@PA
“LFTR is a far superior solution. It is a soup kettle that empties into a larger soup kettle if it overheats. End of story, passive safe, can reuse previously used (2nd hand or “spent”) fuel.”
A nuclear fuel in LIQUID form is the last thing that one would want to have… the inevitable leaks and gravity will do the rest.
> [E]arly on i make no claim that the chronicles can demonstrate accuracy to tenths of a degree but can give us a good steer on the direction of travel of temperatures.
The “reinforce what our eyes are telling us” in what I just quoted goes a bit beyond that, TonyB. Also, the “formula” you “devised” to “note the real world impact of the changing climate on a person aged 70 years old” goes even beyond that:
As you can see, this chart goes into the tenths of degrees. This seems to contradict that you “make no claim that the chronicles can demonstrate accuracy to tenths of a degree.”
Please advise.
Willard
The chart you show demonstrates the tendency very well. That is the intention.
I can do no more than repeatedly stress that historic reconstructions can not be highly accurate. When you slice and dice a figure you end up with small amounts and that is why it is important to point out that it can’t be accurate to those small amounts.
I look forward to mosh, CRU giss et al confirming they do not have accuracy to tiny amounts but their reconstructions merely show the tendency.
Tonyb
PA wrote:
“22 PPM = 0.2 W/m2 for 2000-2010.
0.2 W/m2 / 3.7 Wm-2/°C = 0.054°C/decade.
Empirical measurement. For the 21st century the GHG forcing is less than 0.054°C/Decade. ”
I belive there is a basic flaw in your calculation. You didn’t really specify how you got these equations. It would help to know where you got them.
I will respond to the understanding that I have of what you are claiming based on your incomplete explanation
1) Your first equation appears to imply that an increase in CO2 has caused a total forcing of 0.2/M2. This assumes that the increase in CO2 up to the year 2000 is no longer an effective forcing. That assumption is false. The forcing from past increases doesn’t disappear until the global average surface temperature reaches equilibrium with increased CO2 concentration. This did not happen in the year 2000. In fact in the year 2007, the forcing due to CO2 was estimated by the IPCC at about 1.8W/M2, with other GHG’s adding an additional 1W/M2.
2) It appears that you are calculating the change in in temperatue over the decade, by dividing the change in forcing, 0.2W/M^2 by the factor 3.7W/M^2/C , which is the radiative forcing due to doubling of CO2. There are 2 things wrong with this. First of all the equation governing the change in equilibrium temperature does not tell what the rate of change of temperature will be at any given time. You are confusing equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate sensitivity.
Second the driving force for change in temperature is not the change in forcing, which you have calculated at 0.2W/M2 in a decade, but rather the total forcing, which increased during that decade. The value of forcing due to CO2 in 2007 was about 1.8W/M2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing#/media/File:Radiative-forcings.svg
A person who makes mistakes of this nature has no business making judgements about the validity of work by Climate Scientists. It seems that you are unaware that you don’t understand the first thing about the atmospheric GHE. It is appalling to consider that you are instructing people on the internet about this subject.
The neutron repulsion is so strong that the neutrons escaped from the sun and headed directly to your brain, where they have created the weirdest radioactive isotopes, which have caused delusions.
The President of the United States of America, says: Boo!
And he has a secret service… of his own and is seldom alone. Yet he is afraid for us. Sweet.
“What we’ve got here is… failure to communicate. Some men you just can’t reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it… well, he gets it. I don’t like it any more than you men.”
1) Your first equation appears to imply that an increase in CO2 has caused a total forcing of 0.2/M2.
No. I am not implying anything. A change in clear skying forcing was MEASURED.
2) It appears that you are calculating the change in in temperatue over the decade, by dividing the change in forcing, 0.2W/M^2 by the factor 3.7W/M^2/C , which is the radiative forcing due to doubling of CO2.
No again. 3.7 W/m2 is the common figure for the forcing to cause a 1°C temperature change at common atmospheric temperatures. If you plug the numbers into the Stefan-Boltzmann law you will understand why.
Eadler, PA mentioned earlier that he didn’t play climate scientist. He may have mentioned something about having stayed at a Holiday Inn Express though, I can’t remember. But anyway, I always take what PA posts with a healthy dose of salt..
tony
you cannot make a claim about “tendency” or slope without
before making a claim about individual values.
