tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post4163741501621435081..comments2024-03-28T13:56:47.604+11:00Comments on moyhu: Surface TempLS global temperature down 0.104°C in April Nick Stokeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06377413236983002873noreply@blogger.comBlogger96125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-19651579563370281522016-05-27T03:20:09.194+10:002016-05-27T03:20:09.194+10:00The issue with ENSO and El Nino is that the first ...The issue with ENSO and El Nino is that the first item of business for geophysicists is to nail the standing wave phenomenon that describes the behavior. Until they can do that it is all empirical hand-waving and heuristics used to disguise the shortcomings in understanding the underlying physics. Worse yet is that you have theorists like Tsonis, who incidentally joined the AGW-denying GPWF as a committee member recently, claiming that ENSO is largely chaotic and so is immune to detailed analysis -- apart of course from what Tsonis himself deems as important. <br /><br />But if you ignore what Tsonis says and just do the physical time-series analysis assuming that known forcing causes the non-autonomous oscillations, then we may in fact be able to get a handle on the dynamics of ocean-heat content transfer. The key is to model the sloshing of the thermocline as it sets up its standing wave pattern. Once you fit to the driving periods, then one can infer the amount of deeper cool water exposed to the surface. I don't think GCMs are required to do this because the effect can ignore all the faster and higher wavenumber details.<br /><br />Heck if this is not all straightforward geophysics and solving a simple wave equation:<br /><br />updated PDF <a href="https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.0815.pdf" rel="nofollow">Sloshing Model for ENSO</a><br /><br />@whuthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18297101284358849575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-85921663348232722202016-05-27T01:55:54.384+10:002016-05-27T01:55:54.384+10:00No, I have to disagree (with JCH). It is a mistake...No, I have to disagree (with JCH). It is a mistake to compare 1st qtr 16 to 4th qtr 15. Better to compare Y-O-Y changes. OHC was down slightly from 1st qtr 15 to 1st qtr 16, after several years of strong increases (23.417 down to 22.874 * 10^22 J for 0-2000m). It was 11.9 ten years ago, and 5.03 twenty years ago, so the average rate of accumulation is twice as fast in the last ten years vs previous decade.<br /><br />0-100m ocean temps were way up, due to this El Nino. 100-700m temps were way down. ENSO just exchanges the heat from deep to shallow ocean depths and back again. Higher temps at the surface can then vent some of the heat to the atmosphere (and then to space). But the long term change is more and more heat accumulating, and the rate is accelerating.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11882185067784495939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-56862480034509157432016-05-27T01:30:58.284+10:002016-05-27T01:30:58.284+10:00So can we safely call into doubt ENSO descriptions...So can we safely call into doubt ENSO descriptions suggesting that during the hiatus/pause/slowdown energy was sequestered in the oceans and that it has come back out of the oceans during the recent El Nino, which has officially slipped into neutral territory? Energy was sequestered in the oceans during the pause/hiatus/slowdown, and it's still sequestered in the oceans. The energy that has caused all these recent record monthly GMST anomalies was caused by the interactions of 2015 and 2016 sunlight with the earth systems, one of which is its control knob, ACO2 at 400+ppm.JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-48359084580592608892016-05-26T07:05:46.085+10:002016-05-26T07:05:46.085+10:00PS, NOAA/NODC data for OHC and ocean temperatures ...PS, NOAA/NODC data for OHC and ocean temperatures was updated through March today at Knmi climate explorer.<br />Global Ocean Temperatures 0-2000m, 12-month running means, show a slowdown in the recent three months, but no dip<br />http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_temp2000_0-360E_-90-90N_n_mean12_12v_anom_30.png<br />Strangely, the OHC calculation from the same provider, show a decrease for the last three months. <br />http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat2000_0-360E_-90-90N_n_mean12_12v_anom_30.png<br />Same data, different results. Is there something special with the Levitus method?<br />Now there are two methods against one suggesting that the OHC hasn't decreased during the recent el Nino..Olof Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-71045708811839161552016-05-26T00:45:20.460+10:002016-05-26T00:45:20.460+10:00Anon,
