallon of diesel fuel, compared with the EPA's estimate."

2011 VW Jetta TDI Test: Real-World Fuel Economy - AutoTrader.com


We bought our Camry Hybrid last year and love the car. However we do not get good city gas mileage. City mileage averages 24 mpg. Highway mileage averages 36 mpg. We baby the car during starts and stops. We have taken the car back to the dealership and they claim everything is working correctly and with additional mileage on the car the mpg will improve. After 7 months it is still exactly the same city mileage.

Any ideas?

Low City Mileage - GreenHybrid - Hybrid Cars

Gas Mileage of Hybrid Vehicles

Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid AliceZ January 2010 edited November -1 in Repair and Maintenance Well not really low... but lower than than advertised. My 2008 Civic Hybrid, which I've had for about 4 months, is averaging 35 mpg. I got a tune-up a few weeks ago and since then it's averaged 32 mpg! The service dept. at the dealer can tell me nothing. It's supposed to get 40-45. Anyone know why or, better yet, how it could be improved? I do keep the tires well inflated and I drive pretty cautiously, slow acceleration, etc, to try and maximize mileage, but it doesn't seem to be helping. - See more at: Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid - Car Talk

Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid - Car Talk


Stupid and ignorant is no way to go through life PMZ. I hope you and your clones get help. I really do.

I don't know anyone with a Prius who doesn't get the EPA mileage. Based on that, what would be stupid and ignorant of me is to fall for your statement "we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated".

 

[itfitzme]

It hasn't "taken a pause". *It is still within the bounds of the predicted variance. *What you can't explain is over 100 years, 1880 to 2000+, of warming that is caused by increasing CO2. *

I get it at 0.00922 with Excel, at a p-value that is almost zero, and 76% R^2. *When the IPCC does it, including El Nino, volcanos, sulfates, solar output, and CO2, their's is way better than I could ever hope for. And I know what they are doing, because I know how the science works.

All you have is some rough calculations of based on solar output that the IPCC already includes, and no predictions, no confidence levels, and cherry picking of data. *And you still have, by your calculations, 66% to go.

Why not do it the right way and do the multivariate regressions? *The statistics was developed decades ago.

Horseshit... Complete and utter horseshit...*

The warming HAS taken a pause.. BY ANY measure of significance over at LEAST the last 12 years. We are looking at the 0.0XdegC/decade digit to see any significance.

The only P-value you've ever taken is on the poddy..*

You "get it at 0.00922" FOR WHAT???? exactly..*

If you're talking about the 33% figure that I tossed for TSI influence on surface radiative forcing.. I don't have 66% to go.. I can pull the exact same horseship that your AGW heroes pull and claim that my 33% is AMPLIFIED by their projected Climate Sensitivity amplifications of 4 and 5 that they pulled out of their P-Values on the poddy.

What works for amplifying CO2 --- works to amplify ANY OTHER RADIATIVE FORCING function don't it???

That's the whole point, that CO2 is the major factor in containing the radiative balance between incoming and outgoing heat. *Otherwise, we'd be living on a big snowball.

And while you are simply saying that you can make up any damn number you like, the IPCC says,

Which assigns a probability distribution to both individual and combined anthropogenic values.

Figure TS.5 - AR4 WGI Technical Summary

It specifically says, " (a) Global mean radiative forcings (RF) and their 90% confidence intervals in 2005 for various agents and mechanisms. "

Because, obviously, a) it is a big globe, b) they change with time as the amount of each component has changed over time, c) few things, in this world, are known with absolute precision, especially when they vary according to instantaneous quantity.

And while they do shorten it from "anthropegenic global mean radiative forcing" to simply "global mean radiative forcing", they explicitly state "The net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its range are also shown. Best estimates and uncertainty ranges can not be obtained by direct addition of individual terms due to the asymmetric uncertainty ranges for some factors;"

And, if we read the glossary of terms, referenced below, they define it as net ... retative to 1750, which makes hardly the absolute value that you would like to use. *There is nothing wrong with your approach, or the words you are using, it just isn't what the IPCC is using.

The difference is that where they, the IPCC, actually puts numbers to individual components, including a 90% confidence level, you simply hide behind vague generalities and completely misrepresent their models.

So, if you are so sure that it is all accounted for by solar variance, then put some numbers where your mouth is. *Come up with a function for temp vs time with a stable radiative forcing factor, one that accounts for the time varing components, that produces*

from

or whatever more recent data you can come up with.

No one doubts that the global mean temperature is primarily driven by solar irradiation. That is where the energy comes from. *It doesn't come from geothermal energy. This is obvious, and not the issue.

**The issue is that the Earth isn't a snowball in space because the atmosphere holds the heat in. *This is apparent for no other reason than the fact that an overcast night stays warmer than a clear and starry night. (clouds, another contribution not fully accounted for).*And, the temperature has risen more than just TSI can account for. *And that increase is due to increasing CO2, offset and added to by other lesser factors, all of which yields the unmistakable conclusion of AWG.

The question is one of accurately determining why the Earth has a reasonably stable temperature and accurately determining how it varies with solar output, CO2, volcanic eruptions, ozone, sulfates, and whatever other causal factors can be determined so we get a prediction as accurate and precise as

And, when different future scenarios are considered, the predicted future temperature is;

instead of some vauge statememts of;

" the 33% figure that I tossed for TSI influence on surface radiative forcing.. I don't have 66% to go.. I can pull the exact same horseship that your AGW heroes pull and claim that my 33% is AMPLIFIED by their projected Climate Sensitivity amplifications of 4 and 5"

Because you may be just pulling 4-5 out of your ass, but the IPCC has a specifically determined value of "TSI is estimated to be 0.3+/-0.2 Wm-2 for the period of 1750 to the present". Unsuprisingly, it has varied over the century, so their generalized summary value simply reports a range, a range that says nothing about, what exact value they use, at what particular time, in which of a dozen individual models, that combinen to produce an overall estmate of the future climate.

