Is Current Global Warming Unprecedented?

Actually, it can be. And has been.

 

Easy enough to compute from basic physics (1.1°C) and undisputed:
Link, R., & Lüdecke, H. J. A New Basic 1-Dimension 1-Layer Model Obtains Excellent Agreement With the Observed Earth Temperature.

But that result is essentially meaningless in the real world, because the climate is full of feedbacks -- both positive feedbacks in which warming causes more warming, and negative feedbacks in which warming causes cooling. That's where things get interesting.

No, because as you said the real earth isn't like that. A better way is to simply look at past changes in CO2 and temperature to determine how the Earth really reacts to CO2 changes. That's been done many times, and the results tend to cluster around 3°C per doubling of CO2.

Royer, Dana L., Robert A. Berner, and Jeffrey Park. "Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years." Nature 446.7135 (2007): 530-532.
Hansen, James E., and Makiko Sato. "Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History."

 

Right, no need to really do that because we all know how CO2 is supposed to behave.

Hansen, really?

So if I look at past changes in CO2 and I know that no one knows how to show what exactly the forcing will do in any situation because we can't set up as a model, how is that evidence? Huh?

So, if you conclude that a doubling of CO2 will result in ~3°C, then prove it in the lab like I stated. Not sure why that is that difficult. Prove doubling of CO2 results in that change. I think I know why, but let me hear from you again.

 

Yeah I read that one...and I lived in the decade of the 1950s...when the all time temperature record for the city of St. Louis was established. 116 degrees. Over 110 for two weeks in a row. And NOBODY had air conditioning...except the filthy rich. People were sleeping in Forest Park with their families at night to get as much relief as possible from the heat. That 2000 line is a bunch of B.S. There has NEVER BEEN heat in the St. Louis area like that. NEVER. And don't tell me that was world wide. It STILL is a bunch of BS.

Not to mention of course, we had the 1930s dust bowl (heat related) in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas. Which caused the migration of much population of those areas to California. Tell me about warming again buddy boy.

 

hahahahahaahhaahaha!!!! Now that's funny.

 

And by the way Poor...assuming by some quirk you alarmists turn out to be correct, there isn't jack (*)(*)(*)(*) you can do about it.

 

The amount of infrared radiation (i.e. heat) that CO2 can absorb can be measured both in a laboratory or in the field, and both agree that the amount of warming we can expect from doubling atmospheric CO2 is about 1 °C. But that does not take into account feedback systems in Earth's climate. Probably the biggest feedback has to do with water vapor. We know that water vapor in the atmosphere is the biggest greenhouse gas (accounting for about 80% of the warming) and that the amount of water vapor is directly proportional to temperature. When CO2 absorbs heat, the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which in turn holds more heat. When all of the various feedbacks are taken into consideration, the total impact is likely 2 - 4 °C.

 

Actually, we have a very good idea of what significant factors affect global climate.

Okay, so I mistook the Holocene climatic optimum for the start of the interglacial. Doesn't change the fact that for the last 8,000 years global mean surface temperature has been steadily declining, making the current warming trend unusual.

 

Thanks. It still doesn't answer why after 2007, the models still can't accurately determine what will happen. You see that is one of the variables I look at. The fact that the observed does not line up with any of the models is remarkable. Don't you think? I mean if it is as easy as all of these papers make it out to be, then why are a 100% of models wrong? I don't get it.

So again, we have to look at clouds. Clouds made of water vapor, deflect heat back into the upper atmosphere. It's cooler when the sun is out then.

 

Go for it because it is what they do NOT say that is more interesting and that is

A) it was not a global phenomena
b) the time frames do not agree
c) the temperature rise even when narrowed to the northern hemisphere is nowhere near what is being claimed by many denialists

Even if we look at the data from CO2 science (a misnomer if ever there was one) we find the southern hemisphere data very confusing

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/australianz.php

 

You're looking at models designed to predict 30 year trends and finding fault because of a 7 year deviation. When you evaluate them for what they are intended to model, they are actually quite accurate.

http://uanews.org/story/ua-climate-scientists-put-predictions-test

 

so why didn't the IPCC report just say that? I mean that report was out before the IPCC AR5?

And how convenient to make that statement in a report. Oops shame on us that should be 30 years not any time earlier. And oh, BTW, we know the CO2 is causing because the models tell us so. Even though we won't really know for another 15 years. That is too funny.

 

Lets start with this

 

Yes we do. Because we know how CO2 behaves, both from theory and from evidence, as previous citations by me (and ignored by you) have amply shown. Just because you don't read the evidence doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist. It just means you don't read.

And his evidence is wrong because ... of your political beliefs? Really?

Oh, now I get it! In Denierstan, real-world evidence isn't evidence because it's not a model, and model evidence isn't evidence because it's not real-world. Do they send you guys to school to learn that kind of logic?

