Radiative transfer models are at the core of climate models. Only a small handful of people are familiar with how they work, or what they say about CO2 sensitivity. Very few people passed off by the IPCC as climate experts know anything about these models, or could even name them.
I am one of the small group of people who works directly with radiative transfer models and knows how they work. And they show that CO2 sensitivity is very low.
The whole scam comes down to Hansen’s fake feedbacks. The next time some climate no-nothing tells you that catastrophic global warming is basic physics, send them my way. I will dish out the intellectual thrashing they deserve.
I notice Mr. “all you need to know is RTE” doesn’t drive by very often!! 8>)
Does it hurt not to be loved by Moshpup?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
CO2 sensitivity is, and has always been, the fundamental pebble upon which the entire global warming catastrophism behemoth has been built. Assuming positive and strong feedbacks and forcing responses to increased CO2 is absolutely necessary for a high sensitivity value. The fact that temperatures have flatlined, rather than accelerated, over the past 15 years is an absolute falsification of the assumed values used by the Faithful in their feedbacks and forcings, which in turn produce climate sensitivity parameters, which in turn provide the critical input to their climate models.
All else is trash and noise. Reduce CO2 sensitivity from its assumed values of 2.5C – 4.5C, down to around 0.01C – 0.25C and the climate models will suddenly track far closer to the actual temperature trend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubIpoPjBUds
This Albedo Graph killed their CO2 coupled feed backs.
This Specific Humidity Graph and this Relative Humidity Graph stomped their CO2 coupled feed backs DEAD.
The Climate models not predicting the current temperatures built the coffin and the much abused and mangled temperature record flat lining for over seventeen years drove the nails in the coffin. Yet CAGW keeps rising from the dead.
Do we need to cut off the head stuff garlic in the mouth and drive a stake through the heart to FINALLY kill this beast? Science certainly isn’t working.
Oh, and something to look forward to.
Dr Joan Feynman found 88 year and 200 year cycles in the rainfall feeding the Nile River. link
Start of the Dust Bowl is 1931 + 88 = 2019 The dust bowl ran for almost a decade.Unfortunately the tree shelter strips and grass filter strips from the 1930 conservation plans are going under the plow to grow more corn. The farmers are now literally farming from road edge to road edge: Farming in road right-of-way raises safety concerns
In addition the Eco-nuts have seen to it that dams have been taken out and not replaced. link
American Rivers will add the information on these 51 dam removals to its database of nearly 1,150 dams that have been removed across the country since 1912. Most of those dams (nearly 850) were removed in the past 20 years….
In the mean time all that corn goes into ethanol production so the US strategic grain reserve is deader than a doornail. link
Meanwhile since the first of the year there has been a big jump in food prices. link
…………
No _Jim, I am not ‘predicting a mega-drought’ but indicating that some data says the USA might be due for one and the idiots in DC are too busy stuffing $$$ in their pockets and grabbing for more power to prepare the country for that real possibility.
Instead we have the Econuts jabbering about calculating your “Water Footprint” as well as your “Carbon Footprint” as if we do not have the technology to take care of the problems. Like nuclear and desalinization.
“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” – Paul Ehrlich buddy of Obummer’s Science Czar, John Holdren.
Why is “cheap, abundant energy” considered ‘bad’? Because it allows the poor to compete with the rich. “Cheap, abundant energy” frees people from spending all their time hustling for their next meal. It allows time for thought and creativity.
GASP! It allow the poor and middle class to CHALLENGE the elite for the top spots in society!
Jayden-This one has your name all over it.
Just the fact that we have to raise CO2 from 400 to 800 for another doubling, which would take 150 or 200 years, and then to 1600 for the next one, should be enough to show that global warming from CO2 is over, done, kaput, de nada, nichts. Even if it had merit in the first place, it’s over now baby blue.
“I am one of the small group of people who works directly with radiative transfer models and knows how they work. And they show that CO2 sensitivity is very low.”….
So where can we read your published paper on the matter? It would seem that if you had your science sorted you could get in in cash to the tune of $10,000 as per a public bet by Dr. Christopher Keating.
We will wait to see what your paper has to say!
You can read my writings right here. I understand that is tricky concept for people like you.
I was not aware of the bet — so I checked the terms.
1. I will award $10,000 of my own money to anyone that can prove, via the scientific method, that man-made global climate change is not occurring;
2. There is no entry fee;
3. You must be 18 years old or older to enter;
4. Entries do not have to be original, they only need to be first;
5. I am the final judge of all entries but will provide my comments on why any entry fails to prove the point.
Well, terms 2, 3 and 4 look pretty good… but term 1 shows a lack of understanding, or at best, a serious ambiguity. Math may prove, but science never “proves”; it only offers “best available evidence supports…” Even if term 1 were rigorous, term 5 over rides all else. Keating makes himself final judge of what is science, what is evidence, and what is proof.
