What AGW is doing to the planet

[Crick]

What is NOT a guess is that the net effect of other mechanisms will be a very significant positive feedback. Your long term project to try to convince people that there are no positive feedbacks in the Earth's climate system is a fail.

 

[bripat9643]

Certainly with 3-Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, people have reason to be less than confident with the safety record of nuclear power. However, as bad as those were, the number of deaths, injuries and serious health effects produced by the mining and combustion of coal dwarfs the numbers taken down by nuclear power.

How many people were killed by radiation from Fukushima? 3-Mile Island? Anyone even get sick?

 

[Crick]

Chernobyl killed 31 people outright and an untold number from increased cancers across western Russia and much of northern Europe. Fukushima will have exposed hundreds of thousands of people to excessive radiation levels.

Keep in mind - in case you missed it in the post of mine you just quoted - that I wholeheartedly support nuclear power.

 

[skookerasbil]

Only answer to the ? posed by the OP is...............

nobody knows

 

[skookerasbil]

Dr Judith Curry, a highly prominent climate change scientist said recently that blaming CO2 for climate change is well..........kinda stoopid. There are many, many other factors controlling the environment that we simply don't know enough about yet.

The AGW OCD's used to love Dr Curry...........then she started questioning the CO2 link as definitive science and what did the AGW community do?

Threw her ass right under the bus...........say she is a nut now!!!

 

[Crick]

I never loved her. I don't know of anyone that did.

 

[westwall]

What is NOT a guess is that the net effect of other mechanisms will be a very significant positive feedback. Your long term project to try to convince people that there are no positive feedbacks in the Earth's climate system is a fail.

Wrong. Climatologists haven't even figured out if clouds are a positive or a negative feedback. They are so wrapped around the axle of that demon molecule CO2 that their brains have shut down.

 

[westwall]

I never loved her. I don't know of anyone that did.

Everybody liked her so long as she toed the line. She however is an ethical scientist, not a political hack like the rest of them so she reports factual data and exposes fraudulent shit. That's why you clowns don't like her anymore you silly little man.

 

[flacaltenn]

What is NOT a guess is that the net effect of other mechanisms will be a very significant positive feedback. Your long term project to try to convince people that there are no positive feedbacks in the Earth's climate system is a fail.

Heck man.. You guys just discovered the MASSIVE NEGATIVE feedback of deep ocean storage a couple years ago.. Thought you were selling the line that 90% of the warming went into Davey Jones deep storage.

That single number Climate Sensitivity that these climax change guys are fixated on is gonna look pretty stupid when Climate scientists like Dr. Curry's group figure out how the Earth's thermodynamics REALLY work. And I guaranDamnTee, that analysis is not going be a single stupid number for the entire planet..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Wrongly stated.

Let's calmly look at this again..

""So once we calculate the direct no feedback CO2 forcing (to a doubling of CO2, it is often stated that all scientists agree that the Earth’s temperature would respond by increasing 1C.""

That is not a "climate sensitity" number. The sentence states the conditions of "NO FEEDBACKS. It is the stripped naked warming power of CO2 ALONE in the atmos. And I would guess that J. Curry is correct that 95% of atmos guys would agree with that statement. As in the IPCC recitation of that number in AR4.

That number is the real atmos warming power of CO2 BY ITSELF. All the other magical powers attributed to it are a GUESS at how the ENTIRE climate system responds to that forcing.

Not shitting ya here. It's the underlying physics of the problem. ACTUALLY -- the easiest part. The more complex and yet UNSOLVED part is knowing how the Climate system RESPONDS over time and place...

Look at our current rate of warming. If we take the unadjusted mean over the last 75 years of just 0.47 deg C, the 120ppm rise which should have caused about 0.8 deg C of warming is but half of that. Indicating that a negative forcing is the most likely definition of increasing CO2. Convection is not stopped by CO2 at high altitude. Once the heat is moved into water vapor CO2 can do little to stops its ultimate release at high altitude.