"The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the effect of human activities since 1750 has been a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2"

and*

" The LLGHGs together contribute +2.63 ± 0.26 W m–2, which is the dominant radiative forcing term and has the highest level of scientific understanding. *In contrast, the total direct aerosol, cloud albedo and surface albedo effects that contribute negative forcings are less well understood and have larger uncertainties."

And while they do say,*

"In the TAR, no estimate of the total combined RF from all anthropogenic forcing agents was given because: a) some of the forcing agents did not have central or best estimates; b) a degree of subjectivity was included in the error estimates; and c) uncertainties associated with the linear additivity assumption and efficacy had not been evaluated. Some of these limitations still apply. However, methods for objectively adding the RF of individual species have been developed (e.g., Schwartz and Andreae, 1996; Boucher and Haywood, 2001). In addition, as efficacies are now better understood and quantified (see Section 2.8.5), and as the linear additivity assumption has been more thoroughly tested (see Section 2.8.4), it becomes scientifically justifiable for RFs from different mechanisms to be combined, with certain exceptions as noted below. Adding together the anthropogenic RF values shown in panel (A) of Figure 2.20 and combining their individual uncertainties gives the probability density functions (PDFs) of RF that are shown in panel (B)."

Which yields,

and with some effort I may be able to find a qualified value of 4-5 with a pdf and confidence interval, it isn't the same as the 4-5, a number that you apparently pulled out of your ass, because unlike the IPCC, you do exactly what you claim everyone else does, make shit up. *You are the only one pulling shit out of your ass.

And on any given day, the IPCC's "less well understood and have larger uncertainties" is a hell of alot more accurate then your supposed "exact same horseship ".

And I'm not defending my "AGW heroes". *I couldn't give a crap about whomever they are. I'm simply telling you that you are clueless about how science works. *And, when you finally do the work, and get a clue, you will simply end up doing exactly the same thing as the IPCC because they are using the science that I am "defending".

What I am saying is that any value for total radiative forcing is a backward looking metric that changes constantly due to changes in the compsition of the atmosphere. The IPCC models do not use some overall, constant, number of 4-5. *And any value that might be used, as a first order approximation, to get a general idea idea of things, would be in the form of a pdf. *So you might consider studying the hundred pages, or so, of science behind this 4-5 number that someone else pulled out of their ass.

And while I am certainly ready to entertain the idea of an estimate of global mean radiative forcing pdf, I can find no reference, on the IPCC website, that suggests they use such an animal in their models.

Rather, I get the sense that, instead of reading what the IPCC actually publishes, you bought into some second hand bs that someone else claims the IPCC does, or simply misinterpreted what you read. Because there is simply no scientific case to be made for a single global mean radiative forcing value that can be used for every moment of time over a century of global climate. At best, a mean value for radiative forcing is a backward looking, instantaneous, and over simplified parameter that isn't used in the models.

So I will tell you before hand, that if you manage to find a published IPCC value for instantaneous global mean radiative forcing, unless you show the actual code for the models, my answer will be it isn't what they actually use in the models and they don't use a single overall value.

TS.2.5 Net Global Radiative Forcing, Global Warming Potentials and Patterns of Forcing - AR4 WGI Technical Summary

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-06.pdf

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr72.pdf

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg1.pdf

 

[PMZ]

To know that is wrong, you must know that something that contradicts it is more correct. What is it that you believe more accurately reflects the energy flow into and out of system earth!

To start with, rather than representing the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and has no day and night,receives precisely the same amount of sunlight on its entire surface 24 hours a day, and arbitrarily places the sun 4 times further away than it actually is.

A more accurate model would represent the earth as a rotating sphere which experiences day and night, receives varying degrees of energy from the sun depending on where a given point is located at a given time longitudally as it relates to the sun, and its lattitude. A more accurate model would recognize the fact that the coolest part of any day is just after sunrise and then warms until a short period after mid day at which time a cooling process begins till night at which time no solar energy is received by the ground at all until sunrise again.

In short, the models you believe so fervently in are literally models of a flat earth and any model that represents an earth closer to reality would be an improvement. Are you saying that you really didn't know that the present crop of climate models depict the earth as a flat disk that receives the same amount of solar energy across its entire surface 24 hours a day from a sun that is 4 times further away from the earth than we know it to be?

"To start with, rather than representing the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and has no day and night,receives precisely the same amount of sunlight on its entire surface 24 hours a day, and arbitrarily places the sun 4 times further away than it actually is."

No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.

"A more accurate model would represent the earth as a rotating sphere which experiences day and night, receives varying degrees of energy from the sun depending on where a given point is located at a given time longitudally as it relates to the sun, and its lattitude. A more accurate model would recognize the fact that the coolest part of any day is just after sunrise and then warms until a short period after mid day at which time a cooling process begins till night at which time no solar energy is received by the ground at all until sunrise again."

One problem is to understand the earths overall energy budget. Watts coming in and watts going out. It only requires a simple model and only predicts whether the earth needs to cool or warm overall to achieve energy balance. The only inputs required are solar shortwave energy in vs reflected long wave radiation out from the TOA. Such models conclude implicitly requiring warming to compensate for higher concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.

More complicated models add to that sure knowledge the dynamics. How energy in all of earths systems reacts and interacts in order to finally achieve the required energy balance. In short they are long term weather models.

Then there are the short term weather models for the military, government and professions like fire people. Finally the weather models that feed the 11 o'clock news.

In short, you have so much to learn if you want to. Or not, if you prefer that. It matters to nobody but yourself.

 

[itfitzme]

Has Slacksack figured out photosynthesis yet?

I am still looking through the IPCC site for this statement where they say they use 4-5 as a parameter for total global mean radiative forcing in the forward looking predictions.

So far, it comes up as more bullshit.

Why are you dodging so? Do you really not know what the Second Law says regarding the movement of energy from one entropy state to another?

What are you talking about? I have had no discussion about thermodynamics laws. You obviously can no more separate one person from another than you can websites, models, or organizations.