You're not sure why that's hard? Considering that CO2 absorption and emission of IR changes with pressure, and that what happens in the upper atmosphere is critical to the whole process, please explain how to put the entire depth of the atmosphere into a lab experiment. And then there's feedbacks: Please explain how to put the Arctic methane release feedback into a lab experiment. Please explain how to put peat decomposition feedback into a lab experiment. Please explain how to put rainforest drying feedback into a lab experiment. Please explain how to put forest fire feedback into a lab experiment. Please explain how to put desertification feedback into a lab experiment. Please explain how to put ocean uptake feedback into a lab experiment.

As a matter of fact, we are doing exactly that experiment right now, over the entire globe. Wanna know what the result is going to be? So do I. But what happens if the result isn't what you're hoping for, jc? We can't just say "never mind" and ask for a do-over. Carbon dioxide stays in the air for centuries, which means we're stuck with it, period. There is no Planet B.

In my previous post I just cited evidence that proves it. Now prove that you can read.

 

Ok, so tell me what it is I'm suppposed to observe here. I see temperatures following the decrease sunspots?

 

And did they teach you in school that St. Louis was the entire globe?

What, don't tell you the truth? Perish the thought. We all know the truth is not allowed in Denierstan.

 

I'll tell you what, when you can show me evidence, which I know you can't, then you have me.

You see, because the IPCC AR5 report can't provide it and I thought that report was all encompassing. So whose do you use?

real world evidence? Did you drop something or what? What real world evidence? I'm craving that, give it to me.

 

And unrefuted.

 

He has shown you evidence I have shown you evidence - just saying that something is not so does not change the truth

 

I just want you to prove that doubling of CO2 doubles the 1 degree I showed to 2 degrees. That's it. I don't need to know about the upper atmosphere. I just want you to give me the experiment that shows that doubling CO2 will double that increase to 2 degrees C. Where is that experiment? I have not been able to find that one.

 

And you can see that sunspot activity has an impact on the overall output of the sun and that impacts on earths overall temperature - now we have just had a pretty weak solar cycle but despite that we have not seen the normal temperature dip we usually see in relation to reduced solar output so I for one am NOT looking forward to an increased solar output anytime soon

Hot? It will be stinking!!!

 

Well how can you have evidence the IPCC didn't get? And, are you saying the IPCC report is wrong?

 

As cited before ...

CO2 absorption of infrared (IR), theory:
*Kouzov, A. P., & Chrysos, M. (2009). Collision-induced absorption by CO 2 in the far infrared: Analysis of leading-order moments and interpretation of the experiment. Physical Review A, 80(4), 042703.
*Chrysos, M., Kouzov, A. P., Egorova, N. I., & Rachet, F. (2008 ). Exact Low-Order Classical Moments in Collision-Induced Bands by Linear Rotors: CO 2-CO 2. Physical review letters, 100(13), 133007.
*Buldyreva, J., & Chrysos, M. (2001). Semiclassical modeling of infrared pressure-broadened linewidths: A comparative analysis in CO2–Ar at various temperatures. The Journal of Chemical Physics, 115(16), 7436-7441.
*Kratz, D. P., Gao, B. C., & Kiehl, J. T. (1991). A study of the radiative effects of the 9.4‐and 10.4‐micron bands of carbon dioxide. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 96(D5), 9021-9026.
*Stull, V. R., Wyatt, P. J., & Plass, G. N. (1964). The infrared transmittance of carbon dioxide. Applied Optics, 3(2), 243-254.

CO2 absorption of IR, laboratory measurements:
*R.A. Toth, et al., Spectroscopic database of CO2 line parameters: 4300–7000 cm−1, Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 109:6, April 2008, 906-921.
*Predoi-Cross, A., Unni, A. V., Liu, W., Schofield, I., Holladay, C., McKellar, A. R. W., & Hurtmans, D. (2007). Line shape parameters measurement and computations for self-broadened carbon dioxide transitions in the 30012← 00001 and 30013← 00001 bands, line mixing, and speed dependence. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 245(1), 34-51.
*Miller, C. E., & Brown, L. R. (2004). Near infrared spectroscopy of carbon dioxide I.[sup] 16[/sup] O[sup] 12[/sup] C[sup] 16[/sup] O line positions. Journal of molecular spectroscopy, 228(2), 329-354.
*Niro, F., Boulet, C., & Hartmann, J. M. (2004). Spectra calculations in central and wing regions of CO[sub] 2[/sub] IR bands between 10 and 20μm. I: model and laboratory measurements. Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer, 88(4), 483-498.
*Benec'h, S., Rachet, F., Chrysos, M., Buldyreva, J., & Bonamy, L. (2002). On far‐wing Raman profiles by CO2. Journal of Raman Spectroscopy, 33(11‐12), 934-940.

