Paper: CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas.

[lost_shaman]

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Exactly!  There are those who are honest about their knowledge levels and who rely on others in the 'science machine' to do it's thing (eg me, in this case)..  Then there are those who pretend they fully understand the often complicated maths and stats, and also pretend that they know enough to say that yes, this type of analysis is appropriate and fully encompasses all the issues that surround the topic.  I have never made either of those pretenses.

I do, however, recognise when a paper has been published and peer reviewed.  Bzzt - that one isn't.  I do recognise when a paper is currently completely ignored - that one is.

So appeal to ignorance then? And please try not to project your short falls here on all the rest of us. 

 

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

Is mainstream science perfect? No.  But do they focus on just one aspect, like this paper seems to?  No.  Do they look at the actual measurements, eg satellite surveys, light/IR transmission thru the atmosphere?  Yes, and does that information align with this opinion piece?  No.

 

Complete 180. Now you have conclusive (Yes/No) answers regarding this Paper. That was fast. 

 

4 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

For those wanting a simple overview of the 'problem', and then how we measure this stuff, may I point out these 2 articles by Brian Dunning:

Complete drivel! This is exactly the type of oversimplified nonsense that people should completely avoid if you want to understand anything about this subject. The guy say's CO2 is like a blanket over Earth! No! No, CO2 is not anything like a blanket! What is this 2nd grade story time?

This guy Dunning cites himself in another podcast that then cites a 2001 Paper Harries et. al. (Nature) in the comments (!) that is hidden behind a  $199 paywall in the second link. Did you pay $199 U.S. Dollars and read the Paper? How can you claim "how we measure this stuff" unless you've at least looked at the paywalled Paper this guy references?  I dig further to find a more recent FREE Paper where Harries is a lesser co-author and we learn that Harries et. al. (2001 Nature) is only looking at two data sets one from 1970-1971 (IRIS) and one from 1996-1997 (IMG) not even continuous data, the recent Paper linked to here questions the role of ENSO in the latter data set and subsequently rejects all the data below 710 cm-1 as too noisy to use which cuts off CO2's major 15 um (667 cm-1) absorption band!

So after all that, I'm supposed to be impressed by ChrLzs favorite Skeptic saying that all I need to do is buy a Spectrometer and aim it at the Sky! That's "how we measure this stuff"!!! 

BACK TO REALITY...

The Paper we are discussing in this thread explains (at least in large part) the logarithmic nature of Temperature change solely based on different CO2 concentrations. It say's that the 0.85 K increase in Global Average Temperature since the Industrial revolution can not be explained by CO2 alone, that CO2 only contributes to 0.12 K increase in the timeframe. The Paper say's that the other 0.73 K increase in Global Average Temperature must be due to some other processes. 

O.K. That is not a RADICAL position! In the literature this is referred to as Forcings.

What is the dominate Forcing? Albedo. In fact computer models show this and it has been a quietly discussed paradox. This article  (2014) discusses a FREE Paper in PNAS that shows that even if the Earth heats up ( Adding 4X the current CO2 level to the Atmosphere instantly ) the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) balances back to pre-industrial levels within a few decades ( 19 years average among the models). One reason is that if a Black body rises in Temperature then it also becomes more efficient at radiating heat at shorter wavelengths. This latter phenomena means that with slightly more heat CO2 converts less OLR to heat the Atmosphere . It doesn't matter that there is more CO2 if more of the IR spectrum is shifted to shorter wavelengths and by-passes CO2 altogether! The reason the Models (GCMs) keep showing more heat is because they also attempt to account for Aldedo changes that ultimately dominate the heating in the Global Computer Models - (GCMs)

Also, thank you for the discussion. 

 

 

[lost_shaman]

Let me quote from the article I linked to above...

Quote

 

“The finding was a curiosity, conflicting with the basic understanding of global warming,” says lead author Aaron Donohoe, a former MIT postdoc who is now a research associate at the University of Washington’s Applied Physics Laboratory. “It made us think that there must be something really weird going in the models in the years after CO₂ was added. We wanted to resolve the paradox that climate models show warming via enhanced shortwave radiation, not decreased longwave radiation.”

Donohoe, along with MIT postdoc Kyle Armour and others at Washington, spent many a late night throwing out guesses as to why climate models generate this illogical finding before realizing that it makes perfect sense — but for reasons no one had clarified and laid down in the literature.

They found the answer by drawing on both computer simulations and a simple energy-balance model. As longwave radiation gets trapped by CO₂, the Earth starts to warm, impacting various parts of the climate system. Sea ice and snow cover melt, turning brilliant white reflectors of sunlight into darker spots. The atmosphere grows moister because warmer air can hold more water vapor, which absorbs more shortwave radiation. Both of these feedbacks lessen the amount of shortwave radiation that bounces back into space, and the planet warms rapidly at the surface.