 

[westwall]

Do you think that they were just extraordinarily lucky that day?

I have had two Priuses. Both got nearly exactly the EPA mileage. So why would I believe "we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated"?

If you use caps when typing "know" does that make your assertions more true?

When you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole, first, stop digging.

No, they are just skilled. You put up some cute hybrid where the guys averaged 29 mph over a flat 15 mile stretch of highway and thought that was the same as a real couple driving a real car on real roads at real speeds.


"I measured Olga's fuel economy in three tests: combined city/highway driving with a normal driving style; combined city/highway driving with an economy-minded driving style; and highway only.

Both combined city/highway tests included an even mix of urban, suburban and interstate trips. In the first, I drove with no regard for economy, operating the vehicle as I do in typical driving and enjoying the occasional acceleration sprint. In the second, I accelerated softly and kept speed down, but otherwise did not employ "hypermiling" techniques. In the highway segment, I kept up with traffic, running the Jetta at 5 to 10 mph above the speed limit, which ranged from 55 mph to 70 mph on my stretch.

Combined, normal driving: EPA Estimate - 34 mpg; Jetta computer display - 34.9 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 36.5 mpg, 7% greater than EPA estimate
Combined, efficient driving: EPA Estimate - 34 mpg; Jetta computer display - 41.7 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 43.7 mpg, 29% greater than EPA estimate
Highway, normal driving: EPA Estimate - 42 mpg; Jetta computer display - 48.0 mpg; actual observed fuel economy - 47.5 mpg, 13% greater than EPA estimate
These results are significantly better than the EPA estimates. Plus, the numbers show that economy-minded driving can return nearly ten extra miles for every gallon of diesel fuel, compared with the EPA's estimate."

2011 VW Jetta TDI Test: Real-World Fuel Economy - AutoTrader.com


We bought our Camry Hybrid last year and love the car. However we do not get good city gas mileage. City mileage averages 24 mpg. Highway mileage averages 36 mpg. We baby the car during starts and stops. We have taken the car back to the dealership and they claim everything is working correctly and with additional mileage on the car the mpg will improve. After 7 months it is still exactly the same city mileage.

Any ideas?

Low City Mileage - GreenHybrid - Hybrid Cars

Gas Mileage of Hybrid Vehicles

Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid AliceZ January 2010 edited November -1 in Repair and Maintenance Well not really low... but lower than than advertised. My 2008 Civic Hybrid, which I've had for about 4 months, is averaging 35 mpg. I got a tune-up a few weeks ago and since then it's averaged 32 mpg! The service dept. at the dealer can tell me nothing. It's supposed to get 40-45. Anyone know why or, better yet, how it could be improved? I do keep the tires well inflated and I drive pretty cautiously, slow acceleration, etc, to try and maximize mileage, but it doesn't seem to be helping. - See more at: Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid - Car Talk

Low MPG on Honda Civic Hybrid - Car Talk


Stupid and ignorant is no way to go through life PMZ. I hope you and your clones get help. I really do.

I don't know anyone with a Prius who doesn't get the EPA mileage. Based on that, what would be stupid and ignorant of me is to fall for your statement "we KNOW that the mileage estimates for TDI's is kept low and that for hybrids is grossly over rated".

Those who live in bubbles are doomed to ignorance. Enjoy your bubble.

 

[itfitzme]

To know that is wrong, you must know that something that contradicts it is more correct. What is it that you believe more accurately reflects the energy flow into and out of system earth!

To start with, rather than representing the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and has no day and night,receives precisely the same amount of sunlight on its entire surface 24 hours a day, and arbitrarily places the sun 4 times further away than it actually is.

A more accurate model would represent the earth as a rotating sphere which experiences day and night, receives varying degrees of energy from the sun depending on where a given point is located at a given time longitudally as it relates to the sun, and its lattitude. *A more accurate model would recognize the fact that the coolest part of any day is just after sunrise and then warms until a short period after mid day at which time a cooling process begins till night at which time no solar energy is received by the ground at all until sunrise again.

In short, the models you believe so fervently in are literally models of a flat earth and any model that represents an earth closer to reality would be an improvement. *Are you saying that you really didn't know that the present crop of climate models depict the earth as a flat disk that receives the same amount of solar energy across its entire surface 24 hours a day from a sun that is 4 times further away from the earth than we know it to be?

"To start with, rather than representing the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and has no day and night,receives precisely the same amount of sunlight on its entire surface 24 hours a day, and arbitrarily places the sun 4 times further away than it actually is."

No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.*

"A more accurate model would represent the earth as a rotating sphere which experiences day and night, receives varying degrees of energy from the sun depending on where a given point is located at a given time longitudally as it relates to the sun, and its lattitude. *A more accurate model would recognize the fact that the coolest part of any day is just after sunrise and then warms until a short period after mid day at which time a cooling process begins till night at which time no solar energy is received by the ground at all until sunrise again."

One problem is to understand the earths overall energy budget. Watts coming in and watts going out. It only requires a simple model and only predicts whether the earth needs to cool or warm overall to achieve energy balance. The only inputs required are solar shortwave energy in vs reflected long wave radiation out from the TOA. Such models conclude implicitly requiring warming to compensate for higher concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.

More complicated models add to that sure knowledge the dynamics. How energy in all of earths systems reacts and interacts in order to finally achieve the required energy balance. In short they are long term weather models.*

Then there are the short term weather models for the military, government and professions like fire people. Finally the weather models that feed the 11 o'clock news.*

In short, you have so much to learn if you want to. Or not, if you prefer that. It matters to nobody but yourself.

He's an idiot. *He things the cartoon graphics, used to simplify it for his level of comprehension, is the model that the IPCC use.

I am also beginning to suspect that he is also another Slacksack sock. *SSaDhD=Flatulance*=SlackSack *And I'm beginning to suspect*Walleyed as a*Flatulance sock as well. *

IanC seems to be the only one that actually has original thought. Though I do feel a little bad about suggesting anyone might be as stupid as SlackSack, with his coal cycle theory of photosynthesis. Still, none of themnhave corrected him on it either.