I have downloaded the NOAA/NODC OHC anomaly ...Anon,<br />I have downloaded the NOAA/NODC OHC anomaly netcdf and done som checking now.<br />I believe that Argo Marine atlas only covers 65N to 65S but there are only a few percent of the total ocean volume outside these bounds.<br />Differences in the polar seas does not explain the cooling in NODC OHC, on the contrary both polar seas have been warming.<br />The change in OHC between first quarter of 2016 and 2015 is: (unit 10^22J)<br />65N-90N +0.07, 65N-65S -0.65, 65S-90S +0.09, Globally -0,49<br />(My integration of OHC differs slightly from the official numbers, that have a Global -0.54)<br /><br />This makes the difference even more mysterious. Can a small share of extra measurements with other methods than Argo really change the outcome?<br />I also wonder, How common and reliable are temperature measurements in the ice covered polar seas. Arctic buoys can read temps down to 100 m, but deeper profiles must be sparse. Is OHC in polar seas mostly based on extraploation from profiles near the ice edges?<br /><br />BTW, you are right about +0.0053 C for Argo Marine Atlas. The 0.008 that I hastily picked wrong was something else, ie the recent one year change in 12m-running means.<br /><br />Olof Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-69401166176158067392016-05-25T03:10:33.138+10:002016-05-25T03:10:33.138+10:00Olof R,
So found +0.0053K for Ja-Ma in compare to...Olof R,<br /><br />So found +0.0053K for Ja-Ma in compare to Ja-Ma 2015, but i think it really because of that marine Atlas has not the equal area to NODC-Data.<br /><br />Just watch out the difference between 70N-70S and 90N-90S based on NODC:<br />https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat2000_0.50-359.50E_-70-70N_n_mean1_anom_30.dat<br />https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inodc_heat2000_0.50-359.50E_-90-90N_n_mean1_anom_30.dat<br /><br />You see, the last few years, in 70N-70S was mostly arround 0.01K warmer then 90N-90S<br /><br />In my opinion, this should explain the differenceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-88591733794239830962016-05-25T02:34:18.234+10:002016-05-25T02:34:18.234+10:00Olof R at 8:02 PM,
"Finally, I have a chart....Olof R at 8:02 PM,<br /><br />"Finally, I have a chart..."<br /><br />Yes, that is what El-Nino is, as said yesterday, below the mixing layer, the heat sink is reduced, so therefore, in climatolgy there is usually heat sink, so if its not like due el-nino, sharp below the mixed layer, the water should be getting cooler, while the mixed layer itsef becomes much warmer.<br /><br />To the Argo Marine Atlas, have to look for myself, i found Marine Atlas is a little bit tricky, so therefore my answer on this comes later<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-21283620888509166012016-05-25T02:22:51.612+10:002016-05-25T02:22:51.612+10:00JHC at 8:47 AM,
I would wonder, if warming is com...JHC at 8:47 AM,<br /><br />I would wonder, if warming is coming from the ocean itself, because tropical oceans are also under El-Nino cooler below the mixed layer, that what the surface is warming if more that, upwelling of cool water is less and the upwelled water itself is warmer then usually (because of Downwelling Kelvinwaves)<br /><br />In climatology, the pacific tropics are a heat sink, if the heat sink is reduced we get El-Nino<br /><br />And Yes, under the line, El-Nino doesent matter, all whats matter is imbalance, El-Nino-Cycle only influence the noise in the uptakte itself.<br /><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-20136300897247341012016-05-24T20:29:02.517+10:002016-05-24T20:29:02.517+10:00I think the amount of sunlight entering the oceans...I think the amount of sunlight entering the oceans between the two periods needs to be known. I suspect it is roughly equivalent. A roughly equivalent amount has to come back out, or the oceans, on net, will either cool or warm. They're warming, so less is coming back out, which is consistent with the energy imbalance. The ocean loses its heat from the cool skin layer. Additional ACO2 is causing it to be bombarded with long wave radiation, which penetrates just a few microns. With less wind, the surface just sits there and takes it. The top 100 meters fills with warm water that is sloshing back across from the Western Pacific. That does not mean that energy leaves the oceans; in most El Nino events it's just stored in a different place: roughly, the SST measurement area. The cool skin layer is laying on top of a warmer water column. This increases evaporation. I don't see anything in this that is extra.JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-42942146528452251862016-05-24T20:02:30.377+10:002016-05-24T20:02:30.377+10:00Anon, I expect a slowdown in the rate of OHC incre...Anon, I expect a slowdown in the rate of OHC increase during an el Nino. There is a lot of heat diverted to warm the troposphere and ground plus melting of ice, and warmer atmosphere leads larger OLR loss to space.