Meanwhile, like any physical body experiencing warming, Earth sheds longwave radiation more effectively, canceling out the longwave-trapping effects of CO₂. However, a darker Earth now absorbs more sunlight, tipping the scales to net warming from shortwave radiation.

http://news.mit.edu/2014/global-warming-increased-solar-radiation-1110

 

This is interesting to me. Why should this not be discussed?

[Doug1029]

IF:  temperature rise decelerates as CO2 level increases, as implied by this paper, then we should be able to fit an asymptotic model to it.  That model is:

       Temp = b1 - exp(b2*CO2).

I used the NCDC list of temperature anomalies:  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt and the list of CO2 concentrations listed above.  Guess what.  No solution.  The curve is actually an increasing logarithm, not an asymptote.

Why does this not work?  First, the CO2 levels yet attained in the atmosphere are nowhere near what would be required to be detectable.  It's not a case of natural variation obscuring the curve because the curve actually bends in the opposite direction.  Maybe it will bend in the right direction someday, particularly if CO2 levels keep climbing, but it hasn't happened as of 2011 - the end date of the dataset.

Second, we may not yet be anywhere near the point where the effect would become apparent in the natural world.  Saying that it will happen is extrapolating beyond the end of our data - a very risky proposition.

Third, much is being made of the slowing of the rate of CO2 increase over the last couple of years.  The rate of CO2 increase always slows after an El Nino event, presumably because sites in southeast Asia dry out as a result of El Nino and vegetational decay slows.  This is due to natural processes temporarily over-powering manmade pollution.

 

IF the slowing of temperature increase is due to absorption characteristics of carbon dioxide, as this paper seems to suggest, then the slowing will continue.  But if, in this case, the slowing was the result of El Nino, then it will increase again in a year or two.

So Ma Nature has set up a test of your hypothesis.  All we have to do is wait a couple years and see what happens.

Doug

P.S.:  Doesn't look like we're going to have to wait.

Doug

Edited November 18, 2017 by Doug1029

[Essan]

In any case

A) CO2 levels are back on the rise

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41941265

B ) Why is 2017 on track to be the 2nd warmest year on record? 

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2017-11-17-earth-second-warmest-year-october-nasa-noaa

[Doug1029]

33 minutes ago, Essan said:

In any case

A) CO2 levels are back on the rise

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41941265

B ) Why is 2017 on track to be the 2nd warmest year on record? 

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2017-11-17-earth-second-warmest-year-october-nasa-noaa

CO2 didn't slow very much AND, as I said above, the real reason for the rise may well be a slowing of decay due to drying, a situation which has now ended..

2017 is already in second place as the warmest year ever.  It still has a ways to go to get to first place, though, and we're running out of year.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

IF:  temperature rise decelerates as CO2 level increases, as implied by this paper, then we should be able to fit an asymptotic model to it. 

Now I take exception to your statement here. This Paper is only discussing CO2's thermal contribution to the Atmosphere. That is to say CO2's thermal contribution to the Atmosphere is logarithmic ( in some way) not that the over all divergence in mean annual temperature will follow that same logarithm. To suggest the latter would be wrong on your part Doug. See the Paper I cite in post #77 above, there you will see that Global Warming is sustained by Albedo changes in a majority of Global Computer Models (GCMs). 

[Doug1029]

9 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Now I take exception to your statement here. This Paper is only discussing CO2's thermal contribution to the Atmosphere. That is to say CO2's thermal contribution to the Atmosphere is logarithmic ( in some way) not that the over all divergence in mean annual temperature will follow that same logarithm. To suggest the latter would be wrong on your part Doug. See the Paper I cite in post #77 above, there you will see that Global Warming is sustained by Albedo changes in a majority of Global Computer Models (GCMs). 

If temperature (Y) is logarithmic relative to CO2 concentration (X), then as CO2 levels INCREASE, temperature rise will ACCELERATE (Unless, of course, the exponent has a negative value).  Just the opposite of what your paper is saying.  To remedy that, make the relationship aymptotic to some temperature (In the equation I posted, that is b1, the maximum temperature which can theoretically be reached.  Unfortunately, that model doesn't fit real-world data.

My model was a regression model, not a GMC.  Indeed, albedo may be sustaining warming in the real world, but my point was that the mechanism this paper proposes is not evident in real-world data.

Doug

[seeder]

Quote

 

 Nasa map of Earth's seasons over 20 years highlights climate change

The visualization shows spring coming earlier and the Arctic ice caps receding over time

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/18/nasa-map-of-earths-seasons-over-20-years-highlights-climate-change

 

 

[lost_shaman]

15 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

If temperature (Y) is logarithmic

Look I will say one more time,... CO2's thermal contribution begins logarithmicly and then tappers off as CO2's absorption bands do not move but Earth's peak IR blackbody emissions shift to radiate at more efficient higher frequencies if Temperature rises. 