 

[PMZ]

To start with, rather than representing the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and has no day and night,receives precisely the same amount of sunlight on its entire surface 24 hours a day, and arbitrarily places the sun 4 times further away than it actually is.

A more accurate model would represent the earth as a rotating sphere which experiences day and night, receives varying degrees of energy from the sun depending on where a given point is located at a given time longitudally as it relates to the sun, and its lattitude. *A more accurate model would recognize the fact that the coolest part of any day is just after sunrise and then warms until a short period after mid day at which time a cooling process begins till night at which time no solar energy is received by the ground at all until sunrise again.

In short, the models you believe so fervently in are literally models of a flat earth and any model that represents an earth closer to reality would be an improvement. *Are you saying that you really didn't know that the present crop of climate models depict the earth as a flat disk that receives the same amount of solar energy across its entire surface 24 hours a day from a sun that is 4 times further away from the earth than we know it to be?

"To start with, rather than representing the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and has no day and night,receives precisely the same amount of sunlight on its entire surface 24 hours a day, and arbitrarily places the sun 4 times further away than it actually is."

No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.*

"A more accurate model would represent the earth as a rotating sphere which experiences day and night, receives varying degrees of energy from the sun depending on where a given point is located at a given time longitudally as it relates to the sun, and its lattitude. *A more accurate model would recognize the fact that the coolest part of any day is just after sunrise and then warms until a short period after mid day at which time a cooling process begins till night at which time no solar energy is received by the ground at all until sunrise again."

One problem is to understand the earths overall energy budget. Watts coming in and watts going out. It only requires a simple model and only predicts whether the earth needs to cool or warm overall to achieve energy balance. The only inputs required are solar shortwave energy in vs reflected long wave radiation out from the TOA. Such models conclude implicitly requiring warming to compensate for higher concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.

More complicated models add to that sure knowledge the dynamics. How energy in all of earths systems reacts and interacts in order to finally achieve the required energy balance. In short they are long term weather models.*

Then there are the short term weather models for the military, government and professions like fire people. Finally the weather models that feed the 11 o'clock news.*

In short, you have so much to learn if you want to. Or not, if you prefer that. It matters to nobody but yourself.

He's an idiot. *He things the cartoon graphics, used to simplify it for his level of comprehension, is the model that the IPCC use.

I am also beginning to suspect that he is also another Slacksack sock. *SSaDhD=Flatulance*=SlackSack *And I'm beginning to suspect*Walleyed as a*Flatulance sock as well. *

IanC seems to be the only one that actually has original thought. Though I do feel a little bad about suggesting anyone might be as stupid as SlackSack, with his coal cycle theory of photosynthesis. Still, none of themnhave corrected him on it either.

I think thay've been told that they are owed a very simple model that anyone can understand that takes into account all of the complexities and dynamics and concludes that nothing costing money has to be done.

They are entitled, don't you know.

 

[itfitzme]

Here is the issue;

This is solar irradiance against temperature anomoly

which is also included in

Which also contains;

And if you do the linear regression on solar irradiation, that huge divergence guarantees that the R^2 will be less than for CO2.*

Obviously, CO2 is the gas responsible for holding the *suns heat in. So a regression against CO2 yields a higher R^2 because it accounts for the majority suns heat. If there were no sun, CO2 would yield nothing. *If there were no CO2, the Earth would be substantially colder. *CO2 and the sun yields multiple times more temperature. The CO2 multiplies the suns influence. *

It would be nice if someone had Excel, with stat pack installed. Then we could do a proper regression analysis. I am not sure if Excel will do a multivariate analysis. That might require SSPS or some other stat package.

The Solar Cycle and Global Warming ? Starts With A Bang

 

[itfitzme]

"To start with, rather than representing the earth as a flat disk that doesn't rotate and has no day and night,receives precisely the same amount of sunlight on its entire surface 24 hours a day, and arbitrarily places the sun 4 times further away than it actually is."

No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.*

"A more accurate model would represent the earth as a rotating sphere which experiences day and night, receives varying degrees of energy from the sun depending on where a given point is located at a given time longitudally as it relates to the sun, and its lattitude. *A more accurate model would recognize the fact that the coolest part of any day is just after sunrise and then warms until a short period after mid day at which time a cooling process begins till night at which time no solar energy is received by the ground at all until sunrise again."

One problem is to understand the earths overall energy budget. Watts coming in and watts going out. It only requires a simple model and only predicts whether the earth needs to cool or warm overall to achieve energy balance. The only inputs required are solar shortwave energy in vs reflected long wave radiation out from the TOA. Such models conclude implicitly requiring warming to compensate for higher concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.

More complicated models add to that sure knowledge the dynamics. How energy in all of earths systems reacts and interacts in order to finally achieve the required energy balance. In short they are long term weather models.*

Then there are the short term weather models for the military, government and professions like fire people. Finally the weather models that feed the 11 o'clock news.*

In short, you have so much to learn if you want to. Or not, if you prefer that. It matters to nobody but yourself.

He's an idiot. *He things the cartoon graphics, used to simplify it for his level of comprehension, is the model that the IPCC use.

I am also beginning to suspect that he is also another Slacksack sock. *SSaDhD=Flatulance*=SlackSack *And I'm beginning to suspect*Walleyed as a*Flatulance sock as well. *

IanC seems to be the only one that actually has original thought. Though I do feel a little bad about suggesting anyone might be as stupid as SlackSack, with his coal cycle theory of photosynthesis. Still, none of themnhave corrected him on it either.

I think thay've been told that they are owed a very simple model that anyone can understand that takes into account all of the complexities and dynamics and concludes that nothing costing money has to be done.

They are entitled, don't you know.