 

[mamooth]

Denier display paranoia, hero-worship and demon-hating. Film at 11.

Meanwhile, the grownups are doing science. The deniers ... take a look. Steve Goddard, a denier hero, put a Confederate Flag front and center on his "science blog" today. For no reason, except, like a badly behaved teenager, he thinks he's pissing somebody off and showing solidarity with his fellow badly behaved teenagers.

Real Science Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts Richard Feynman

That pretty much sums up deniers. They base their actions entirely on what they think pisses off the liberals.

And Dr. Curry? She lavishes praise on the confederate flag-waving pseudoscience crank.

 

[IanC]

----- IPCC 2007 WG-1 AR4 Carbon dioxide only causes 1.1°C of warming if it doubles. That’s according to the IPCC. Did you know that?


CO2 no-feedback sensitivity Climate Etc.

Hence, the CO2 no feedback sensitivity can only be calculated using models. Determination of the no feedback sensitivity has two parts:

¦calculation of the direct radiative forcing associated with doubling CO2
¦determination of the equilibrium change of global mean surface temperature in response to the CO2 forcing
The IPCC TAR adopted the value of 3.7 W/m2 for the direct CO2 forcing, and I could not find an updated value from the AR4. This forcing translates into 1C of surface temperature change. These numbers do not seem to be disputed, even by most skeptics. Well, perhaps they should be disputed.

So once we calculate the direct no feedback CO2 forcing (to a doubling of CO2, it is often stated that all scientists agree that the Earth’s temperature would respond by increasing 1C.

from a Willis article, A Modtran Mystery Watts Up With That

this shows a different climate sensitivity to 2xCO2 depending on location and conditions. the article is good, the comment section is even better.

1. Willis Eschenbach
   
   April 12, 2014 at 7:30 pm
   Nick Stokes says:
   April 12, 2014 at 6:30 pm
   
   For some reason, Willis seems to be calculating at TOA (70km). But Hansen is definite about where he is calculating, at the tropopause. He says in his 2005 paper:
   “The simplest forcing, and the only pure forcing, is
   the instantaneous forcing, Fi. Fi is the radiative flux change
   at the tropopause after the forcing agent is introduced with
   the climate held fixed. The reason to use the instantaneous
   flux at the tropopause, rather than the flux at the top of the
   atmosphere, is that, as shown by Hansen et al. [1981], it
   provides a good approximation to Fa, the flux change at the
   top of the atmosphere (and throughout the stratosphere)
   after the stratosphere is allowed to adjust radiatively to the
   presence of the forcing agent.”
   
   So I calculated Modtran at 17km, tropics.
   375 ppmv CO2 – 289.0 W/m2 upwelling
   750 ppmv 284.5 W/m2.
   Difference 4.5 W/m2.
   
   Dang, Nick, you surprise me … well spotted. I often forget that when the IPCC says “Top Of Atmosphere”, they mean the top of the atmosphere … except when they mean “Middle Of Atmosphere”. I don’t think that’s all of the answer but I suspect it’s most of the answer.
   
   However, that brings up more issues. FIrst, as you point out, Hansen says that the radiation at the tropospheric level is a good approximation, not of Fi (instantaneous forcing), but of Fa (forcing after the stratosphere changes temperature.
   
   I fear I don’t understand that. IF the instantaneous forcing Fi at the tropopause is really the adjusted forcing Fa … then what is Fi itself? It has to be larger than Fa, by definition.
   
   Next, you’ve got the plan but your calculations are incomplete. To complete them, you need to subtract the downwelling forcing at the tropopause, because Hansen is discussing net forcing (up minus down). Here are those figures for clear-sky tropics.
   
   ppmv, Upwelling, Downwelling, Net
   375, 289.037, 9.470, 279.567
   750, 284.484, 10.516, 273.968
   
   Curiously, this increases the calculated value of the change from what you found (4.5 W/m2) to no less that 5.6 W/m2. And this puts it into fairly good agreement with Hansen’s results, which show about 5.2 W/m2 in the tropics. But that’s for Fi … and he says that what I’ve just measured is a good approximation of Fa.
   