[Doug1029]

13 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Look I will say one more time,... CO2's thermal contribution begins logarithmicly and then tappers off as CO2's absorption bands do not move but Earth's peak IR blackbody emissions shift to radiate at more efficient higher frequencies if Temperature rises. 

Put that way you are describing a logistic, not a logarithm.  The lower part of a logistic (lower values of X (CO2)) is indistinguishable from a logarithm.  You can't detect the logistic until the acceleration curve starts to bend downward (passes the inflection point.).  That has not yet happened with CO2, so the effect is not yet evident in the real world, if it ever will be.

Your theoretical idea has not yet happened here on earth and (God willing and the creek don't rise), it never will.

Doug

Edited November 20, 2017 by Doug1029

[lost_shaman]

11 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

Put that way you are describing a logistic, not a logarithm.

No. CO2's thermal contribution is logarithmic. That is what I was saying. Don't try to twist what I'm telling you. 

Surely Doug you don't believe that CO2's thermal contribution is linear to it's atmospheric concentration? 

See this graph below it shows the Logarithmic nature of CO2's thermal contribution.

 

Please note that Life on Earth will fail at 150 ppmv CO2 due to Photosynthesis failure, at that level CO2 is already contributing over 90%  of any heating it will ever contribute in any foreseeable future.

[Doug1029]

5 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

No. CO2's thermal contribution is logarithmic. That is what I was saying. Don't try to twist what I'm telling you. 

Surely Doug you don't believe that CO2's thermal contribution is linear to it's atmospheric concentration? 

See this graph below it shows the Logarithmic nature of CO2's thermal contribution.

 

Please note that Life on Earth will fail at 150 ppmv CO2 due to Photosynthesis failure, at that level CO2 is already contributing over 90%  of any heating it will ever contribute in any foreseeable future.

You are talking about forcing.  I am talking about temperature.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

On 11/21/2017 at 9:35 AM, Doug1o29 said:

You are talking about forcing.  I am talking about temperature.

 

Look at this graph, it shows the logarithmic in Temperature.

 

Look back to the Paper in the OP it also shows an equation for the logarithmic nature of CO2s temperature contribution.

∆Tmax = 0.347 loge (cco2 / 400)

CO2s "forcing" and it's resulting temperature contribution are both logarithmic.

Edited November 22, 2017 by lost_shaman

[Merc14]

Yikes, more scientists for Doug to call incompetent

Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.

University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/29/study-satellites-show-no-acceleration-in-global-warming-for-23-years/

 

[Doug1029]

On 11/21/2017 at 4:19 AM, lost_shaman said:

No. CO2's thermal contribution is logarithmic. That is what I was saying. Don't try to twist what I'm telling you. 

Surely Doug you don't believe that CO2's thermal contribution is linear to it's atmospheric concentration? 

See this graph below it shows the Logarithmic nature of CO2's thermal contribution.

 

Please note that Life on Earth will fail at 150 ppmv CO2 due to Photosynthesis failure, at that level CO2 is already contributing over 90%  of any heating it will ever contribute in any foreseeable future.

If you'll check the general model in Post 78, you'll see that, except for one detail, it is the equation used in this graph.  That detail is:  b2=2.94.  Your model uses a base2 log; the one I posted uses a natural log.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS A SCALAR.

Actually, logarithms ARE asymptotes.  Even if CO2 goes to 0, the value in the above equation will never be smaller than 233.6.  Approaching a limit without ever reaching it is the defining characteristic of an asymptote.  Do you not understand what logarithms and asymptotes are?

Doug

[Doug1029]

19 hours ago, Merc14 said:

Yikes, more scientists for Doug to call incompetent

Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.

University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/29/study-satellites-show-no-acceleration-in-global-warming-for-23-years/

 

If you would post something written by a climatologist instead of an economist, it wouldn't be so easy to debunk them.

If I knew as much about economics as some of your references know about climate, I'd be explaining hos Trump's tax "cut" is going to benefit the economy.

Doug

[Derek Willis]

13 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

If you'll check the general model in Post 78, you'll see that, except for one detail, it is the equation used in this graph.  That detail is:  b2=2.94.  Your model uses a base2 log; the one I posted uses a natural log.  THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS A SCALAR.

Actually, logarithms ARE asymptotes.  Even if CO2 goes to 0, the value in the above equation will never be smaller than 233.6.  Approaching a limit without ever reaching it is the defining characteristic of an asymptote.  Do you not understand what logarithms and asymptotes are?

Doug

Surely it is more correct to say a logarithmic function has an asymptote rather than saying logarithms are asymptotes.

[bmk1245]

21 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

If you would post something written by a climatologist instead of an economist, it wouldn't be so easy to debunk them.

If I knew as much about economics as some of your references know about climate, I'd be explaining hos Trump's tax "cut" is going to benefit the economy.