Anyone that take the time to read The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources description of the history of climate modeling would know that the climate models are far more sophisticated than the simple cartoon graphic depicts. I am aware that those who have never graduated from college are clueless with regard to the length and complexity that even the simple senior year projects achieve. The professional climate models are far beyond my personal grasp, except that they are deeply complex, finite element analysis, multi-dimensional models that require a super computer to run. To call them 3-D, spherical models doesn't do them justice. And I can only gauge their likely complexity as on an exponential scale, at some factor of 10^(4+) better than anything I can even concieve of. We go from doing "mad minutes" in grammer school, to single page word problems in highschool geometry, single page essays in grammer school to ten page essays in highschool. I can only imagine the tome that a senior college lit major writes. And engineering homework problems were often ten pages of just calculations. Senior projects are a year long efforts. Grad school is worse. And that two year PhD thesis is just one two year project. The IPCC cycle is six years, 2013-2007. (five?) And that is four working groups, all feeding into the final product.

The first model to produce something even remotely close to a GCM was a cylinder. The next leap was a layered globe. They ran into issues, and rightfully so, where the elements converged at the poles. I can't begin to imagine what they have now.

It isn't the flat earth model any more. That is just a gross over simplification for us layman. It is the Dr. Suess version. The "See Spot run. Run Spot run" version." It't is like comparing The Cat In The Hat to the works of Shakespeare.

 

[westwall]

He's an idiot. *He things the cartoon graphics, used to simplify it for his level of comprehension, is the model that the IPCC use.

I am also beginning to suspect that he is also another Slacksack sock. *SSaDhD=Flatulance*=SlackSack *And I'm beginning to suspect*Walleyed as a*Flatulance sock as well. *

IanC seems to be the only one that actually has original thought. Though I do feel a little bad about suggesting anyone might be as stupid as SlackSack, with his coal cycle theory of photosynthesis. Still, none of themnhave corrected him on it either.

I think thay've been told that they are owed a very simple model that anyone can understand that takes into account all of the complexities and dynamics and concludes that nothing costing money has to be done.

They are entitled, don't you know.

Anyone that take the time to read The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources description of the history of climate modeling would know that the climate models are far more sophisticated than the simple cartoon graphic depicts. I am aware that those who have never graduated from college are clueless with regard to the length and complexity that even the simple senior year projects achieve. The professional climate models are far beyond my personal grasp, except that they are deeply complex, finite element analysis, multi-dimensional models that require a super computer to run. To call them 3-D, spherical models doesn't do them justice. And I can only gauge their likely complexity as on an exponential scale, at some factor of 10^(4+) better than anything I can even concieve of. We go from doing "mad minutes" in grammer school, to single page word problems in highschool geometry, single page essays in grammer school to ten page essays in highschool. I can only imagine the tome that a senior college lit major writes. And engineering homework problems were often ten pages of just calculations. Senior projects are a year long efforts. Grad school is worse. And that two year PhD thesis is just one two year project. The IPCC cycle is six years, 2013-2007. (five?) And that is four working groups, all feeding into the final product.

The first model to produce something even remotely close to a GCM was a cylinder. The next leap was a layered globe. They ran into issues, and rightfully so, where the elements converged at the poles. I can't begin to imagine what they have now.

It isn't the flat earth model any more. That is just a gross over simplification for us layman. It is the Dr. Suess version. The "See Spot run. Run Spot run" version." It't is like comparing The Cat In The Hat to the works of Shakespeare.

Sure they are. Here are a whole host of papers showing all the failings of the climate models and just how crappy they are. Enjoy the read. 1st off is Hansens testimony to The House of Commons...you know who he is right? Then there is a paper stating that the computer models are so poor that they are unable to be used for predictive purposes for agriculture but they hope that within 5 to 50! years they may be..

In other words, wherever you look within legitimate scientific circles and journals, the UNIVERSAL opinion is that global climate models are worse than useless.


"...The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate.
...The IPCC had prior estimates. The last report was that sea level this century would only go up a fraction of a metre. The new report is probably going to estimate more like a metre, but these are educated guesses."-James Hansen....


"Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies."


House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 60

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf

Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modelled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Flawed Global Warming Models Predict Heat That Hasn't Occurred - Investors.com

Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models Vs. Observations | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

 

[PMZ]

I think thay've been told that they are owed a very simple model that anyone can understand that takes into account all of the complexities and dynamics and concludes that nothing costing money has to be done.

They are entitled, don't you know.

Anyone that take the time to read The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources description of the history of climate modeling would know that the climate models are far more sophisticated than the simple cartoon graphic depicts. I am aware that those who have never graduated from college are clueless with regard to the length and complexity that even the simple senior year projects achieve. The professional climate models are far beyond my personal grasp, except that they are deeply complex, finite element analysis, multi-dimensional models that require a super computer to run. To call them 3-D, spherical models doesn't do them justice. And I can only gauge their likely complexity as on an exponential scale, at some factor of 10^(4+) better than anything I can even concieve of. We go from doing "mad minutes" in grammer school, to single page word problems in highschool geometry, single page essays in grammer school to ten page essays in highschool. I can only imagine the tome that a senior college lit major writes. And engineering homework problems were often ten pages of just calculations. Senior projects are a year long efforts. Grad school is worse. And that two year PhD thesis is just one two year project. The IPCC cycle is six years, 2013-2007. (five?) And that is four working groups, all feeding into the final product.

The first model to produce something even remotely close to a GCM was a cylinder. The next leap was a layered globe. They ran into issues, and rightfully so, where the elements converged at the poles. I can't begin to imagine what they have now.

It isn't the flat earth model any more. That is just a gross over simplification for us layman. It is the Dr. Suess version. The "See Spot run. Run Spot run" version." It't is like comparing The Cat In The Hat to the works of Shakespeare.

Sure they are. Here are a whole host of papers showing all the failings of the climate models and just how crappy they are. Enjoy the read. 1st off is Hansens testimony to The House of Commons...you know who he is right? Then there is a paper stating that the computer models are so poor that they are unable to be used for predictive purposes for agriculture but they hope that within 5 to 50! years they may be..

