From: https://history.aip.org/


Quote:

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future.

We will go through this chapter bit by bit, then the next etc.

The work by the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries scientists was to explain Ice Ages (and whether there were ice ages:)


Quote:

Like many Victorian natural philosophers, John Tyndall was fascinated by a great variety of questions. While he was preparing an important treatise on "Heat as a Mode of Motion" he took time to consider geology. Tyndall had hands-on knowledge of the subject, for he was an ardent Alpinist (in 1861 he made the first ascent of the Weisshorn). Familiar with glaciers, he had been convinced by the evidence — hotly debated among scientists of his day — that tens of thousands of years ago, colossal layers of ice had covered all of northern Europe. How could climate possibly change so radically?

(It was the work of a Serbian astronomer that explained how ice ages formed.


Quote:

Milutin Milanković (Serbian Cyrillic: Милутин Миланковић [milǔtin milǎːnkɔʋitɕ, sometimes anglicised as Milankovitch; 28 May 1879 – 12 December 1958) was a Serbian mathematician, astronomer, climatologist, geophysicist, civil engineer and popularizer of science. Milanković gave two fundamental contributions to global science. The first contribution is the "Canon of the Earth’s Insolation", which characterizes the climates of all the planets of the Solar system. The second contribution is the explanation of Earth's long-term climate changes caused by changes in the position of the Earth in comparison to the Sun, now known as Milankovitch cycles. This explained the ice ages occurring in the geological past of the Earth, as well as the climate changes on the Earth which can be expected in the future.

)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milutin_Milankovi%C4%87

Quote:

One possible answer was a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere. Beginning with work by Joseph Fourier in the 1820s, scientists had understood that gases in the atmosphere might trap the heat received from the Sun. As Fourier put it, energy in the form of visible light from the Sun easily penetrates the atmosphere to reach the surface and heat it up, but heat cannot so easily escape back into space. For the air absorbs invisible heat rays (“infrared radiation”) rising from the surface. The warmed air radiates some of the energy back down to the surface, helping it stay warm. This was the effect that would later be called, by an inaccurate analogy, the "greenhouse effect." The equations and data available to 19th-century scientists were far too poor to allow an accurate calculation. Yet the physics was straightforward enough to show that a bare, airless rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun should be far colder than the Earth actually is.

There is a (misnamed) Greenhouse Effect and because of that life is possible on Earth. This is known and inarguable—just look how cold the Moon is when the sun isn’t shining on it.

I believe that science will save us from the green house effect, But what it wont fix is the deforestation  of virgin Amazonian rainforest  because of mining and the need for more agricultural land, You can produce meat like products from plants but If people don't want to eat it , they will continue to clear more land to graze beef , These forests are the earths lungs they also put a lot of water into the atmosphere that creates precipitation that benefits areas well outside its boundaries

We are deforesting madly here too (Aust, not casting aspersions at NZ.)

Science can only fix it by improving carbon emission free energy and transportation which will reduce emissions but not remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Reafforestation is the only way. This includes cleaning up the ocean so marine plants can prosper again (and critters with it.)

YOU can do something: pressure your local council to plant more trees and plant some trees yourself. Even on a small block, if you have a fence that gets sun most of the day then with a few posts and 1, 2 or 3 wires you can grow grapes, apples, pears or quinces along that fence. Have a spot with nothing much in it? Dig a hole and plant 4 trees in it, 4 peach trees chosen to give a nice long harvest period. 45cm spacing*, prune the trees so the middle is empty allowing air and sun to reach the trees. Root competition keeps the trees small so not much space is taken up but the four trees give enough fruit to make it worthwhile. Or cherries where they grow, etc.

Apricot trees grow like topsy and cutting it back just increases the rate of growth. Need a BIG spot and a chainsaw to grow an apricot tree! Apple and pear trees can grow huge too, hence my suggestion to espalier them against a fence.

Supermarkets sell bland apples, golden (cotton wool) “Delicious” and gala, fuji etc. Pfffft!

King David, an offspring of Jonathon and Winesap, spicy-tart! Be great juice!

Mcintosh, the most popular apple in the US.

Cornish Aromatic with real flavor and crunch.

Cox Orange Pippin, texture, flavor, aroma in the best eating apple!


Etc Etc. Have a look here:
https://www.heritagefruittrees.com.au/

and here:
https://www.woodbridgefruittrees.com.au/

There is a great resource for info on fruit, an English company operating in England and the US.
www.orangepippin.co.uk
www.orangepippin.com

Not all fruits on the orange pippin list is avaible here, mind, but any apple or cherry variety you come across here will be listed.

