WG1 chapter 6 mankind’s share of the atmosphere’s CO2 is basically unknown, could be anywhere from 4% to 96%.
IPCC AR5 attributes 2 W/m^2 of unbalancing RF due to the increased CO2 concentration between 1750 and 2011. In the overall global heat balance 2 W (watt is power, not energy) is lost in the magnitude and uncertainty of: ToA, 340 +/- 10, fluctuating albedo of clouds, snow and ice, and the absorption and release of heat from evaporation and condensation of the ocean and water vapor cycle.
IPCC AR5 acknowledges the LTT pause in Text Box 9.2 and laments the failure of the GCMs to model it.
The sea ice and sheet ice is expanding not shrinking, the weather (30 years = climate) is less extreme not more, the sea level rise is not accelerating, the GCM’s are repeat failures, the CAGW hypothesis is coming unraveled, COP21 has all the makings of yet another embarrassing fiasco, IPCC AR6 will mimic SNL’s Rosanna Rosanna Dana, “Well, neeeveeer mind!!”
IPCC AR5 attributes 2 W/m^2 of unbalancing RF due to the increased CO2 concentration between 1750 and 2011. In the overall global heat balance 2 W (watt is power, not energy) is lost in the magnitude and uncertainty of: ToA, 340 +/- 10, fluctuating albedo of clouds, snow and ice, and the absorption and release of heat from evaporation and condensation of the ocean and water vapor cycle.
IPCC AR5 acknowledges the LTT pause in Text Box 9.2 and laments the failure of the GCMs to model it.
The sea ice and sheet ice is expanding not shrinking, the weather (30 years = climate) is less extreme not more, the sea level rise is not accelerating, the GCM’s are repeat failures, the CAGW hypothesis is coming unraveled, COP21 has all the makings of yet another embarrassing fiasco, IPCC AR6 will mimic SNL’s Rosanna Rosanna Dana, “Well, neeeveeer mind!!”
The following is entirely my own work.
1) Per IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 prior to year 1750 CO2 represented about 1.26% of the total biosphere carbon balance (589/46,713). After mankind’s contributions, 67 % fossil fuel and cement – 33% land use changes, atmospheric CO2 increased to about 1.77% of the total biosphere carbon balance (829/46,713). This represents a shift of 0.51% from all the collected stores, ocean outgassing, carbonates, carbohydrates, etc. not just mankind, to the atmosphere. A 0.51% rearrangement of 46,713 Gt of stores and 100s of Gt annual fluxes doesn’t impress me as measurable let alone actionable, attributable, or significant.
2) Figure 10 in the Trenberth paper (Atmospheric Moisture Transports…), in addition to substantial differences of opinion, i.e. uncertainties, 7 of the 8 balances showed more energy leaving ToA than entering, i.e. atmospheric cooling.
3) Even IPCC AR5 expresses serious doubts about the value of their AOGCMs.
Three simple points seeking three simple rebuttals. All the rest, sea levels, ice caps, polar bears, SST/LTT/ST trends, etc. don’t matter, nothing but sound and fury.
Three simple points seeking three simple rebuttals. All the rest, sea levels, ice caps, polar bears, SST/LTT/ST trends, etc. don’t matter, nothing but sound and fury.
BTW a rebuttal means pointing out that these three points are in error because I forgot to carry the one or doubled instead of squared or overlooked some detail on the Figures, Tables or footnotes or some contrary interpretation better matches reality.
340 W/m^2 arrive at the ToA, 100 W/m^2 are reflected straight away leaving 240 W/m^2 to continue into the atmosphere (80 W/m^2) and surface (160 W/m^2). In order to maintain the existing thermal equilibrium (not really required) 240 W/m^2 must leave the ToA. Leaving the surface at 1.5 m are: thermals, 17 W/m^2; evapotranspiration, 80 W/m^2; LWIR, 63 W/m^2 totaling 160 W/m^2 plus the atmosphere’s 80 W/m^2 making a grand total of 240 W/m^2 at ToA.
When more energy leaves ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will cool down. When less energy leaves the ToA than enters it, the atmosphere will heat up. The GHE theory postulates that GHGs impede/trap/store the flow of heat leaving the ToA and as a consequence the atmosphere will heat up. Actually if the energy leaving the ToA goes down, say from 240 to 238 W/m^2, the atmosphere will cool per Q/A = U * dT.