<br /><br />The troposphere has been about 0.5 C warmer the recent winter than the winter before, a rate of change that is 20 times larger than the longterm warming trend. If troposphere and continents in the long run represents 4% of Global heat increase, a twenty-fold increase could almost "steal" all of the ocean warming in one year.<br />Also, the Arctic sea ice volume is 1700 km3 lower now compared to one year ago. That is about 5% of the annual Global long-term heat increase. The Antarctic sea ice volume is also much lower this year, the change may reach similar numbers as the Arctic ice. And then there is the (probably) increased OLR.<br /><br />Thus, there shouldn't be much heat left to warm the oceans. NOAA/NODC report a slight decrease (-0.002 C )in ocean temperature 0-2000 m between first quarter 2015 and 2016. It is surprising that Argo Marine Atlas show an increase of +0.008 C for the same period, and virtually no sign of slowdown in the recent OHC increase. Doesn't Argo data make up more than 90% of the input for the NODC OHC analysis?<br /><br />Considering all the fuel needed to for El Nino warmth and energy losses, can there be an extra energy source that keeps the OHC increase unabated as Argo Marine Atlas suggests. For instance water vapour feedback, increased greenhouse effect...?<br /><br />The boring answer may very well be that the differences between NODC and Argo Atlas is within error bounds.<br /><br />Finally, I have a <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaNDAyZDZzNHJDd3c" rel="nofollow">chart</a><br />showing the difference in Ocean temps between the recent October-March and last years Oct -Mar, with data from Argo Marine Atlas.<br />There is a large temperature increase in the 0-100 m layer, a substantial decrease between 100 and 400 m, and small increases from 400 down to 2000 m.Olof Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-85500898698870992032016-05-24T08:47:52.223+10:002016-05-24T08:47:52.223+10:00After the 1998 El Nino there was a large drop in O...After the 1998 El Nino there was a large drop in OHC. Often scientists talk about EL Nino warmth as coming from within the ocean - a disgorging of energy into the atmosphere. I think this has been a very poor description that has hung on since 1998. It appears to me that OHC usually goes up, on net, regardless of what ENSO does, and that the 1998 drop was an unusual event. If the TOA imbalance is positive, more in than out, talking about OHC fueling El Nino warmth has an obvious problem.JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-65636593035581194842016-05-24T06:49:43.130+10:002016-05-24T06:49:43.130+10:00Olof R,
You should not roule out that there can b...Olof R,<br /><br />You should not roule out that there can be a small decline in 0-2000m OHC, you have alway to look at the nature of physics on El-Nino-Events, try this way, if its going to an El-Nino, the trade winds weakens, therefore Upwelling weakens and with this, vertical mixing is weaken. So whats then happen? In easy words, the energy by solare incoming and the radiative imblance caused by humans emissions will be trapt in the upper layer or say in the mixed Layer, just look at the 0-100m of the ocean: http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month_mt/T-dC-w0-100m1-3.dat<br /><br />While the upper ocean is warming, the ocean below the "mixed Layer" should not increase or cool down a bit, because its just more then this, you also should note, that on the polar caps, cool water is sink down and transport in direction to the lower latitudes.<br /><br />On the other Hand, the Temperature on Surface has risen strong, in the middle latitudes we would lost some Energy by OLR<br /><br />Taken this together, we should not role out the possibility, that OHC can decrease for a short time under this circumstancesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-58350952722671693142016-05-24T05:23:56.694+10:002016-05-24T05:23:56.694+10:00Olof R - thanks. Time will tell, but I don't e...Olof R - thanks. Time will tell, but I don't expect there to be much of a dip in OHC as this El Nino unwinds. JCHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-861914167303673442016-05-23T20:52:22.459+10:002016-05-23T20:52:22.459+10:00JCH,