The so-called fresh food people don’t stock Janathan. Why not? It does not store well! Grow it yourself and do the planet a favor at the same time.



* I will confirm the spacing of the four-trees-in-one-hole.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 10:56am:

We are deforesting madly here too (Aust, not casting aspersions at NZ.) Science can only fix it by improving carbon emission free energy and transportation which will reduce emissions but not remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Reafforestation is the only way. This includes cleaning up the ocean so marine plants can prosper again (and critters with it.) YOU can do something: pressure your local council to plant more trees and plant some trees yourself. Even on a small block, if you have a fence that gets sun most of the day then with a few posts and 1, 2 or 3 wires you can grow grapes, apples, pears or quinces along that fence. Have a spot with nothing much in it? Dig a hole and plant 4 trees in it, 4 peach trees chosen to give a nice long harvest period. 45cm spacing*, prune the trees so the middle is empty allowing air and sun to reach the trees. Root competition keeps the trees small so not much space is taken up but the four trees give enough fruit to make it worthwhile. Or cherries where they grow, etc. Apricot trees grow like topsy and cutting it back just increases the rate of growth. Need a BIG spot and a chainsaw to grow an apricot tree! Apple and pear trees can grow huge too, hence my suggestion to espalier them against a fence. Supermarkets sell bland apples, golden (cotton wool) “Delicious” and gala, fuji etc. Pfffft! King David, an offspring of Jonathon and Winesap, spicy-tart! Be great juice! Mcintosh, the most popular apple in the US. Cornish Aromatic with real flavor and crunch. Cox Orange Pippin, texture, flavor, aroma in the best eating apple! Etc Etc. Have a look here: https://www.heritagefruittrees.com.au/ and here: https://www.woodbridgefruittrees.com.au/ There is a great resource for info on fruit, an English company operating in England and the US. www.orangepippin.co.uk www.orangepippin.com Not all fruits on the orange pippin list is avaible here, mind, but any apple or cherry variety you come across here will be listed. The so-called fresh food people don’t stock Janathan. Why not? It does not store well! Grow it yourself and do the planet a favor at the same time. * I will confirm the spacing of the four-trees-in-one-hole.

Being a small country governed by a single entity, " no federal regimes "  Most of our native forests are protected, Selective sustainable logging is allowed in certain areas for high value trees , and if you purchase a property you are allowed to clear enough for your home and a area around it ,

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 10:56am:

We are deforesting madly here too (Aust, not casting aspersions at NZ.) Science can only fix it by improving carbon emission free energy and transportation which will reduce emissions but not remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Reafforestation is the only way. This includes cleaning up the ocean so marine plants can prosper again (and critters with it.) YOU can do something: pressure your local council to plant more trees and plant some trees yourself. Even on a small block, if you have a fence that gets sun most of the day then with a few posts and 1, 2 or 3 wires you can grow grapes, apples, pears or quinces along that fence. Have a spot with nothing much in it? Dig a hole and plant 4 trees in it, 4 peach trees chosen to give a nice long harvest period. 45cm spacing*, prune the trees so the middle is empty allowing air and sun to reach the trees. Root competition keeps the trees small so not much space is taken up but the four trees give enough fruit to make it worthwhile. Or cherries where they grow, etc. Apricot trees grow like topsy and cutting it back just increases the rate of growth. Need a BIG spot and a chainsaw to grow an apricot tree! Apple and pear trees can grow huge too, hence my suggestion to espalier them against a fence. Supermarkets sell bland apples, golden (cotton wool) “Delicious” and gala, fuji etc. Pfffft! King David, an offspring of Jonathon and Winesap, spicy-tart! Be great juice! Mcintosh, the most popular apple in the US. Cornish Aromatic with real flavor and crunch. Cox Orange Pippin, texture, flavor, aroma in the best eating apple! Etc Etc. Have a look here: https://www.heritagefruittrees.com.au/ and here: https://www.woodbridgefruittrees.com.au/ There is a great resource for info on fruit, an English company operating in England and the US. www.orangepippin.co.uk www.orangepippin.com Not all fruits on the orange pippin list is avaible here, mind, but any apple or cherry variety you come across here will be listed. The so-called fresh food people don’t stock Janathan. Why not? It does not store well! Grow it yourself and do the planet a favor at the same time. * I will confirm the spacing of the four-trees-in-one-hole.

""Apple and pear trees can grow huge too, hence my suggestion to espalier them against a fence.""



Im on 14 acres close to Auckland city If i get onto my roof I can see the city center, I have a orchard with some pears in it and without pruning they become very large trees

14 acres, nice!

I want 1400m2, 14 acres a bit too much for me!

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 10:56am:

We are deforesting madly here too (Aust, not casting aspersions at NZ.)