In other words, wherever you look within legitimate scientific circles and journals, the UNIVERSAL opinion is that global climate models are worse than useless.


"...The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate.
...The IPCC had prior estimates. The last report was that sea level this century would only go up a fraction of a metre. The new report is probably going to estimate more like a metre, but these are educated guesses."-James Hansen....


"Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies."


House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 60

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf

Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modelled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Flawed Global Warming Models Predict Heat That Hasn't Occurred - Investors.com

Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models Vs. Observations | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

When I read the legitimate of your references what I think that they imply is indisputable. Climate and weather models are useful today and will be continuously improved forever. Who would possibly think otherwise?

But doers are betting billions on them today.

And science deniers deny science regardless of where it is in terms of continuous improvement.

This really does boil down to just one thing. The continual string of better and better models have not changed their conclusion. Our climate, due to the waste that we dump into our atmosphere, will change as a result, and that will have significant and costly consequences to the civilization that we've built around a climate that is changing around us.

It would be better for mankind if that wasn't true.

That has no impact on the fact that it is true.

 

[westwall]

Anyone that take the time to read The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources description of the history of climate modeling would know that the climate models are far more sophisticated than the simple cartoon graphic depicts. I am aware that those who have never graduated from college are clueless with regard to the length and complexity that even the simple senior year projects achieve. The professional climate models are far beyond my personal grasp, except that they are deeply complex, finite element analysis, multi-dimensional models that require a super computer to run. To call them 3-D, spherical models doesn't do them justice. And I can only gauge their likely complexity as on an exponential scale, at some factor of 10^(4+) better than anything I can even concieve of. We go from doing "mad minutes" in grammer school, to single page word problems in highschool geometry, single page essays in grammer school to ten page essays in highschool. I can only imagine the tome that a senior college lit major writes. And engineering homework problems were often ten pages of just calculations. Senior projects are a year long efforts. Grad school is worse. And that two year PhD thesis is just one two year project. The IPCC cycle is six years, 2013-2007. (five?) And that is four working groups, all feeding into the final product.

The first model to produce something even remotely close to a GCM was a cylinder. The next leap was a layered globe. They ran into issues, and rightfully so, where the elements converged at the poles. I can't begin to imagine what they have now.

It isn't the flat earth model any more. That is just a gross over simplification for us layman. It is the Dr. Suess version. The "See Spot run. Run Spot run" version." It't is like comparing The Cat In The Hat to the works of Shakespeare.

Sure they are. Here are a whole host of papers showing all the failings of the climate models and just how crappy they are. Enjoy the read. 1st off is Hansens testimony to The House of Commons...you know who he is right? Then there is a paper stating that the computer models are so poor that they are unable to be used for predictive purposes for agriculture but they hope that within 5 to 50! years they may be..

In other words, wherever you look within legitimate scientific circles and journals, the UNIVERSAL opinion is that global climate models are worse than useless.


"...The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate.
...The IPCC had prior estimates. The last report was that sea level this century would only go up a fraction of a metre. The new report is probably going to estimate more like a metre, but these are educated guesses."-James Hansen....


"Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies."


House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 60

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf

Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modelled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Flawed Global Warming Models Predict Heat That Hasn't Occurred - Investors.com

Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models Vs. Observations | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

When I read the legitimate of your references what I think that they imply is indisputable. Climate and weather models are useful today and will be continuously improved forever. Who would possibly think otherwise?

But doers are betting billions on them today.

And science deniers deny science regardless of where it is in terms of continuous improvement.

This really does boil down to just one thing. The continual string of better and better models have not changed their conclusion. Our climate, due to the waste that we dump into our atmosphere, will change as a result, and that will have significant and costly consequences to the civilization that we've built around a climate that is changing around us.

It would be better for mankind if that wasn't true.

That has no impact on the fact that it is true.

No, they're bribing government to pass laws that allow them to fleece the population. But you already knew that.

 

[gslack]

Here's an idea that I've learned from smart people.

When faced with a question, even if you think that you're right, do some research.

For instance you could Google keywords like, "radiation from a cool body to a warm body".

If you did, here is one of the millions of responses that you'd get.

http://littleshop.physics.colostate.edu/tenthings/IRThermometer.pdf

Hmmmmm. "physics.colostate.edu". They ought to know.

Try some other credible sites.

And learn.

Cool stuff.

Your linked PDF doesn't state any such thing. It's a PDF that asks and answers a question regarding clear or cloudy nights and temperature.

An insulator does not create additional warming. It slows heat loss hence the articles premise... Jesus you guys get dumber and dumber..

It answered the question do colder objects radiate energy to warmer objects but, not surprisingly, that went right over your head.

I have revised my assessment of the human race thanks to you. I now believe that no matter how it's explained, a certain portion of the human race are incapable of understanding AGW.

The only good news? That's not a problem in doing what has to be done.

No it didn't socko. what it did was try and explain the thermodynamics and insulating properties of cloud cover especially at night... You don't know what an insulator is? LOL, not surprising...

 

[itfitzme]

Sure they are. *Here are a whole host of papers showing all the failings of the climate models and just how crappy they are. *Enjoy the read. *1st off is Hansens testimony to The House of Commons...you know who he is right? *Then there is a paper stating that the computer models are so poor that they are unable to be used for predictive purposes for agriculture but they hope that within 5 to 50! years they may be..

In other words, wherever you look within legitimate scientific circles and journals, the UNIVERSAL opinion is that global climate models are worse than useless.


"...The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate.*
...The IPCC had prior estimates. The last report was that sea level this century would only go up a fraction of a metre. The new report is probably going to estimate more like a metre, but these are educated guesses."-James Hansen....


"Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies."


*House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 60

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf

Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modelled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Flawed Global Warming Models Predict Heat That Hasn't Occurred - Investors.com

Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models Vs. Observations | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

As usual, you are confused because you can't tell one model from another. *Apparently, to you, they are all "models". *Like you group people into categories and all people in a category are identical.