"Around blogs there is this notion that ...JCH,<br />"Around blogs there is this notion that OHC always goes down after an El Nino. I don't think that is always true. OHC did take a big dip after 1998, but is OHC going down now?"<br /><br />Well the NOAA/NODC data for first quarter 2016 is out now. OHC and 0-2000 m global average temps are down slightly from first quarter 2015. On the other hand, data from Argo marine Atlas (Argo only) suggest that OHC and temps continue to rise unabatedly.<br />(I dont trust climatologies and compare only with the same period earlier years, etc)<br /><br />I have a personal calculation of OHC based on Argo data only. It tracks NOAA/NODC quite well since 2007 when the ARGO array was fully deployed. The <a href="https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_dL1shkWewaSkJBNk43Si1xSlU" rel="nofollow">comparison</a> also includes modelled OHC estimated from CMIP5 TOA imbalance. The data, 12 month running means, goes through March 2016.<br />Olof Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-40082440790536796782016-05-23T12:41:01.447+10:002016-05-23T12:41:01.447+10:00This might be trifling in the context of the above...This might be trifling in the context of the above demolition jobs on DP's "contribution" to climate science but I was much bemused by the number of significant figures he quotes for R^2 i.e. <br /><br />"R2 was 0.972455, but continuing the convergence further to an indicated CO2 effectiveness of 8.9% only increased R2 to 0.974114."<br /><br />Now there's a man who displays inordinate confidence in his abilities, a characteristic that seems to be pervasive among the denial community.<br />mikerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03957963411790828978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-69000612816107084182016-05-23T11:44:53.910+10:002016-05-23T11:44:53.910+10:00DP's webpage is a fine example of fractal wron...DP's webpage is a fine example of fractal wrongness. You can pick any part of it, from the fundamental concept to the fine-scale details, and it'll turn out to be wrong. It's quite remarkable, actually. <br /><br />Ned Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-67184690257496228542016-05-23T08:20:58.675+10:002016-05-23T08:20:58.675+10:00There's another non-physical term in the "...There's another non-physical term in the "balance" equation, inside the time integral: <br /><br />-F * [((T_i/T_1895)^4) - 1]<br /><br />Where F can be 0 or 1. <br /><br />Realistically, if you wanted to construct an energy balance, you might start with the yearly radiative flux: <br /><br />j=A*T^4 <br /><br />In units W*yr*m^-2. Then, changes in flux relative to a baseline flux for 1895 (J_0) would come like this: <br /><br />dj= J_i - J_0 = A* ( T_i^4 - T_0^4). <br /><br />If you wanted to get dJ in relative terms, you could convert forms: <br /><br />dJ = J_i - J_0<br />dJ = J_0 * (J_i/J_0 - 1)<br />dJ = J_0 * [(T_i/T_0)^4 - 1]<br /><br />And you find that J_0 == F from Pangburn's equation. So to calculate the change in outgoing flux, you have to start with the initial outgoing flux. <br /><br />To make the units fit, though, Pangburn flatly applies a value for the outgoing radiation: F = 1 W*yr*m^-2. Or sometimes F=0, implying that any energy the Earth gains, it keeps forever, which is non-physical. <br /><br />Not that F = 1 makes any sense, either. If you wanted to define the outgoing flux as relative to a baseline of 1895, you'd need to start with a reasonable value for outgoing energy in 1895. But the outgoing radiation at TOA, the value for J_0 = F, would then be around 340 W/m^2, several orders of magnitude higher than Pangburn's number. <br /><br />This means that radiating away accumulated energy from the Earth is about 340x harder in Pangburn's equation than in real life. <br /><br />Y'know, for someone who rants so much about other people's ignorance of thermodynamics, it would be nice if Pangburn's equations were actually based in it. This is schlock that would get you a failing grade on an undergraduate physics/thermo project at any decent school in the country. <br /><br />Pangburn, I'm sorry. No, it's not that we're biased, or that we like to circle the wagons. It's just that your equations are bad, and your math is unsound. Your work doesn't actually stand up. Windchasershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11554275410734284781noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-55301622595513681532016-05-22T02:14:21.005+10:002016-05-22T02:14:21.005+10:00OOOps!