For example.
If 1500- 1550 Is “somewhere” between 10C and 15C
And
1550 -1600 is somewhere between 11C and 15C
If you ploted the two centers of of those would give an impression
of “tendency”.. But How much tendency and how certain we are of the tendency relies on DOING MATH.. using your pencil, NOT yiour eye balls.
Again, last time you used your intuition to ‘classify’ temperatures I showed you a mathematical way of doing it. A way that is defenseable,
PA wrote, in reply to my post:
“”1) Your first equation appears to imply that an increase in CO2 has caused a total forcing of 0.2W/M2.”
No. I am not implying anything. A change in clear skying forcing was MEASURED.”
However you are attributing the change in forcing to a temperature change, as if it were the total forcing in the next equation.
In addition, your use of the equals symbol in that first equation is incorrect. 0.2W/M^2 does not equal 22PPM
.” ” 2) It appears that you are calculating the change in in temperatue over the decade, by dividing the change in forcing, 0.2W/M^2 by the factor 3.7W/M^2/C , which is the radiative forcing due to doubling of CO2.”
No again. 3.7 W/m2 is the common figure for the forcing to cause a 1°C temperature change at common atmospheric temperatures. If you plug the numbers into the Stefan-Boltzmann law you will understand why.”
There is no way this number arises simply from the Stefan Boltzmann equation. It is a complicated equation involving the CO2 absorption spectrum, concentration of CO2 and temperature versus height. I didn’t deny that the 3.7W/M2 is the forcing associated with doubling of CO2 concentration. My dispute was about how you used this number in your calculation.
You haven’t answered the points that I made about the lack of validity of your calculation. You are fooling yourself if you think you have . You are simply ignoring most of what I wrote. It is pathetic. If you were a student in a climate science course you would fail miserably.
How do they levelize the output of wind and solar? What is the assumed cost of capital? The ELCC of wind is about 13%, for solar at low penetration it is on the order of 50%, much lower at higher penetration. How do you invest in solar and wind without also investing in extra infrastructure to account for the above?
blueice2hotsea wrote:
“22ppm CO2 change is from 369.5 to 391.5 over 2000 – 2010, iirc”
Did you read my post? I didn’t deny that, and don’t need it explained. . What is wrong is the way PA used that number to draw conclusions about the rate of temperature increases in the decade 2000-2010..
PA is assuming measured surface downward IR equals top-of-atmosphere upwards IR when doing the earth’s energy budget. Not a good assumption, so everything else that follows is wrong.
There is a damage function, why no benefit function?
Joe Biden must be his climate advisor.
Jim D wrote,
“PA is assuming measured surface downward IR equals top-of-atmosphere upwards IR when doing the earth’s energy budget. Not a good assumption, so everything else that follows is wrong.”
I agree . Another place where PA fails to understand the science. He refuses to learn, yet he posts a lot, spreading misinformation. There are many posters like him on this web site.
PA is assuming measured surface downward IR equals top-of-atmosphere upwards IR when doing the earth’s energy budget. Not a good assumption, so everything else that follows is wrong.
1. I assume there is zero effect above about 3 km. UAH/RSS TLT is flat for the 21st century. Therefore there is no net effect about 3km up in the atmosphere and the effect may disappear at a lower altitude.
An effect that isn’t measurable is the same as no effect.
2. There was a 0.2 W/m2 downwelling change during clear skies in the first decade of the 21st century. The overall effect will be less because there is cloud cover 52% of the time and so forth.
Less than 0.2 W/m2 isn’t a big change. It doesn’t seem to have made it to the TLT altitude. Given that latent heat loss is over 50% of heat loss, and cloudy conditions occur 52% of the time, it isn’t going to cause a big temperature change. The period wasn’t 20 years of the TSR, only ten – but in about 5 years or so they will rerelease the study and the results won’t be a lot different.
Unless there is some empirically measured proof that CO2 warming is more than a weak surface effect that is pretty much it.
PA, at the surface, the change depends on where you are, and is smaller than the downward looking one from above because CO2 is more prominent in the emission to space which is what matters for the energy budget. It is more like 0.3 W/m2 for 22 ppm there using the usual 3.7 W/m2 per doubling which is a global value for the outgoing effect.
