Single father, scientist, & engineer. Managed medical studies & NASA GISS project. I only respond to intelligent life. šI don't take experimental Medicine!
Joined August 2021
- Tweets38.2K
- Following5K
- Followers5.5K
- Likes69.9K
I see you've reached the limit of your ability to carry on an argument. It always results in the bogus graph you present every night.
How sad for you. Do you not want to learn anything new?
I don't understand how you can pretend that physics somehow agrees with your belief.
The feedback factor that multiplies this forcing into a ~3 Ā°C sensitivity is different. It is not observed as a direct response to the CO2 perturbation. It is inferred by attributing the larger concurrent changes in temperature and water vapor to the CO2 term, then inserting those attributions into models whose parameterizations already produce strong positive feedbacks.
The resulting number is therefore an output of the same modeling framework used to define it, not an independent measurement.The formal proportionality to log(CO2) can appear in the forcing calculation. It does not, by itself, confirm that the system amplifies that forcing by the large factors claimed.
As with the geometric-series expression, the same mathematical structure can be written down and āsolvedā in many contexts; the algebra does not establish that the climate feedbacks are the operative physical mechanism rather than other drivers of the temperature and humidity trends. The surface data continue to show a small direct CO2 term. The large multiplier remains model-dependent.
"All the radiation fluxes are consistent with known physics." - Jim D
Apples to oranges comparison. I could say the same thing about math. A mathematical expression can have no relation yet seems to solve in the same way.
The mathematical form is exact. Yet none of these systems has any physical relation to atmospheric water-vapor or cloud feedbacks.
Case in point. Let's use the same climate feedback expression to solve for four totally different systems.
Just because it math or physics can be used, doesn't mean you have something that applies in nature.
Yes, as I said before, the discussion was around the paper he quoted, one that I am not in complete agreement with; however, unlike Jim, I understand what the paper says vs what he thinks it says.
The 3 Ā°C figure remains a model-dependent construct whose feedback assumptions have not been independently verified by the surface downwelling measurements.
"surface CO2 signal is not relevant to the climate forcing" - Jim D
No Jim, surface and TOA must be consistent but in reality aren't.
The surface data show a small direct CO2 term and larger concurrent changes in temperature and water vapor.
It doesn't demonstrate that the system remains out of balance until large positive feedbacks have multiplied the original forcing.
That multiplication remains an assumption of the models used to define and attribute the TOA forcing, not a result required by the surface observations.
"You think that the feedbacks can't be as large as observed." - Jim D.
The claim is not that feedbacks are impossible. It is that there is no clear observational isolation of large amplifying feedbacks acting specifically on the small measured CO2 surface signal.
"You have already said H2O is a major contributor so this should not be such a surprise."
I merely explained what the paper actually said to dispel your misunderstanding of the paper itself.
The Planck response (~0.3 K per W mā»Ā²) is the basic radiative restoring to a perturbation. The further multiplication to ~0.75 K per W mā»Ā² comes from model-estimated feedbacks (water vapor, lapse rate, clouds, surface albedo).
Those feedback strengths are not independently measured at the surface by the downwelling longwave data.
There isn't a single thing about the theory that doesn't depend on flawed biases in models.
"If this is the first time you have heard how feedbacks"
Clausius-Clapeyron relates saturation vapor pressure to temperature. It does not, by itself, establish that the small observed clear-sky CO2 surface forcing (~0.2 W mā»Ā² per decade) is being amplified by a factor of two or three into a large climate sensitivity.
"It warms and the water vapor responds"
What warms? Where is the evidence for any of this nonsense you believe?
"You have a disbelief in amplifying feedbacks."
The issue is not a disbelief in feedbacks in principle. It is the absence of direct observational proof that the small measured clear-sky CO2 surface signal (~0.2 W mā»Ā² per decade from a 22 ppm rise) is being strongly amplified by temperature and water-vapor responses into a dominant energy imbalance.
Any system with large heat capacity (especially the ocean) and strong radiative restoring (the Planck response) resists rapid change.
Any net amplification still has to appear as a measurable energy surplus in the budget; it cannot be created from nothing. It also has to be observed measurement, not imaginary models.