The S-B BB temperature corresponding to ToA 240 W/m^2 OLR is 255 K or -18 C. This value is compared to a surface at 1.5 m temperature of 288 K, 15 C. The 33 C higher 1.5 m surface temperature is allegedly attributed to/explained by the GHE theory.
Comparing ToA values to 1.5 m surface values is an incorrect comparison.
The ToA temperature of 255 K should be compared to the ToA surface temperature of 193 K, -80 C, not the 1.5 m above land surface temperature of 288 K, 15 C. The 255 – 193 = 62 difference is explained by the earth’s effective emissivity. The ratio of the ToA observed surface temperature to the S-B BB temperature gives the emissivity: (273-80) / (273 – 18) = .767.
Because the +33 C comparison between ToA 255 K and 1.5 m 288 K is invalid the GHE theory/explanation is an invalid non-solution to a non-problem.
References: ACS Toolkit, Trenberth et. al. 2011 “Atmospheric Moisture Transports …….” Figure 10, IPCC AR5 Annex III
R-squared is a variation of p-values. Basically they both are statistical methods of determining whether the data means anything or is just random noise and trash. That pretty much covers everything in "climate" science.
The null hypothesis in "climate" science should be that all the hysterical observations are just due to natural variability. The goal of the "climate" science agenda is to adjust, massage, and torture the data until p-values and R squares even slightly suggest it's all mankind's fault and the sooner all those unproductive people die the better.
The null hypothesis in "climate" science should be that all the hysterical observations are just due to natural variability. The goal of the "climate" science agenda is to adjust, massage, and torture the data until p-values and R squares even slightly suggest it's all mankind's fault and the sooner all those unproductive people die the better.
My objections to the “science” behind mankind driven climate change: The greenhouse effect theory, i.e. upwelling/down welling/”back” radiation violates conservation of energy and thermodynamic laws. Yes, it really does! Not that it matters because the theory actually does not do anything, i.e. no net change in radiative balance at the ToA, per NASA 100 km. The notion that the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without is incorrect. The conditions postulated for the “no atmosphere” scenario are quite obviously with an atmosphere. The true explanation for the prevailing surface temperature, heat transfer’s most fundamental equation Q = U * A * dT, is ignored. The Stephan Boltzmann ideal black body equation is incorrectly applied by ignoring the theory’s limitations and conditions, e.g. a surface, no conduction/convection, i.e. a vacuum, emissivity, gas density, tropospheric temperatures, etc. The eccentricity of the earth’s orbit causes a TSI fluctuation, apehelion to perihelion, 10 times greater than the atmospheric heating due to CO2. Natural variations such as eccentricity, albedo, water vapor, vegetation, etc. are orders of magnitude more influential over the climate than GHGs/CO2. Nick Schroeder, BSME, PE (I might be unqualified to offer an opinion since I’m not a food editor, unemployed standup comic, massage therapist, nematologist, or fresh out of journalism school.)
Guest Opinion; Dr. Tim Ball Scientists lost the scientific script somewhere in the 20th century. The major loss involved the fact that correlation is not cause and effect. It was lost for several reasons: Failure to know or consistently apply scientific methods; Lack of ethics as the end justifies the means; Methods and process are not taught or emphasized; People are more willing to bypass or ignore everything for funding; [ 1840 more words. ]
The Dakota Access Pipeline will transport 450,000 barrels of crude oil fracked from the Bakken shale per day.
No Dakota Access in Treaty Territory - Camp of the Sacred Stones need your help to stop it NOW. Construction begins there in 48hours.
Sloppy bookeeping - assessment from the Tooth Fairy
Pentagon said they cannot track 6.5 TRILLION DOLLARS.
The last time the Pentagon lost over 2.3 trillion, the next day 9/11 happened and the criminals did a false flag to start the endless War On Terror...
Hopefully there aren't any false flags planned for this weekend at the Olympics.....(There probably are.)
ekim
Instead of helping the people of Haiti, Hillary and her cronies used the funds to give no bid contracts to her family and friends, including her brother, Tony Rodham.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment