Why I no longer even care about climate change deniers.

Curry got fed up with the bull **** in the club and that's why she dropped out and went public. To attack her credibility for that is the same as attacking Kavenaugh for his remarks on how badly the democrats were behaving.

 

Not that much. I'm an easy convert here because I believe man is destroying the planet in a multitude of ways. I just havent seen any evidence that convinces me our C02 output is one of them. It's about quality of evidence not quantity. I'm reminded of old adages such as " if you can't dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bull ****" or "if you can't convince them confuse them".

 

Welcome to the club!

The logarithm equation I use actually comes from Arrhenius' 1896 work and is a simplification of his more generalized Arrhenious Equation. It's a pretty good estimation formula for CO2 because it's simple and easy and produces reasonable results. The are two main caveats though. First, it is really only intended to be used for CO2 ranges from about 150 to 2000. Once you get outside of these ranges the estimation has too much error. Second, the radiative forcing sensitivity parameter comes from laboratory experiments and includes the feedback effect of water vapor. It is not derived mathematically from the quantum mechanical and thermodynamic predictions of the molecule itself. You'll notice that I used 5.35 W/m^2 as the sensitivity parameter which I obtained from this paper specifically because it is more conservative than the IPCC estimate of 6.3 W/m^2.

First, let me say your post is awesome.

You are absolutely right that we need to convert the radiative forcing in W/m^2 to the expected temperature increase that it should produce. This is known as the climate sensitivity and is usually expressed in K per W/m^2.

Anyway, let's look at the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is i=εσT^4 where i is the radiant power per unit area, ε is the emissivity, σ is Boltzmann constant, A is area, and T is the temperature. I'm going to use a trick called perturbation analysis to derive ΔT. Most scientists use the tick mark ' for the perturbation terms so that's what I'll use below.

Injecting perturbation terms P' and T'...

1) i+i' = εσ(T+T')^4

Simplifying...

2) (i+i') / εσ = (T+T')^4

Simplification...

3) [(i+i') / εσ]^0.25 = T+T'

Solving for the change in temperature and using ΔT and ΔF instead of T' and i'...

4) ΔT = [(i + ΔF) / εσ]^0.25 - T

Swapping in Arrhenius' equation...

5) ΔT = [ (i + {λ * ln(Cn/Co)}) / εσ ]^0.25 - T

So now we can get started. We'll assume the sensitivity parameter λ is 5.35, Cn is 1120, Co is 280. ε is the emmissivity (not be confused with albedo) and it is a tricky one. Let's use typical value of 0.87. I also agree with using 288K as the baseline temperature of Earth though that's actually the temperature of the surface and not the average of the whole atmosphere. Still, it's perturbation analysis so we only need to be close. And let's use 340 W/m^2 of the baseline radiant power of Earth as seen from space. Note that I get this value because it is the integration at the surface over the cross sectional area of Earth from the incident radiation of 1360 W/m^2. Refer to the solar constant wikipedia article for why I chose this particular value. And that my emmissivity value of 0.87 is in agreement.

ΔT = [ (340 + {5.35 * ln(1120/280)}) / (0.87 * 0.0000000567) ]^0.25 - 288
ΔT = [ (340 + 7.4) / 0.00000004933 ]^0.25 - 288
ΔT = 1.69

So I get a number slightly higher than yours, but it's in the ballpark so that's good. We agree. However, there's a big caveat here. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is meant to be interpreted as the average radiative power of Earth. What a greenhouse gas does is trap a lot of this radiation near the surface. That's why the lower troposphere warms while the stratosphere cools. That's actually the smoking gun signal for a mechanism that is trapping heat. And it's why the Earth is not an ideal blackbody radiator. This is why the Stefan-Boltzmann law underestimates the surface temperature of Earth by 33K. The Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts that the surface of Earth should be -18C based on solar radiation alone, but in reality it is actually +15C. And of course there's the problem in which baseline temperature and emissivity values we're supposed to assume. It's looks like both you and I assumed surface parameters which I feel is more correct and more representative of the question we're trying to answer. But, even small changes in the emissivity value have a huge impact on the result.

But there's yet another problem. The Stefan-Boltzmann law derives the radiant temperature of not just the atmosphere but the entire geosphere. This includes the land, oceans, ice, and the atmosphere. So when you came up with a value of 1.4C that is for the entire geosphere. The land, atmosphere, and ice combine to absorb only 10% of the excess energy. The oceans absorb 90% of it. And the oceans have huge thermal inertia. Since WWII the oceans have warmed by only 0.4C over a sufficient depth (I could be off about this figure; I'll confirm it). That means the ratio between atmosphere warming and ocean warming is at least 2-to-1 and that's being conservative. It's likely higher than that because I'm being very generous on the ocean warming rate.