Were have we isolated any large positive feedback multiplier acting on that small CO2 term. The amplification remains a model-dependent inference, not a measured surface result.
"10% because the warming and H2O responses amplify it." - Jim D.
That's a silly unsubstantiated belief based on circular reasoning.
The 10 % figure is the direct clear-sky CO2 contribution to the surface downwelling trend (Feldman et al. 2015; broader analyses such as Clark et al. 2021).
Treating the remaining ~90 % (temperature + water-vapor changes) as pure āamplificationā of that small CO2 term assumes that essentially all of the observed warming was caused by the CO2 forcing in the first place.
Utterly ridiculous circular reasoning.
Warmer air and higher water-vapor content increase downwelling longwave whether the temperature rise was driven by CO2, solar variability, ocean heat redistribution, land-use changes, or any combination of factors.
The surface measurements do not isolate how much of the temperature/HāO increase is a feedback specifically to the ~0.2 W mā»Ā² per decade CO2 signal versus other drivers.
Near the surface the 15 Ī¼m band is already heavily saturated, so additional CO2 adds little extra downwelling from the lowest layers even after temperature and humidity adjust.
Let me repeat that.
Near the surface the 15 Ī¼m band is already heavily saturated, so additional CO2 adds little extra downwelling from the lowest layers even after temperature and humidity adjust.
The observed surface signal remains small relative to the total flux and relative to the temperature/water-vapor terms.
Attributing the bulk of the downwelling increase as an amplifier of the direct CO2 effect therefore requires assuming the very causal dominance that the surface data do not demonstrate.
No, Jim D.
Please listen to the explanation I made once more.
xitter.gq/ScienceBlog3/status/21ā¦
"Radiative transfer models predict that, including Feldman's results." - Jim D
No, that's not what the paper actually showed.
The spectroscopic fact that CO2 absorbs and emits in the 15 Ī¼m band is not in dispute.
The question is the magnitude of the incremental surface downwelling longwave from the recent rise in CO2 under real atmospheric conditions, and whether that signal is large enough to be the dominant driver of the energy balance.
Feldman et al. (2015) merely isolated the clear-sky CO2 contribution at two well-instrumented sites and found roughly 0.2 W mā»Ā² per decade from a 22 ppm increase is about 10 % of the concurrent trend in total downwelling longwave.
But this is merely guesswork and is a small number against a clear-sky background flux of typically 200ā350 W mā»Ā².
Near the surface the 15 Ī¼m band is already heavily saturated; most of the additional optical depth appears higher in the column, and the surface sees only a modest increment. Not the modeled increase you claim.
The larger observed rises in downwelling longwave are accounted for mainly by higher air temperatures and more water vapor (roughly 90 % of clear-sky trends in broader analyses), not by the direct CO2 term.
Meaning, we have no link between warming and CO2, just assumptions, and more modeled assumptions, but no real observational evidence to go on.
So, the existence of a CO2 spectral signature does not, by itself, establish that the recent energy imbalance is dominated by anthropogenic CO2 radiative forcing.
It's silly to even suggest that there is a relationship, but here we are, the believers have a new climate religion, where belief is stronger than evidence.
The size of the measured surface signal is consistent with a small direct effect, not with the claim that āalmost all the IR from clear skiesā or the bulk of the recent increase is attributable to rising CO2.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that CO2 increases water vapor. It's just a belief Jim.
Anthropogenic CO2 is yet another 'god of the gaps' explanation with models written by the hands of man to predict the small-minded religious conclusion from man's biases and nothing more.
Science Blog retweeted
"Radiative transfer models predict that, including Feldman's results." - Jim D
No, that's not what the paper actually showed.
The spectroscopic fact that CO2 absorbs and emits in the 15 Ī¼m band is not in dispute.
The question is the magnitude of the incremental surface downwelling longwave from the recent rise in CO2 under real atmospheric conditions, and whether that signal is large enough to be the dominant driver of the energy balance.
Feldman et al. (2015) merely isolated the clear-sky CO2 contribution at two well-instrumented sites and found roughly 0.2 W mā»Ā² per decade from a 22 ppm increase is about 10 % of the concurrent trend in total downwelling longwave.
But this is merely guesswork and is a small number against a clear-sky background flux of typically 200ā350 W mā»Ā².