Earth's upward emission of IR:
*Murphy, D. M., Solomon, S., Portmann, R. W., Rosenlof, K. H., Forster, P. M., & Wong, T. (2009). An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D17).
*Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., & Kiehl, J. (2009). Earth's global energy budget. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 90(3).
*Wong, T., Wielicki, B. A., Lee III, R. B., Smith, G. L., Bush, K. A., & Willis, J. K. (2006). Reexamination of the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget using altitude-corrected ERBE/ERBS nonscanner WFOV data. Journal of Climate, 19(16).
*Harries, J. E. (2000). Physics of the Earth's radiative energy balance. Contemporary Physics, 41(5), 309-322.
*Kyle, H. L., Arking, A., Hickey, J. R., Ardanuy, P. E., Jacobowitz, H., Stowe, L. L., ... & Smith, G. L. (1993). The Nimbus Earth radiation budget (ERB) experiment: 1975 to 1992. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 74(5), 815-830.
*Barkstrom, B. R. (1984). The earth radiation budget experiment (ERBE). Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 65(11), 1170-1185.

Changes in Earth's upward IR emission as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere:
*Gastineau, G., Soden, B. J., Jackson, D. L., & O'Dell, C. W. (2014). Satellite-Based Reconstruction of the Tropical Oceanic Clear-Sky Outgoing Longwave Radiation and Comparison with Climate Models. Journal of Climate, 27(2).
*Chapman, D., Nguyen, P., & Halem, M. (2013, May). A decade of measured greenhouse forcings from AIRS. In SPIE Defense, Security, and Sensing (pp. 874313-874313). International Society for Optics and Photonics.
*Chen, C., Harries, J., Brindley, H., & Ringer, M. (2007). Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth's infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006. Retrieved October, 13, 2009.
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2007). Comparison of Spectrally Resolved Outgoing Longwave Radiation over the Tropical Pacific between 1970 and 2003 Using IRIS, IMG, and AIRS. Journal of climate, 20(15).
*Griggs, J. A., & Harries, J. E. (2004, November). Comparison of spectrally resolved outgoing longwave data between 1970 and present. In Optical Science and Technology, the SPIE 49th Annual Meeting (pp. 164-174). International Society for Optics and Photonics.


Changes in downwelling infrared from the atmosphere as a result of increased CO2:
*Wang, K., & Liang, S. (2009). Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all‐sky conditions from 1973 to 2008. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 114(D19).
*Wild, M., Grieser, J., & Schär, C. (2008 ). Combined surface solar brightening and increasing greenhouse effect support recent intensification of the global land‐based hydrological cycle. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(17).
*Prata, F. (2008 ). The climatological record of clear‐sky longwave radiation at the Earth's surface: evidence for water vapour feedback?. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 29(17-18 ), 5247-5263.
*Allan, R. P. (2006). Variability in clear‐sky longwave radiative cooling of the atmosphere. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012), 111(D22).
*Philipona, R., Dürr, B., Marty, C., Ohmura, A., & Wild, M. (2004). Radiative forcing‐measured at Earth's surface‐corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect. Geophysical Research Letters, 31(3).

Formal determination of CO2-temperature causality:
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2013). Granger Causality Analyses for Climatic Attribution. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, 3, 515.
* Attanasio, A. (2012). Testing for linear Granger causality from natural/anthropogenic forcings to global temperature anomalies. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 110(1-2), 281-289.
* Attanasio, A., Pasini, A., & Triacca, U. (2012). A contribution to attribution of recent global warming by out‐of‐sample Granger causality analysis. Atmospheric Science Letters, 13(1), 67-72.
* Kodra, E., Chatterjee, S., & Ganguly, A. R. (2011). Exploring Granger causality between global average observed time series of carbon dioxide and temperature. Theoretical and applied climatology, 104(3-4), 325-335.
* Verdes, P. F. (2005). Assessing causality from multivariate time series. PHYSICAL REVIEW-SERIES E-, 72(2), 026222.

I gave it to you, and you ignored it. So here it is again.

Royer, Dana L., Robert A. Berner, and Jeffrey Park. "Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years." Nature 446.7135 (2007): 530-532.
Hansen, James E., and Makiko Sato. "Climate Sensitivity Estimated From Earth's Climate History."

PREDICTION: you're going to ignore it again. You simply ignore everything, jc. Real-world evidence shows that you are incapable of learning.

 

BTW, it looks like on your bottom graph that the temperature is ahead of the sun spot decrease. Just sayin.

And ~1998 when the sun spots are the least amount, the temperature went way up. Explain that?

 

Here's the experimental data, from the planet-sized laboratory:


Notice that the best-fit logarithmic line is T=3.0481 * ln(CO2) - 17.62, which means that when CO2 doubles, temperature increases by 3.0481 * ln(2)=2.11°C.

Now give me one good reason we should continue running this experiment when we don't have to.