   This is one reason that I find this whole approach crazy. The problem is that it’s not possible to measure something “at the tropopause” in any but the most general way. In addition, I fail to see the diagnostic value in measuring the radiation in the middle of the atmosphere. If you do that, then if the stratosphere warms slightly and the troposphere cools slightly, the “TOA” radiation changes with no change in the global energy balance. How does that not make it useless as a tool to diagnose changes in the overall energy state of the system?
   
   Nor is the IPCC consistent in the use of TOA to mean tropopause. For example consider this quotation from the TAR:
   
   The stratospheric state is determined by the radiative equilibrium condition. The stratosphere and troposphere irradiances are together constrained by the requirement that the top of the atmosphere net total irradiance (i.e., radiative energy absorbed minus that emitted by the Earth’s entire climate system) must be zero at equilibrium.
   
   Clearly, they are NOT using the TOA balance to mean the balance at the tropopause, but at the actual top of the atmosphere. And the same is definitely true about the Chapter in the AR4, the one entitled “Top Of Atmosphere Radiation“. There, TOA means “as measured by satellite”, just as you would imagine. CERES uses the same terminology, where TOA means the radiation actually entering or leaving the system. So I forget about the bizarre corner of the IPCC world where TOA means troposphere.
   
   In any case, Nick, credit where credit is due—even though your calculations were incomplete, I do think you’ve solved the mystery. I know I’ve been on your case in the past, but in this instance, you da man. My congratulations.
   
   Now all we have is the mystery of why an unmeasurable mid-atmosphere quantity, which is free to fluctuate without changing the global energy balance, was picked as being diagnostic of the global energy balance … and of course the mystery of why even to the IPCC, “top of atmosphere” sometimes means the tropopause but mostly means what the satellites measure …
   
   Best regards to all, and my thanks to Nick for actually doing the calculations.
   
   w.
   

 

[mamooth]

Climate sensitivity isn't just modeled. Scientists look at past eras of earth, and can calculate CO2 sensitivity from that. The paleoclimate estimates all show the sensitivity in the 2.0C - 4.5C range. None of them go below 2.0C. If sensitivity was lower, earth couldn't have exited the snowball earth phase, as the CO2 could not have raised temperature enough.

 

[flacaltenn]

Wrongly stated.

Let's calmly look at this again..

""So once we calculate the direct no feedback CO2 forcing (to a doubling of CO2, it is often stated that all scientists agree that the Earth’s temperature would respond by increasing 1C.""

That is not a "climate sensitity" number. The sentence states the conditions of "NO FEEDBACKS. It is the stripped naked warming power of CO2 ALONE in the atmos. And I would guess that J. Curry is correct that 95% of atmos guys would agree with that statement. As in the IPCC recitation of that number in AR4.

That number is the real atmos warming power of CO2 BY ITSELF. All the other magical powers attributed to it are a GUESS at how the ENTIRE climate system responds to that forcing.

Not shitting ya here. It's the underlying physics of the problem. ACTUALLY -- the easiest part. The more complex and yet UNSOLVED part is knowing how the Climate system RESPONDS over time and place...

Look at our current rate of warming. If we take the unadjusted mean over the last 75 years of just 0.47 deg C, the 120ppm rise which should have caused about 0.8 deg C of warming is but half of that. Indicating that a negative forcing is the most likely definition of increasing CO2. Convection is not stopped by CO2 at high altitude. Once the heat is moved into water vapor CO2 can do little to stops its ultimate release at high altitude.

Positive smositive.. The quest to QUANTIFY it as a single number has these jokers in an adled state. Because the Earth's response is complex and time varying, what LOOKS positive or negative at any 100 hundred period could actually be transient behavior based on SHORT TERM climate sensitivity effects. A change in a particular forcing could induce "ringing" behavior in the temperature for multiple decades or a century or two if the excitation is severe enough. Problem is -- there is no way to relate these DYNAMIC response effects to a single stupid number.

I agree that there is no confirming EMPIRICAL evidence (from our modern record) for LARGE POSITIVE feedbacks causing PERMANENT changes to the climate system. There WERE large positive feedbacks in the multiple Ice Age thaws. Huge ones. Because a lot of atmos was locked up in ice. But even with the massive thaws that the Earth went thru there, the system was in OSCILLATION for about 4 Ice Age cycles and DID NOT go critically unstable. Actually COULD be oscillating because the 280ppm of CO2 is a tad LOW to keep the system from plunging into an Ice Age due to whatever stimulus put us INTO those Ice periods..

In fact -- a lot of those HIGHER Climate Sensitivity guesses came from simple deductions based on Ice Age thaws. Not exactly the place you would look for the "steady state" Climate response of the Earth.

 

[flacaltenn]

Climate sensitivity isn't just modeled. Scientists look at past eras of earth, and can calculate CO2 sensitivity from that. The paleoclimate estimates all show the sensitivity in the 2.0C - 4.5C range. None of them go below 2.0C. If sensitivity was lower, earth couldn't have exited the snowball earth phase, as the CO2 could not have raised temperature enough.

See my comments at #94.. Deducing that silly single number whilst the system is in a dynamic quest for equilibrium (like recovery from an Icing) is a joke.. Climate Sensitivity as a single number WILL NEVER describe any actual climate change to an important forcing.

You are correct that Ice Age recovery requires more than CO2 alone feedbacks. But you can get those higher numbers TRANSIENTLY during the settling periods.. Does not imply that those transient responses to forcing are anywhere near the steady state response..

If you INSIST on describing the system response of the Climate to a forcing with a single number -- at least do it when the system is in "relative equilibrium" to start with...

Basic System theory.. Used EVERYWHERE in science and engineering..

 

[mamooth]

Basic System theory.. Used EVERYWHERE in science and engineering..

Absolutely wrong. Which is your fundamental mistake that you don't seem capable of grasping. A planet does not behave like a basic system. The scientists understand that. The engineers, not so much.

 

[flacaltenn]

Denier display paranoia, hero-worship and demon-hating. Film at 11.

Meanwhile, the grownups are doing science. The deniers ... take a look. Steve Goddard, a denier hero, put a Confederate Flag front and center on his "science blog" today. For no reason, except, like a badly behaved teenager, he thinks he's pissing somebody off and showing solidarity with his fellow badly behaved teenagers.

Real Science Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts Richard Feynman

That pretty much sums up deniers. They base their actions entirely on what they think pisses off the liberals.

And Dr. Curry? She lavishes praise on the confederate flag-waving pseudoscience crank.

OMG -- you suck at spin... Feynman was correct. And you don't HAVE a point..

 

[flacaltenn]

Basic System theory.. Used EVERYWHERE in science and engineering..

Absolutely wrong. Which is your fundamental mistake that you don't seem capable of grasping. A planet does not behave like a basic system. The scientists understand that. The engineers, not so much.

Oh but you are so wrong. ANY system can be described in terms in terms of basic transfer functions between inputs and outputs and inspected for behavior characteristics based on feedbacks, storage, delays, ect.. What the fuck do think Climate models are??

 

[boedicca]

What AGW is doing to the planet:

AGW is a man-made issue exploited by totalitarians in order to place controls on people against their will and to take over economic and political power. The end goal is huge transfers of wealth and income away from productive people to AGW cronies.

 

[mamooth]

OMG -- you suck at spin... Feynman was correct. And you don't HAVE a point..

So it's your contention that Feynman would have approved of making the Confederate flag the center point of one's science?

As far as Feynman goes, this quote of his basically destroys denialism.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."