Near the surface the 15 Ī¼m band is already heavily saturated; most of the additional optical depth appears higher in the column, and the surface sees only a modest increment. Not the modeled increase you claim.
The larger observed rises in downwelling longwave are accounted for mainly by higher air temperatures and more water vapor (roughly 90 % of clear-sky trends in broader analyses), not by the direct CO2 term.
Meaning, we have no link between warming and CO2, just assumptions, and more modeled assumptions, but no real observational evidence to go on.
So, the existence of a CO2 spectral signature does not, by itself, establish that the recent energy imbalance is dominated by anthropogenic CO2 radiative forcing.
It's silly to even suggest that there is a relationship, but here we are, the believers have a new climate religion, where belief is stronger than evidence.
The size of the measured surface signal is consistent with a small direct effect, not with the claim that āalmost all the IR from clear skiesā or the bulk of the recent increase is attributable to rising CO2.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that CO2 increases water vapor. It's just a belief Jim.
Anthropogenic CO2 is yet another 'god of the gaps' explanation with models written by the hands of man to predict the small-minded religious conclusion from man's biases and nothing more.
"Radiative transfer models predict that, including Feldman's results." - Jim D
No, that's not what the paper actually showed.
The spectroscopic fact that CO2 absorbs and emits in the 15 Ī¼m band is not in dispute.
The question is the magnitude of the incremental surface downwelling longwave from the recent rise in CO2 under real atmospheric conditions, and whether that signal is large enough to be the dominant driver of the energy balance.
Feldman et al. (2015) merely isolated the clear-sky CO2 contribution at two well-instrumented sites and found roughly 0.2 W mā»Ā² per decade from a 22 ppm increase is about 10 % of the concurrent trend in total downwelling longwave.
But this is merely guesswork and is a small number against a clear-sky background flux of typically 200ā350 W mā»Ā².
Near the surface the 15 Ī¼m band is already heavily saturated; most of the additional optical depth appears higher in the column, and the surface sees only a modest increment. Not the modeled increase you claim.
The larger observed rises in downwelling longwave are accounted for mainly by higher air temperatures and more water vapor (roughly 90 % of clear-sky trends in broader analyses), not by the direct CO2 term.
Meaning, we have no link between warming and CO2, just assumptions, and more modeled assumptions, but no real observational evidence to go on.
So, the existence of a CO2 spectral signature does not, by itself, establish that the recent energy imbalance is dominated by anthropogenic CO2 radiative forcing.
It's silly to even suggest that there is a relationship, but here we are, the believers have a new climate religion, where belief is stronger than evidence.
The size of the measured surface signal is consistent with a small direct effect, not with the claim that āalmost all the IR from clear skiesā or the bulk of the recent increase is attributable to rising CO2.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that CO2 increases water vapor. It's just a belief Jim.
Anthropogenic CO2 is yet another 'god of the gaps' explanation with models written by the hands of man to predict the small-minded religious conclusion from man's biases and nothing more.
You just claimed it was anthropogenic, I provided the fact that it's water vapor, not CO2. Meaning, increasing CO2 by a fraction of a fraction has almost no effect on temperature, and doesn't slow down cooling in any way.
"Are you denying that the increasing CO2 leads to more downward IR?"
The spectroscopic fact that CO2 absorbs and emits in the 15 Ī¼m band is not in dispute.
The question is the magnitude of the incremental surface downwelling longwave from the recent rise in CO2 under real atmospheric conditions, and whether that signal is large enough to be the dominant driver of the energy balance.
Of which, we currently only have your word. If you have actual proof, please publish a paper because we all need a good laugh.
"Are you seriously asking for proof that reduced heat dissipation leads to higher temperature?"
No, he wants you to provide proof that you have measured and observed it. Which we all know you can't do.
Several quotes you might want to take to heart when interacting with a scientist.
āIt is impossible for a man to learn what he thinks he already knows.ā - Epictetus
āThe greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge.ā - Daniel J. Boorstin
āIgnorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.ā - Charles Darwin
āThe trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.ā - Bertrand Russell
āIt aināt what you donāt know that gets you into trouble. Itās what you know for sure that just aināt so.ā - often attributed to Mark Twain