A key term is "regional temperature simulations", the word "regional" being particularly important. *I am not surprised that short term and regional models are still in their infancy.

The only model I am interested in is the final combined output of the global model. The issue has been that is has repeatedly under estimated the rise in temperature and sea level rise.

I have explained to you, in detail, that the word "model" is a general term that applies to everything which provides a description of how something will be, everything from Earnings=Revenues-costs to E=mc^2 to a roadmap to a weather prediction in your local area to the flight path of the Space Shuttle (now retired) to a general circulation model.

Your inability to distinguish specific models that attempt to predict local precipitation patterns for agriculture from the models used to predict AGW just demonstrates your continued ignorance and desperate attempt to prove something that simply isn't correct.

 

[itfitzme]

Your linked PDF doesn't state any such thing. It's a PDF that asks and answers a question regarding clear or cloudy nights and temperature.

An insulator does not create additional warming. It slows heat loss hence the articles premise... Jesus you guys get dumber and dumber..

It answered the question do colder objects radiate energy to warmer objects but, not surprisingly, that went right over your head.*

I have revised my assessment of the human race thanks to you. I now believe that no matter how it's explained, a certain portion of the human race are incapable of understanding AGW.*

The only good news? That's not a problem in doing what has to be done.

No it didn't socko. what it did was try and explain the thermodynamics and insulating properties of cloud cover especially at night... You don't know what an insulator is? LOL, not surprising...

You need to work on your own homework. *What is photosynthesis? *What is soil carbon? *And why don't plants need coal, pencil lead and diamonds in the soil to grow?

Come back when you have finished those homework problems.

 

[IanC]

No Ian you have never manned-up. You fear being wrong. Like spencer and any number of other "scientists" who would rather spread a scientific mystery as explained fact, rather than appear lacking or unknowing.

The truth is they don't really know what happens at the sub-atomic and atomic levels. They are guessing based on what they can figure out using theoretical mathematics. That's it. They think that some of the energy must flow back to it's source because mathematically it shows it must. They can't prove it, they can't observe the phenomenon well enough to be sure, all they know is according to their current level of understanding and math, it's should be correct.

The theory has not been quantified, yet these idiots push it has fact anyway because their careers depend on it.

If you accept that EM radiation shows properties of BOTH a wave and a particle, the theory falls flat. A wave as shown in many experiments, cannot flow back to it's greater source. It can interfere with it, but cannot fully oppose or flow back against it. A particle on the other hand allows for some lee way in that. And when you add in frequency variance, or phases, you can even make the argument for very limited two-way energy flow. BUT you have to negate the wave-like properties to make the case.

Even the argument the sock brigade made about "net heat" flow, will not change the issue. Whether you call it "net heat flow" and assume some flows back to it's source, or not the greater heat is still going out, meaning at best the net heat is diffused and not warming the source.

We have been over this time and again, and every time you have to come to the point that you cannot logically argue the theory well enough, so you play dumb and become a sarcastic ass or run away.. Why do you think that is? Why is it when you take the argument as far as you can, you always end up at the same stalemates?

Simple, your theory has holes in it and it's incomplete at best, if not completely false.. Too many unknowns, too many unproven and unverified processes, to even consider it a fact yet..

yes, we have been over it a hundred times. equilibrium temperature is based on input (mostly from the sun, temperature invariant) minus output (radiation, convection, latent, which are all temperature dependent). choking off the output warms the surface, not by the energy returning from the atmosphere, but by the radiation that fails to escape in a timely fashion. the same stable input from the sun can result in a wide range of surface temperatures depending on the conditions that affect the output of energy into space. it is a simple concept but totally beyond your ken.

I bolded the backpeddling part..

WTF Ian? You are now claiming that back-radiation doesn't exist? Or is it just more of your waffling? If you are now stating that, wtf was all of your BS before? We stated time and again the extra "warming" claimed in AGW theory does not come from back-radiation from the atmosphere to it's warmer source (the surface warmed by the sun), and that was what set you off every time.. You spent post after post trying to defend backradiation, yet here you are denying it's existence now...

Dude do you even know what you believe on this? Unfreaking believable man.. ROFL

I have explained this dozens of times, in a variety of ways, to you and your ilk. I cannot help but think that you are too dense to just pick it up easily and too obstinate to actually read for comprehension.

over and over and over again I have said that it is the sun that warms the surface, with atnospheric conditions adjusting the final equilibrium temperature. the net flow of energy and heat is always outwards towards space.

there are two types of backradiation. the first is temperature dependent blackbody radiation that would be present even without greenhouse gases. the second is GHG dependent by which certain wavelengths of surface IR radiation are stopped from exiting directly into outer space because they are absorbed and re-emitted in random directions, dispersing the energy into the atmosphere where it returns to the surface/finally escapes to space/or is added to the temperature of the atmosphere where it simply becomes part of the blackbody radiation. is that simple enough for you gslack? the atmosphere will always send backradiation to the surface because it is warm and gives off blackbody radiation. GHGs just add to that existing backradiation.

the surface gives off blackbody radiation according to its temperature. if there was no atmosphere it would simply exit into space, relative to (Tsur^4 - Tspa^4), where Tsur is surface temp and Tspa is space temp. if there is an atmosphere in place then the surface would give off radiation relative to (Tsur^4 - Tatm^4). because Tatm >> Tspa the power dissapated is much less. that difference is taken up into the heat sinks of the surface and atmosphere until the energy flowing out again matches the solar input but the surface is now at a higher equilibrium temperature.

planck curves somewhat representative of surface and atmosphere temperatures. the surface is emitting more radiation and at a slightly higher energy wavelengths. when it absorbs the radiation from the lower curve, the area between the two curves is the energy available to go through the atmosphere and exit into space. it is a visual explanation of the second law of thermodynamics, it shows why heat always goes from warm to cool. there is more radiation from the warmer body to the cooler body.