Doug

With all due respect, but what J. Christy and R. McNider have to do with economists? As far as can find, both are climate scientists.

Anyway, OP "paper" is kinda blunt approximation, simplest model you can come up with.

[Doug1029]

On 12/2/2017 at 4:55 AM, Derek Willis said:

Surely it is more correct to say a logarithmic function has an asymptote rather than saying logarithms are asymptotes.

No.  Because all logarithms are asymptotes, while not all asymptotes are logarithms.

Doug

[Doug1029]

22 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

With all due respect, but what J. Christy and R. McNider have to do with economists? As far as can find, both are climate scientists.

Merc has been posting articles by economists in an attempt to disprove human-caused climate change.  This wasn't really about the topic of this thread.

Doug

[Derek Willis]

22 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

No.  Because all logarithms are asymptotes, while not all asymptotes are logarithms.

Doug

No. For example, the log of 100 to base 10 is 2. How is that an asymptote? On the other hand a log function tends towards an asymptote.

[Doug1029]

2 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

No. For example, the log of 100 to base 10 is 2. How is that an asymptote? On the other hand a log function tends towards an asymptote.

EQUATIONS are asymptotes or logarithms.  The labels do not apply to individual values.

Doug

[Derek Willis]

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

EQUATIONS are asymptotes or logarithms.  The labels do not apply to individual values.

Doug

What on earth are you talking about? You have written "Equations are asymptotes or logarithms". An equation is an equation. Generally speaking, "equation" is interchangeable with "function". An asymptote is the line which the graph of some functions approach. Hence, for instance, the equation y = 2x is a straight line that does not approach any other line. And it is certainly not a logarithm. A logarithm is the exponent of the power to which a base must be raised in order to produce a given number. So to use my previous example of a logarithm, the base 10 must be raised to the power 2 to give 100 (i.e. 10 squared). Hence the logarithm of 100 to base 10 is 2.

A logarithmic function on the other hand - say something simple like y = loge (x) - approaches an asymptote.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a logarithm and a logarithmic function. I don't mean anything personal by this - for example in literature I don't know the difference between a counter plot and a counterpoint plot. However, if you don't understand basic maths how can you possibly understand the differential equations which are used to "prove" mankind is responsible for climate change? Worse, how can you make a judgement on whether the approximated solutions method chosen regarding those differential equations is valid? Or how can you know if the algorithm used in the digital solutions are valid?

How can you "preach" the evils of human made climate change when you can't check the mathematics?

[Tatetopa]

On 10/26/2017 at 8:16 AM, OverSword said:

proof global warming is not a man made issue

And so, we don't need to take precautions because its not our fault?  or do you think it is all hooey? 

If you believe in fossil records, you might concur that the earth has gone through a number of warming and cooling periods.  The Little Dryas period 1000 years ago was just a generation long cooling period.  It had pretty devastating effects on the European population at the time.  Humanity didn't cause that, but it kicked our butt.   

So what happens during the next cycle, man made or natural?  We are not widely scattered self sufficient hunters and farmers anymore.  I really doubt civilization is more robust than it was 1000 years ago. 

[Doug1029]

20 hours ago, Derek Willis said:

What on earth are you talking about? You have written "Equations are asymptotes or logarithms". An equation is an equation. Generally speaking, "equation" is interchangeable with "function". An asymptote is the line which the graph of some functions approach. Hence, for instance, the equation y = 2x is a straight line that does not approach any other line. And it is certainly not a logarithm. A logarithm is the exponent of the power to which a base must be raised in order to produce a given number. So to use my previous example of a logarithm, the base 10 must be raised to the power 2 to give 100 (i.e. 10 squared). Hence the logarithm of 100 to base 10 is 2.

A logarithmic function on the other hand - say something simple like y = loge (x) - approaches an asymptote.

You don't seem to understand the difference between a logarithm and a logarithmic function. I don't mean anything personal by this - for example in literature I don't know the difference between a counter plot and a counterpoint plot. However, if you don't understand basic maths how can you possibly understand the differential equations which are used to "prove" mankind is responsible for climate change? Worse, how can you make a judgement on whether the approximated solutions method chosen regarding those differential equations is valid? Or how can you know if the algorithm used in the digital solutions are valid?

How can you "preach" the evils of human made climate change when you can't check the mathematics?

Bad choice of words there.  SOME EQUATIONS are asymptotic and SOME EQUATIONS are logarithmic.  As you point out, there are others.  But a fixed value, even though calculated with a log function, is not logarithmic in and of itself.

 

I do not, personally, check the "proof" of climate change.  Climatology is simply too large a field for any one person to read and check every paper published on the subject.  So I limit myself to dendrochronology and related subjects, like determining hundred-year floods from tree rings, warming trends evident in tree rings and written records, etc.

Doug