I got a +7C rise from several lines of evidence. First, when looking at past climate changes we see that the relationship between temperature and radiative forcing is close to parity; that is the climate sensitivity is 1C per W/m^2. Not always, but on average. Sometimes it is 0.5C/W/m2 and sometimes it is 2.0C/W/m2 and higher. I happen to use a conservative value. Second, this climate sensitivity was recently confirmed during the Pinatubo 1991 eruption when scientists compared the integration of the radiative forcing of the aerosol optical depths with the cooling that it caused. They actually got a number lower than 1C/W/m2 but it is within the ballpark of the estimates provided by the paleoclimate record. Third, the observational record since WWII shows about 1C of warming from about +0.75 W/m^2 of integrated radiative forcing of the net of all known climate forcing processes. That happens to yield a value closer to 1.3C/W/m2. That's actually being conservative by the way. The IPCC actually estimates the integrated radiative forcing since WWII as +0.5 W/m^2 which would yield 2C/W/m2.

And this is the crux of the problem. We know that the climate is sensitive to CO2 increases. We just don't know exactly how much. The consensus is that it is about 3.0C per doubling of CO2 with a range of 1.5 to 4.5C.

 

Do you think the quality of evidence provided by bloggers is higher than that of the scientific community?

 

Thanks. Though I hate to disappoint you but I'm what you would consider a "climate change denier". I'm of the opinion that AGW is relatively insignificant.

 

That's okay. You used math and critical thinking in your post. That's okay in my book. That doesn't make you a denier. That makes you a skeptic.

 

A third grader understands weather isn't climate.You fail to understand that. The fact that precipitation isn't temperature is a bit more advanced, but you failed to understand that as well.

Your grasp of the issues here is on par with slow grade-school children. You have no business annoying the grownups. Back to the kiddie table with you, where your cult can hand you another juicebox full of conspiracy whining.

 

No, she couldn't defend her debunked science, so in a very cowardly and lazy fashion, she fled the field, became a paid shill, and declared all other scientists were frauds and poopyheads.

Very unprofessional. But then, her sleaze tactics are very similar to your sleaze tactics, so naturally you support such tactics.

When my point is that your denier cult is entirely driven by politics and cares nothing about the actual science, you shouldn't run to prove my point like that. If your political cult told you to reverse your position on climate science, you'd do so instantly, and then you'd declare that you had always been at war with EastAsia, and any liberal who claimed otherwise was plotting against you.

 

So I assume by bloggers you mean scientist like Judith Curry which you now Iabel nothing more than a blogger. Once again you prove my assertion that any scientist that breaks lockstep on the AGW hypothesis is ostracized and shunned by true believers. While we are on the subject did you learn nothing from getting caught spreading the lie that Singer said smoking doesn't cause cancer? Now you do the same thing with Curry in a previous post saying she is paid by the oil industry. When Singer said second hand smoke is not proven to cause cancer you morphed that into his saying smoking doesn't cause cancer and now you try the same deceitful trick with Curry. Your implication is she is funded by big oil and nothing more than a shill for them when in reality she does occasionall contract weather forcasting for them and their off shore rigs and she also did so when she was a member of the IPCC. You used this trick with Singer attempting to discredit him and now you try the same trick with Curry? And you wonder why us skeptics don't believe anything you guys say after a while?

QUOTE="iamanonman, post: 1069705913, member: 73112"]Curry is paid by the oil industry.[/QUOTE]

From an anti curry hate blog you might like.

"When she was questioned about potential conflicts of interest, this was her response to the Scientific American: [5]

“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”

https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry

 

Glad you decided to join the fray.

 

I think iananonman thinks only governments are allowed access to science. If a private company or industry makes use of science it is heresy

 

Yes, that's the scam.

Why would oil rigs want a Judith Curry forecast, given that her forecasting record sucks so badly? In 2013, she predicted immediate cooling. That was followed by 3 years of record breaking warmth. In forecasting, Curry fails as badly as it's possible to fail.

Nobody would pay money for such failure, not when the government provides better forecasts for nothing. The oil companies funnel sweet, sweet fossil fuel cash to her in return for "forecasts" And in return, she shills for fossil fuel companies.

The only actual "forecasts" I've ever seen from Curry are ENSO forecasts. She puts them out a week after the NOAA forecasts, and just rephrases the NOAA. Yeah, that's worth paying big bucks for. Not. All her other "forecasts"? Big secrets. How convenient.

You fall for that scam, and then get hysterical at anyone who doesn't fall for it. That's a shame. You're ripe for the fleecing by your cult, given how emotionally invested in the cult you are. It's just a matter of time. We'd like to save you from that, but you're cursing us for it, so we can't help you.

 

No IF about it my good man.
It’s normal for major industry to be big consumers of science. It would be dumb not to. Making products of less quality and for more money is a big indicator you’re behind the curve. Science is the driver of employment and success in manufacturing. There are NO MAJOR CORPORATIONS THAT DON’T DIRECTLY OR INDIRECT RELY ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH.

 

I think you misread my post...

I'm a chemist... been working in the private sector for decades.

 

Good for you ! I hope I was agreeing with you !!
That was my intent. Just fanning the flames in favor of science.

 

She says she provides hurricane forecast. No one has ever seen them though. That's highly unusual in the weather forecasting business. There are other private enterprises like AccuWeather and The Weather Channel that make their forecasts public. So maybe she really does and maybe she doesn't. But, she definitely gets paid by the oil industry. And it's highly suspicious that she was hyping up the Berkeley Earth, a project funded and founded by skeptics to refute NOAA, NASA, etc, findings, until they found that the worlds' leading experts not only weren't manipulating their data, but may have even been underestimating the warming rate. She quick really fast and started questioning their motives after that. And who can blame her really...it might have meant the loss of her oil industry contracts.

