I see a mismatch in the meaning of the word 'forcing'. Replace all of them in my post with the word 'stimulus'. Forcing as used by most, if not all, others is the time-integral of 'stimulus'.
Dan Pangburn• Jan 11, 2015
An analogy exists between average global temperature resulting from stimulus and the level of water in a bucket containing a hole in the bottom being filled with a hose. If the inflow or hole size is suddenly (or gradually) changed to a different value the level of water would slowly change until equilibrium between inflow and outflow was reestablished. The water level would change according to the time-integral of the difference between inflow and outflow. Likewise, average global temperature depends on the time-integral of the net effect of stimuli.
In 'The Inconvenient Truth', Al Gore asserts that the graph which shows that CO2 level and temperature go up and down together indicates that climate change is caused by CO2 change. Actually, with application of valid science, this graph PROVES that CO2 does not cause climate change.
Whatever the stimulus, it relates to the rate-of-change of temperature, not the temperature itself. If global warming was caused by CO2 (it isn’t), warming rate (rate-of-change of average global temperature) instead of (as usually presented) the temperature itself would vary with the CO2 level. To be valid, the comparison should be between the temperature and the time-integral of CO2 level and/or the time-integral of any other factor(s) (such as TSI) proportional to energy rate.
Thus any co-plot of CO2 level and temperature or any other implication that average global temperature depends directly on CO2 level is misleading and physically and mathematically wrong.
An analysis at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.co...derives a physics-based equation which, using the time-integral of stimuli, accurately calculates the uptrends and down trends of average global temperatures irrespective of whether CO2 change is included or not. The paper at this link discloses:
1. A reference which provides historical evidence that CO2 change does not cause climate change.
2. The two factors that do explain climate change. The correlation is 95% with measured average global temperatures since before 1900; including the current plateau. The analysis also predicts the ongoing down trend of average global temperature.
3. An explanation of why any credible CO2 change does not cause significant climate change.
The two factors are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471.
==
Nasty weather is natural. It is happening someplace all the time and always
has. Vivid graphics on TV make it look ominous and omnipresent. Some mistakenly blame humans for it.
has. Vivid graphics on TV make it look ominous and omnipresent. Some mistakenly blame humans for it.
Climate change is natural. The last change is that it stopped warming.
Response:
This claim that CO2 doesn't cause warming was submitted in the Global Warming Skeptic Challenge and addressed here. The claim about the rate of change of temperature rise was also submitted and I dealt with it here. But, I will deal with both of them again.
This comment was full of so many false statements I decided to make a guest post out of it. Let’s start at the beginning and work our way through this one.
First, I have problems with your bucket analogy. As the water pressure increases, the flow through the hole will increase, but it is very simple to have a situation where the inflow far exceeds the outflow to the point equilibrium is never reached until the water is flowing over the top of the bucket. You are incorrect in your assumed statement that the climate will reach equilibrium between energy inflow from the Sun and energy outflow from a cooling Earth. There is nothing to show that any equilibrium needs to be reached. In fact, nonequilibrium is the normal state of nature. Nothing you state demonstrates any outcome at all, not to mention the outcome you desire.
By this point in time, the science of CO2 forcing is so overwhelming that I am truly amazed anytime a denier tries to pull this argument out. If you examine the data and the science, it is more than abundantly clear that CO2 causes global warming. Take a look at these articles at RealClimate.org for a detailed explanation.
Actually, application of valid science PROVES CO2is causing global warming. Sorry. They only way you can otherwise is to reject the science. But, I also know there is absolutely no amount of science or evidence that will ever change your mind. I'm just hoping I can reach someone that hasn't chosen to reject science.
Then you discuss the rate of change of temperature. I don’t know where you got this argument that the rate of change is the important issue, but that is a 100% false argument. You are both wrong and irrelevant in this argument. No, the issue is change in temperature. Is the temperature going up, down or staying stable? That is the only relevant question and anything else is irrelevant. Do we care if it is warming really, really fast, or just really fast? In both cases, it is warming. By your argument, the only case you can make is that the damage due to climate change will take a little longer to occur. But, you never show any evidence that your claim is valid. Either way, you are wrong to suppose this is the major issue.
But, as it turns out, you are also wrong about that rate of change. The rate of global warming is actually increasing and has been for decades. What you want to do is examine the surface temperature of the last few years and ignore the 97% of the warming. Further, you want to ignore the forty years of warming and focus on just a few years. You want to examine 3% of the warming over 30% of the time period and try to make a scientific case out of that. Many people will buy into that argument, but it is not scientifically valid. Come back when you look at 100% of the warming over the entire 45 years we have been concerned with. Take a look:
Yikes! It sure looks like global warming is continue to me. Not only that, but the rate of change has been increasing, as well. If your claim was correct, the bars would be getting smaller and even go negative. Instead, they continue to be positive and to continuously get larger. To come to any other conclusion is to reject science.
And, to make the claim, as you do, that the temperature and CO2 level should have a 100% correlation, but then turn around and argue about natural cycles is a completely false argument. No climate scientist (at least, no credible one) will ever say natural cycles are not continuing. There is ENSO, PDO, AMO, solar cycle, solar variability, and many more natural cycles occurring. Also, there are feedbacks, both positive and negative, that will affect the temperature. Positive feedbacks include rising atmospheric moisture, clouds at night and rising levels of other green house gases, such as methane. Negative feedbacks include clouds during the day. What makes you think you can assume all of those factors have stopped and don’t show up in the temperature record? You have really failed the ‘do the homework’ standard and severely damaged your credibility with that statement. Just to use your bucket analogy (to show how bad all of your statements are) if we increased the flow into the bucket and it reached equilibrium, the rate of change of outflow would decrease until the rate of change reached zero (the definition of equilibrium). By your argument, there has been no change in the rate of inflow into the bucket – even though your argument started with a change in the inflow! Wow! Poor logic!
Yes, natural cycles and feedbacks occur and are continuing, even as manmade global warming continues. The presence of natural cycles in now prohibit the presence of manmade factors, and vice versa. These natural effects will affect the temperature record and result in less than a 100% correlation between the CO2level and the temperature. As an example, CO2 levels have increased about 43% since the late-1950s, but the enhanced greenhouse effect has increased by roughly 1% (Thank goodness!). Sometimes the temperature will go up faster than the CO2 level. Sometimes, it will go up more slowly. So what? When we look at the long-term trend, what we see is the temperature goes up with the rising CO2 levels and this trend continues even when we average out the short-term variations in the climate. More CO2 = higher temperatures. That much has been positively proven. I am sorry if you can’t accept that, but that is the proven science and you have to reject science to come to any other conclusion.
That article you references is so ridiculous you should be embarrassed to cite it. Do you REALLY think our problem is a new ice age about to occur? If you are that desperate, just ask and I will review the paper as a submission, but really, this is a preposterous paper directed towards the gullible. But, if you really want to make me take up my time, I’ll be glad to debunk it.
No, global warming has not stopped. If it has stopped, how do you account for the fact that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded? How do you account for the fact that 2014 set this heat record without having an El Nino or any other natural cycle that boosts global temperatures? How do you account for the fact that what use to be an extraordinary global temperature is now routine?
I’m sorry, your comments truly passed the ‘reject all science’ standard. Go back and do some more homework.
0 comments:
Post a Comment