fs5.directupload.net/images/160521/k66h3w9...OOOps!<br /><br />fs5.directupload.net/images/160521/k66h3w98.pdf<br />Bindidonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-75124447995679644922016-05-22T02:06:37.783+10:002016-05-22T02:06:37.783+10:00Yes, CCE! And Nick's excellent plot comparing ...Yes, CCE! And Nick's excellent plot comparing the differences between GISS revisions and those between UAH5.6 and 6.0beta is clear enough:<br /><br />https://i2.wp.com/www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/12/uahadj1.png<br /><br />A comparison of the differences between the two UAH revisions a global level with their zonal differences at the poles gives the rest:<br /><br />https://i1.wp.com/fs5.directupload.net/images/160508/eth49vwp.jpg<br /><br />Roy Spencer never did feel any need to explain us how UAH's trend for the North Pole moved over night from 30% above RSS3.3 down to 30% below...<br /><br />Moreover, a plot comparing between 1979 and 2016<br />- RSS3.3 TLT, UAH6.0beta5TLT, RSS4.0 TTT;<br />- RATPAC B monthly combined (surface, 500 hPa, 300 hPa);<br />- GISS<br />gives very interesting results:<br />- the TLT datasets coexist with RATPAC at 300 hPa (they should do at 700);<br />- RSS4.0 TTT and GISS TEMP(!!!) coexist with RATPAC at 500 hPa;<br />- RATPAC surf is far above all.<br /><br />One might argue: well, that RATPAC has only 85 radiosondes, that's nothing reliable.<br /><br />But<br />(1) John Christy compared himself his UAH product with radiosondes (but only till 2004, and based on TMT instead of TLT, hum hum);<br />(2) averaging, between 1979 and 2015, the data of all IGRA sondes (those the RATPAC sondes are a subset of) gives even much higher anomalies.Bindidonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-2134878672267557102016-05-21T20:05:52.361+10:002016-05-21T20:05:52.361+10:00Ned W on May 20, 2016 at 1:04 AM
The formula used...Ned W on May 20, 2016 at 1:04 AM<br /><br /><i>The formula used above for calculating radiative forcing from CO2 isn't Arrhenius's version.</i><br /><br />You are right: I reread his 1896 publication, and there is no reference in it to such a formula. A. solely put in relation a geometric increase of CO2 concentration with an arithmetic increase of temperature.<br /><br /><i>The difficult (or "controversial") part is how to translate this forcing (in W m-2) into a temperature change (in K). </i><br /><br />Indeed, and in fact I know that a relation between the two, like that insinuated in my comment on May 19, 2016 at 10:14 PM, is pure coincidence and has no scientific value at all. But amazing it is nevertheless :-)<br /><br /><i>But I do know that CO2 has caused 8.0 times as much warming as solar variation over that time period.</i><br /><br />That's the lesson to retain I guess.<br /><br />Bindidonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-26462950004324169162016-05-21T16:43:53.710+10:002016-05-21T16:43:53.710+10:00cce, Roy Spencer adjusts every single satellite re...cce, Roy Spencer adjusts every single satellite reading by use of a polynomial fit.<br />http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSU5-gridpoint-polynomial-fit-example.gif<br />The adjustment range is more than 10 degrees Kelvin. Effectively this means that he adjust together readings from different heights in the atmosphere, that may differ more than 1km. I think the main purpose is to get more readings for each location during a month..<br />This is what Mr "I don't understand why people are doing adjustments" does :-)Olof Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18244733455655978307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-18509013684897628812016-05-21T12:03:37.731+10:002016-05-21T12:03:37.731+10:00I'm always fascinated by the belief that when ...I'm always fascinated by the belief that when surface temperature undergo adjustments, it's considered scientific malpractice, but when satellite measurements undergo much larger changes, nary a peep is made. UAH can reduce the trend and go through 5 betas of ad hoc adjustments before even being submitted for peer review, but that's OK because Roy Spencer is good people. RSS was the golden boy to skeptics when it showed the least amount of warming, but only after it showed the most warming of any of the major analyses. Now that it shows more warming, it's back down the memory hole and TLT v4 hasn't even been released yet. ccehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03646816472336349526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-7485526272868566792016-05-21T05:12:34.748+10:002016-05-21T05:12:34.748+10:00DP: "the influence of CO2 forcing on AGT as d...DP: <i>"the influence of CO2 forcing on AGT as determined by maximizing R^2 for Equation 1 is about 8% as documented in row #M of Table 1. This is a maximum based on AGT measurements to date."