So how many millions of hectares of forest are we down to? ;)

125? 140?

Quote:

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective were carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand, and the even rarer methane (CH4). Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so a trace of CO2 or CH4 could strongly affect the transmission of heat radiation through the atmospheree.

Next—some simple models of the atmosphere.

https://history.aip.org/climate/simple.htm#L_0141



Quote:

What determines the climate? Explanations proliferated — models for climate built out of little more than basic physics, a few equations aided by hand-waving. All began with a traditional picture of a stable system, self-regulated by natural feedbacks. A few nineteenth-century scientists suggested that a change in the level of carbon dioxide gas might cause an ice age or global warming, but most scientists thought the gas could not possibly have such effects. Yet climate did change, as proven by past ice ages. Some pointed out that feedbacks did not necessarily bring stability: in particular, changes in snow cover might amplify rather than dampen a climate shift.

Quote:

"Meteorology is a branch of physics," a weather expert remarked in 1939, "and physics makes use of two powerful tools: experiment and mathematics. The first of these tools is denied to the meteorologist and the second does not prove of much use to him in climatological problems." So many interrelated factors affected climate, he explained, that you couldn't write it all down mathematically without making so many simplifying assumptions that the result would never match reality. It wasn't even possible to calculate from first principles the average temperature of a place, let alone how the temperature might change in future years. And "without numerical values our deductions are only opinions." That didn't stop people from putting forth explanations of climate change. A scientist would come up with an idea about how certain factors worked and explain it all in a page or two, helped along by some waving of hands. Some scientists went on to build a few equations and calculate a few numbers. At best they could show only that the factors they invoked could have effects of roughly the right magnitude. There was no way to prove that some other explanation, perhaps not yet thought of, would not work better. These mostly qualitative "theories" (in fact, merely plausible stories) were all anyone had to offer until digital computers came into their own, late in the 20th century. Until then, the climate community had good reason to keep theory at arms' length. Even those who tried to think in general physical terms hesitated to call themselves "theorists," an almost pejorative term in meteorology.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 1:27pm:

There was no way to prove that some other explanation, perhaps not yet thought of, would not work better. These mostly qualitative "theories" (in fact, merely plausible stories) were all anyone had to offer until digital computers came into their own, late in the 20th century.

And yet they still parameterise the models. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, the Zeller/Nikolov model used SIX parameters  ;)

Quote:

The science did have a foundation, at least potentially, in simple ideas based on undeniable physical principles. The structures that scientists tried to build on these principles were often called "models" rather than "theories." Sometimes that was just an attempt to hide uncertainty (a paleontologist complained that "'model'... is just a word for people who cannot spell 'hypothesis'").(3) But calling a structure of ideas a "model" did emphasize the scientist's desire to deal with a simplified system that one could almost physically construct on a workbench — something that embodied a hands-on feeling for processes.

So we will have a look at an actual model soon.

We won’t look at the details of the Manabe-Wetherald model they developed in 1968 when finally computers were powerful enough to run such models. I hope to cover the essentials of it tho.

Remember that scientific studies for the US Air Force and Navy had found that the surface emitted IR, enough IR that heat seeking missiles did not find their targets, bombs did not drop on the target. So by the end of the 1950s there was no longer any doubt that the mechanism of AGW existed. And Tyndall had found that water vapor, CO2 and CH4 were opaque to IR. This was in  1859.

Quote:

The main business of climatologists until the mid-20th century was the simple drudgery of compiling statistics. Knowledge of average and extreme temperatures and rainfall and the like was important to farmers, civil engineers, and others in their practical affairs — never mind guessing at explanations. But people could not resist trying to explain the numbers. A textbook would start off with the main factor, the way sunlight and thus warmth varies with latitude (perhaps with some calculations and charts). There would follow sections on the prevailing winds that brought rain, and how mountain ranges and ocean currents could affect the winds, and so forth. It was all soundly based on elementary physics. It was a dry exercise, however, not so much a theory of climate as a static regional description

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 1:53pm:

Yes, the Zeller/Nikolov model used SIX parameters

And how many for the new CMIP6? Most CMIP5's use more. ;)




Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 2:05pm:

It was all soundly based on elementary physics

And yet they still don't do clouds, amongst others, well.

You are fixated on clouds, aren’t you? I think you will find understanding of clouds has increased markedly. Poor desperate lee.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 2:29pm:

ou are fixated on clouds, aren’t you? I think you will find understanding of clouds has increased markedly.

Is that why they are still thought to be net positive? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Yes, they are net positive. Very good lee, next we can get onto 2 + 2 = ?