Here is Keating’s bet — but paraphrased to make it more clear:
“I will pay $10,000 to anyone who can both change my established opinion on CAGW and also convince me to publicly admit it.”
Let’s see now, the sun shines, heats up tera firma which in turn radiates infrared back to the atmosphere where CO2 captures and reflects back to earth ad infinitum in perpetuum! Voila, perpetual motion at last.
The most funny part about those “feedback” mechanics is that they have no possibility to cool down again. Death spirals!
You are right. Radiative loops are part of the convection cycle. The globaloneywarming scam is premised on 2 lies; 1) the earth is a greenhouse – it isn’t, it is a convection system [see grade 9 science] and 2) Co2 captures radiative heat and ‘forces’ an increase in temperature in said apocryphal greenhouse. Co2 is 20 ppm [human emitted] and thus would have 0 impact on anything. Feedback loops are negative + positive, a fact that eco-fascist models ignore. I build IT models, and would happily for free, investigate every single binary digit of Piltdown Mikey Mann’s code for eg. or any of these other frauds. 3 hours of work, would reveal any one of them, to be entirely useless.
You forgot #3 – TIME.
At the surface the time to emit the photon captured is much greater than the time to lose the energy via collision. The net effect of CO2 at the surface is to warm O2 and N2 not bounce the energy back to earth.
It is only when you get higher up in the atmosphere that CO2 emits photons most of the time instead of losing the energy via collisions. At that point the photon has to travel through the atmosphere without capture by another CO2 molecule which can then transfers it to N2 or O2 as heat.
In other words the effect is a lot less than the simplistic models say and the more CO2 the more likely there is a lower level CO2 molecule around to capture the ‘downwelling radiation’ and pass it to O2 and N2 via a collision.
[For _Jim] – Dr. Robert Brown a physicist, discusses the issue:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/26/quote-of-the-week-howler-from-the-world-meteorological-organization-what-warming/#comment-1648000
Gallopingcamel first mentioned it:
There is the physics that shoots CAGW DEAD! [Though _Jim will try to resurrect it.]
Generally, I understand radiation heat-transfer mechanics. (Thermo was perhaps the favorite of all my ChemE courses; yes, I suppose I’m a bit of a sadist.) I’ve not studied the specific models for radiative heat transfer for CO2, so I would defer to someone qualified to describe them.
That said, I do understand are the concepts and methods of data analysis, data manipulation, null hypothesis, and being fed a line of BS.
It is plainly obvious that, historically, global temperatures have never correlated with atmospheric CO2 levels. So, from the very beginning, the theory was suspect. But even moreso, a sharp increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past half-century has led to zero discernible change in the rate or magnitude of fluctuation of global temperatures. To make matters worse, the asserted “hockey stick” levels of atmospheric CO2 over the past two decades have correlated with an observed decline in global temperatures.
Either Mann-made global warming is saving us from an ice age, or else the data utterly refute the theory. I’ll shave the analysis with Occam’s razor, and pray that we don’t actually get the impending cooling that several markers portend. Because if that happens, the climate will be laughing at Mann-made warming.
As a retired astronomer, I’ve spent more than 3 decades applying RT calculations to the stars, and so I appreciate how essential, yet how tricky (and sometimes even counter-intuitive) , such calculations can be. I have often wondered whether the global climate models incorporated detailed RT calculations for CO2 or whether, in view of the total physical complexity of the atmospheric models, they took some sort of short cut in that respect. I’ve never come across any commentator who knew enough about the construction of the models to say one way or the other. As a first time visitor here, I guess you’re saying the models either do the RT very crudely or else they take a short cut, perhaps simply solving the heat balance equation without any pretense at doing the RT correctly. If it’s the latter, then I’d be very skeptical about any results from such models. Because the CO2 bands in the earth’s atmosphere are strongly saturated, their radiative blocking (i.e., feedback) response to increasing columns of CO2 gas grows quite slowly. Based on my own experience, I’d say a proper assessment of the effect of such heavily saturated spectral bands on atmospheric temperatures requires a full RT treatment, not some crude short cut. Undoubtedly there are many other equally complex physical processes that should be included in the models; undoubtedly the calculations are thus very complex even without an RT treatment of CO2. However, until that part of the modeling is done properly, there will remain many open questions about the reliability of whatever it is the models tell us.
Steve, my 12:48 pm comment got kicked into a Montana snowbank.