</i><br /><br />How can I say this politely enough for Nick's blog? You seriously misunderstand very basic concepts of statistics. <br /><br />Your empirical (non-physical) model does not actually tell you anything about what fraction of warming is due to increasing CO2. Row "M" of your table does not in fact tell you that CO2 is only responsible for 8% of warming. The process you are using is quite literally incapable of providing the answer you think it provided.<br /><br />Almost everything else you say is wrong, too. But this is probably the most egregious of your remarks. <br /><br />Seriously, the problem is not my understanding of your (very simplified) cartoon model in equation 1. The problem is that you're using statistics to draw inferences that are wrong.Ned Wnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-7566893572594277942016-05-21T04:20:08.185+10:002016-05-21T04:20:08.185+10:00Ned (10:53 PM) – Temperature change is the time-in...Ned (10:53 PM) – Temperature change is the time-integral of net forcing divided by effective thermal capacitance. That you appear to be unaware of this could be a problem.<br /><br />Will (12:06 AM) – OK, think it through. The temperature dropped, big time, but then it came back up again to the level before it dropped. All at the high CO2 level. The observation that it came up again refutes that 3% lower TSI was a factor. A graph showing planet temperature and CO2 level over Geologic Time is at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html<br /><br />Humanity has wasted over a trillion dollars in failed attempts using super computers to demonstrate that added atmospheric CO2 is a primary cause of global warming and in misguided activities to try to do something about it.<br /><br />Ned (1:04 AM) – GW has to do with AGT. I have been unable to find how the 5.35 was arrived at or how to translate that assessment of CO2 influence into a meaningful AGT change. AGT is the relevant metric. Without a rational way to translate that assessment of CO2 forcing to calculated AGT and also have calculated AGT corroborated by measured AGT, it means nothing.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the influence of CO2 forcing on AGT as determined by maximizing R^2 for Equation 1 is about 8% as documented in row #M of Table 1. This is a maximum based on AGT measurements to date. If future temperatures decline, as predicted (CO2 level will undoubtedly continue to increase), the calculated CO2 influence will decline from 8%.<br />Dan Pangburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898549182266117774noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7729093380675162051.post-45649051455328017292016-05-20T01:04:19.078+10:002016-05-20T01:04:19.078+10:00Bindidon:
The formula used above for calculating ...Bindidon:<br /><br />The formula used above for calculating radiative forcing from CO2 isn't Arrhenius's version. There have been several refinements over the years. Myhre et al. (1998; <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/98GL01908/epdf" rel="nofollow">New estimates of radiative forcing due to well-mixed greenhouse gases</a>) used line-by-line calculation of radiative transfer to determine the exact relationship between trace gas concentrations and radiative forcing. The equation used here (dF = 5.35 * ln[CO2_i/CO2_i0]) is a very close fit to Myhre's fully calculated version (according to a footnote in Myhre's Table 3, the 5.35 constant is accurate to within 1%). <br /><br />In other words, it's an extremely close approximation to the actual relationship as derived from first principles. No GCMs or other "climate models" are used, just the fundamental radiative transfer equations. As far as I know, even "skeptics" like Lindzen, Spencer, and Christie all accept this derivation. <br /><br />The difficult (or "controversial") part is how to translate this forcing (in W m-2) into a temperature change (in K). <br /><br />By comparing radiative forcing from the sun, to radiative forcing from CO2, directly, in units of forcing, without worrying about temperatures, it's very straightforward to determine the relative importance of each factor.<br /><br />I don't know how much warming CO2, or solar variation, has caused since 1700. But I do know that CO2 has caused 8.0 times as much warming as solar variation over that time period. That's easy to establish.Ned Wnoreply@blogger.com