 

Shell and ExxonMobile paid for their own research on the climate and came to the same result as everyone else. That is the Earth is warming and their own products were the cause. This was in the 1980's. They suppressed the research for 30 years. It's public now and both companies openly acknowledge the cause for the warming we observe today. They both have committed to helping the world tackle the problem; so they say anyway. I'm just saying...

And FWIW I don't actually have a problem with the funding aspect of science. It doesn't really matter where the money comes from as long as your open about it and publish your work in peer reviewed outlets.

 

No. I do not label Judith Curry as just a "blogger". She's an actual scientist because she publishes her work. It's just that none of her work actually refutes that Earth is warming and that humans are responsible.

Steven Goddard would be an example of someone who is just a blogger.

James Delingpole would be an example of someone who is just a blogger.

 

Saying she is "paid by the oil industry" is nothing more than an attempt to discredit a scientist that disagrees with the AGW cult. It infers that her opinions are bought and paid for by so called big oil when the truth is she does occasionall hurricane forcast for one company just as she did when she was an IPPC supporter. You once again make my point that any scientist that dares break lockstep will be attacked and dismissed as a shill for big oil and ostracized.
In real science contrary opinions are not only welcome but demanded when trying to decide if a hypothesis is valid or not. In AGW science dissent is strictly vorboden and anyone who dares do so will be destroyed as you attempt to do with Curry and Singer.

 

Whoa...hold on there. I've stated multiple times on this forum that I don't care who funds the science. My only point in even mentioning that Curry gets paid by the oil industry is because funding is a hot button issue by AGW skeptics. I'm constantly hearing about how legitimate scientists come to their conclusions because they fear they'll lose their funding. I actually have no problem with Curry getting paid for "hurricane forecasts". I'm just say that it's hypocritical for AGW skeptics who play the funding card against respectable scientists and not look and see what's happening in their own backyard.

And why do you think I have to point out that Berkeley Earth was funded and founded by skeptics anyway? Because if I don't you'll be the first to tell me that they're just another extension of the establishment and question their motives.

 

You have been exposed twice now for distorting facts and repeating AGW propoganda and now you are going for a trifecta. Strike three your out. The comment you put in bold is yet another distortion of fact. The actual quote from the internal study was their contribution to man's increased C02 was 4% not that "That is the Earth is warming and their own products were the cause" as you falsely claim. It occurs to me that if you truly believed in the AGW hypothesis you wouldn't feel the need to trash scientist that disagree and falsify what's on oil company documents.

"Litigators are sure to note a brief, but telling, remark in the 1988 document: The fossil fuels Shell consumed and sold at the time "account for the production of 4 percent of the CO2 emitted worldwide from combustion."

This is a far cry from yet another one of your gross distortion of facts statements.

Now let's look at the selective leaking of these documents in general. Only a couple of selective sentences and paragraphs have been leaked out of a document that was likely thousands of pages long. We all know how out of context statements are used by people trying to make black look white and with the entire AGW movements record of constantly doing what you have been exposed of doing three times in this thread it's natural for us skeptics to remain skeptical of everything you say and do.

 

Whoa...hold on there. The only reason skeptics point out who funds AGW scientist is because of that tactic being used by them to discredit any and all scientist that dare question the hypothesis.

 

Man's contribution to the CO2 flux into the atmosphere is 4%. Before the industrial revolution the flux is about 100 ppm/yr into the atmosphere and about 100 ppm/yr out of the atmosphere. The net balance of the emissions and absorptions was 0 ppm/yr. That's why the concentration has been relatively stable for thousands of years. Then the industrial revolution happen and man began digging carbon up and putting into the atmosphere. Today our contribution to the flux is about 4 ppm/yr. That's where the 4% figure comes from. It just so happens that nature has a built in buffer to help accommodate perturbations in the flux. Nature is absorbing (mostly via the oceans) about 2 ppm/yr of this excess. That leaves the net flux at +2 ppm/yr. 4% is not the amount man emitted into the atmosphere like you claim. That is man's contribution to the flux. Having the flux imbalanced for 100+ years has resulted into an additional 130 ppm getting emitted into the air all of which is from man. That means the total contribution is actually 130 / 410 = 31.7%.

You're claim that man is responsible for 4% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is dead wrong. You totally misunderstood or misrepresented what you read. Which one is it?

 

You are the one who misunderstood here. The oil company study said their contribution was "4 percent of the CO2 emitted worldwide from combustion." . Take your AGW blinders off and read it again.

"The fossil fuels Shell consumed and sold at the time "account for the production of 4 percent of the CO2 emitted worldwide from combustion."

 

Yes. They are talking about the flux. Flux is different than total contribution. Emissions are a component of the total flux which has units of ppm/yr. Total contribution has units of just ppm. Their own research agrees with the scientific consensus on this topic exactly like I said. You are either misunderstanding this statement or misrepresenting it.