I have a B.S. in Physics and I took 1 independent study course in atmospheric science. I also have a degree in electrical engineering.
I have read many articles on climate science over the past 19 years. I started out with realclimate.org, a site with articles written by some of the top climate scientists in the world. That was a
good source for learning the basics of climate science. I have read many of the rebuttals to skeptical arguments on climate at skepticalscience.com and I have read many other articles at other
climate blogs.
I don't present information on this forum that isn't scientifically sound and reasonable.
Wikipedia is a good source for the definition of "radiative forcings" and it discusses climate sensitivity. Each of the greenhouse gases can be converted into an equivalent radiative forcing at
the top of the atmosphere. Both naturally occurring aerosols and anthropogenic aerosols can be converted into radiative forcings -something external to the system that forces the earth's
climate system and surface temperature to respond in order to restore equilibrium.
Climate sensitivity can be derived from studying the ice age transition periods and that number can be multiplied by the climate forcings that exist today relative to the pre-industrial era.
That will yield an equilibrium global mean temperature for the earth. Since we are not in radiative or thermal equilibrium that temperature will represent a greater temperature than currently exists.
Climate sensitivity represents all of the climate feedbacks that respond to the total climate forcings. It is not known with a high degree of accuracy, to say the least.
I use 3 degrees C. for a doubling of CO2 with a range of 2.0 to 4.0, but the range could be larger. The uncertainty in climate sensitivity is the major source of debate among
climate scientists.
Radiative forcing is the difference between insolation (sunlight) absorbed by the Earth and energy radiated back to space.[1] Changes to Earth's radiative equilibrium, that cause temperatures to rise or fall over decadal periods, are called climate forcings.[2] Positive radiative forcing means Earth receives more incoming energy from sunlight than it radiates to space. This net gain of energy will cause warming. Conversely, negative radiative forcing means that Earth loses more energy to space than it receives from the sun, which produces cooling. A system in thermal equilibrium has zero radiative forcing.
Radiative forcing is meaningfully quantified at the tropopause and at the top of the stratosphere as flux of watts per square meter, and calculated as an average over the Earth's total surface area. Radiative forcing varies with solar insolation, surface albedo, and the atmospheric concentrations of radiatively active gases - commonly known as greenhouse gases - and aerosols.
Last edited by skepticalmike; 09-22-2020 at 04:43 AM.
There is disagreement among scientists over the whether or not we have been in a grand solar maximum. A discrepancy between the Wolf sunspot number and the Group sunspot
number was corrected in 2017. This result is shown below.
https://www.iau.org/news/pressreleases/detail/iau1508/
"The Sunspot Number, the longest scientific experiment still ongoing, is a crucial tool used to study the solar dynamo, space weather and climate change. It has now been recalibrated and shows a consistent history of solar activity over the past few centuries. The new record has no significant long-term upward trend in solar activity since 1700, as was previously indicated. This suggests that rising global temperatures since the industrial revolution cannot be attributed to increased solar activity. The analysis, its results and its implications for climate research were made public today at a press briefing at the International Astronomical Union (IAU) XXIX General Assembly, currently taking place in Honolulu, Hawai`i, USA."
The graph below shows no significant change in solar irradiance since 1850. This is from NASA's blog, "There is no impending mini ice age".
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/t...-mini-ice-age/
Oh my!
You didn't address post one article at all, what you did was post a deflection to something unrelated since what I posted was 100% based on data, properly formatted, to show that C02 has a minor impact on RATE of temperature change, month to month, year to year.
Your post are based on modeling constructs, that doesn't begin to address the rate of change between CO2 and Temperature, a relationship you and other warmist/alarmists don't address, maybe because it quickly shows that the observed warming since around 1980 is mostly natural, the CO2/Temperature change relationship makes that clear.
Your temperature charts are based on data that have been altered many times, NASA own PAST charts demonstrate that well, where the well known significant cooling from the 1940's to the 1970's are almost erased.
It is this recurring lie is why the AGW nonsense has been discredited, all you have are a bunch of tuned models, only a few 100 of them to year 2050 and 2100, they are unverifiable and junkscience.
I showed that the RATE of per decade warming has greatly decreased since 1998 as compared to 1988, you didn't address it.
I showed that CO2 has a very small effect on the RATE of temperature change, across time frames, you didn't address it.
None of those "peer reviewed" papers address "CO2 has a very small effect on the RATE of temperature change, across time frames".
Your deflection is quite revealing.....
Last edited by Sunsettommy; 09-23-2020 at 10:32 AM.
"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Ronald Reagan
"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Ronald Reagan
It shows that CO2 emission rate of change bears a negligible relationship with temperature change of many time frames as shown in the post one chart.
Many times Temperature drops significantly, while CO2 continues to go up unabated. The 1999-2001 and the 2016-2018 drops were massive, yet CO2 goes up every year, mostly unaffected by the rate of temperature changes.
This is an area warmists/alarmists completely fail in, it is a valid test they ignore or don't know how to do.
That is why their AGW conjecture is a failure, but they irrationally hang onto it long after it has been discredited.
"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again." Ronald Reagan