is this a complete or even a good model? not really, especially if the atmosphere was only N2 and O2. the surface radiation would mostly escape, but a significant amount of heat would still be passed to the atmosphere by conduction, which would be spread by convection. it is only when GHGs are added that surface radiation starts being dispersed and substantially removed from radiation loss. water is the main GHG but it also adds a new method of transporting latent heat above the near surface bottleneck by increasing convection as heat pipes (humid air is ligher and therefore rises, until it is cool enough for the water to change phase releasing heat which can now escape). CO2 takes another bite out of the planck curve, dissapating 15 micron IR and returning some to the surface.

it does not matter that the surface and especially the atmosphere are not true blackbodies. we are concerned only with disturbances to the equilibrium, the equilibrium that has already been in place using heat sinks, convection, conduction, latent heat, and radiation.

with no atmosphere heat transport and energy loss is 100% radiation driven. as you add an atmosphere conduction and convection become increasingly important in heat transport. when you add GHGs the ratios between conduction, convection, latent heat, and radiation change again. the radiation blocked by doubling CO2 does not necessarily all go into raising the surface equilibrium temperature, it is likely that much of it is just diverted into other transport mechanisms to get it high enough to escape. Trenberth's cartoon already shows that the minority of low altitude energy escapes as radiation, especially if you take out the 10micron atmospheric window. only 26W/m2 pinball through the lower atmosphere now, closing it down even further is not making a huge change.

just to be specific about gslack's statement that I am backpedalling on back radiation....all the radiation from the atmosphere directed at, and reaching, the surface is absorbed and used to offset the outward radiation from the surface, a la planck curves. because the net radiation is almost always towards the atmosphere, the movement of heat is away from the surface. the surface temperature may rise incrementally with addition of GHGs but that is only because the solar input is not being fully balanced by surface output reaching outer space. like I have said dozens of times but gslack never seems to be able to comprehend the idea of equilibriums being being based not only on inputs but outputs as well. that is why he and SSDD and others have so much trouble understanding why solar input is only 160W but surface output via heat sink is 400W (surface output not top of the atmosphere output, which is in balance with solar input).

 

[Old Rocks]

Sure they are. Here are a whole host of papers showing all the failings of the climate models and just how crappy they are. Enjoy the read. 1st off is Hansens testimony to The House of Commons...you know who he is right? Then there is a paper stating that the computer models are so poor that they are unable to be used for predictive purposes for agriculture but they hope that within 5 to 50! years they may be..

In other words, wherever you look within legitimate scientific circles and journals, the UNIVERSAL opinion is that global climate models are worse than useless.


"...The climate models often get criticised-and it is a valid criticism-that there is a lot of physics that we may not even have in the models, and that which we do have in may be inaccurate.
...The IPCC had prior estimates. The last report was that sea level this century would only go up a fraction of a metre. The new report is probably going to estimate more like a metre, but these are educated guesses."-James Hansen....


"Global climate models (GCMs) have become increasingly important for climate change science and provide the basis for most impact studies. Since impact models are highly sensitive to input climate data, GCM skill is crucial for getting better short-, medium- and long-term outlooks for agricultural production and food security. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) phase 5 ensemble is likely to underpin the majority of climate impact assessments over the next few years. We assess 24 CMIP3 and 26 CMIP5 simulations of present climate against climate observations for five tropical regions, as well as regional improvements in model skill and, through literature review, the sensitivities of impact estimates to model error. Climatological means of seasonal mean temperatures depict mean errors between 1 and 18 ° C (2–130% with respect to mean), whereas seasonal precipitation and wet-day frequency depict larger errors, often offsetting observed means and variability beyond 100%. Simulated interannual climate variability in GCMs warrants particular attention, given that no single GCM matches observations in more than 30% of the areas for monthly precipitation and wet-day frequency, 50% for diurnal range and 70% for mean temperatures. We report improvements in mean climate skill of 5–15% for climatological mean temperatures, 3–5% for diurnal range and 1–2% in precipitation. At these improvement rates, we estimate that at least 5–30 years of CMIP work is required to improve regional temperature simulations and at least 30–50 years for precipitation simulations, for these to be directly input into impact models. We conclude with some recommendations for the use of CMIP5 in agricultural impact studies."


House of Commons - Uncorrected Evidence - HC 60

http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/3489/2013/cpd-9-3489-2013.pdf

Plausible reasons for the inconsistencies between the modelled and observed temperatures in the tropical troposphere - Varotsos - Geophysical Research Letters - Wiley Online Library

Flawed Global Warming Models Predict Heat That Hasn't Occurred - Investors.com

Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models Vs. Observations | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

Implications of regional improvement in global climate models for agricultural impact research - Abstract - Environmental Research Letters - IOPscience

When I read the legitimate of your references what I think that they imply is indisputable. Climate and weather models are useful today and will be continuously improved forever. Who would possibly think otherwise?

But doers are betting billions on them today.

And science deniers deny science regardless of where it is in terms of continuous improvement.

This really does boil down to just one thing. The continual string of better and better models have not changed their conclusion. Our climate, due to the waste that we dump into our atmosphere, will change as a result, and that will have significant and costly consequences to the civilization that we've built around a climate that is changing around us.

It would be better for mankind if that wasn't true.

That has no impact on the fact that it is true.

No, they're bribing government to pass laws that allow them to fleece the population. But you already knew that.

Damned right. Those scientists with their trillions of dollars in ill gotten gains are bribing the government to pass laws while the execs at Mobile-Exxon can barely afford one meal a day. Yessirree, Walleyes, you have it down pat.

 

[SSDD]

No model represents the earth as a flat disk. The flat disk is how to calculate the area for the incoming parallel rays of the sun in order to know the watts/m2 from that source.

Once again, your fundamental ignorance goes on display. All models represent the earth as a flat disk.

I am surprised that you are unaware of the earth portrayed in climate models. Even the crop of crazies that we had here before you and your sock showed up were aware that the models didn't represent the earth as a rotating sphere and that they arbitrarily put the sun 4x further away than it actually is.

Do a bit of research into what is actually meant by P/4