Quote:

The simplest and most widely accepted model of climate change was self-regulation, which meant that changes were only temporary excursions from some natural equilibrium. Through the first half of the 20th century, textbooks of climatology treated climate in a basically static fashion. The word "climate" itself was defined as the long-term average weather conditions, the stable point around which annual temperature and rainfall fluctuated.(5*) After all, in their records of reliable observations the meteorologists found only minor fluctuations from decade to decade. These records went back less than a century, but they supposed that one century was much like the next (aside from changes that took place over many thousands of years, like the ice ages, which were themselves seen as excursions from the very long-term average). Climatologists expanded this idea into a "doctrine," as one critic called it, "that the present causes of climatic instability are not competent to produce anything more than temporary variations, which disappear within a few years."(6) A leading climatologist put it straightforwardly in 1946: "We can safely accept the past performance as an adequate guide for the future."(7)       <=>Climatologists =>Solar variation

Quote:

The approach expressed a generally sound intuition about the nature of climate as a process governed by a complex set of interactions, all feeding back on one another. But romantic views that stability was guaranteed by the supra human, benevolent power of Nature gave a false confidence that every feature of our environment would stay within limits suitable for human civilization.

Feedback—an essential process and concept especially in meteorology and climatology and biological and physical scienc of course..

Feedback therefor is essential any understanding of climate, essential to any climate model devised.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 2:40pm:

Yes, they are net positive

Citation needed. ;)



Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 2:41pm:

The simplest and most widely accepted model of climate change was self-regulation, which meant that changes were only temporary excursions from some natural equilibrium.

So when has the earth ever been in equilibrium?


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 2:41pm:

These records went back less than a century, but they supposed that one century was much like the next (aside from changes that took place over many thousands of years, like the ice ages, which were themselves seen as excursions from the very long-term average).

And yet that has not been shown to be true.

Those questions, lee the desperate, are from the very early days you see, it is not what scientists think now. Get that?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 11:51am:

14 acres, nice! I want 1400m2, 14 acres a bit too much for me!

I didn't particularly want that much land but when you are looking for a property in a certain area you have to take what's available ,

Very true.

If I get much more than I want I will plant it with native trees and bird and butterfly attracting trees, keep the  1500sqm for “orchard”, “vineyard” and house and garden.

Hardest part is finding a big block in an area where it doesn’t rain so bloody much!

Rain in Tassie is mainly spread fairly evenly through the year—no hot dry summers to ripen fruit. Can install polytunnels but still have humidity causing fungal infections.

Quote:

Elementary Physics (19th century)            "As a dam built across a river causes a local deepening of the stream, so our atmosphere, thrown as a barrier across the terrestrial rays, produces a local heightening of the temperature at the Earth's surface." Thus in 1862 John Tyndall described the key to climate change. He had discovered in his laboratory that certain gases, including water vapor and carbon dioxide ( CO2), are opaque to heat rays. He understood that such gases high in the air help keep our planet warm by interfering with escaping radiation.(9)       This kind of intuitive physical reasoning had already appeared in the earliest speculations on how atmospheric composition could affect climate. It was in the 1820s that a French scientist, Joseph Fourier, first realized that the Earth's atmosphere retains heat radiation. He had asked himself a deceptively simple question: what determines the average temperature of a planet? Sunlight bathes the planet and warms it up while outgoing heat rays, now called infrared radiation, cool it down. In balance, what would be the temperature of a bare rock at the Earth's distance from the Sun? Fourier decided it must be very cold. That was a leap of intuition, for the physics known in his time lacked the tools to make a calculation. Yet he was right to believe that something keeps our planet warmer than a bare rock, and he realized that the something is our atmosphere.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 3:27pm:

Those questions, lee the desperate, are from the very early days you see, it is not what scientists think now. Get that?

You do understand the difference between thinking and proving? But the real reason you say that is because you can't refute.

Even your go to site SKS says -

"Although the cloud feedback is one of the largest remaining uncertainties in climate science, evidence is building that the net cloud feedback is likely positive, and unlikely to be strongly negative."

No refutation there. And notice the strange thought process involved. In one "likely positive" - In the other "unlikely strongly negative."  They can't even think of clouds as likely negative even a small bit. ;)

Earth Ice age; interglacial; Ice age; interglacial - definitely not in equilibrium. ;)

These questions, desperate lee, were asked very early in the piece.

Maybe this will help you understand?


Quote:

How does the Earth’s blanket of air impede the outgoing heat radiation? Fourier tried to explain his insight by comparing the Earth, with its covering of air, to a box with a glass cover. That was a well-known experiment — the box's interior warms up when sunlight enters while the heat cannot escape.(10) This was an over simple explanation, for it is quite different physics that keeps heat inside an actual glass box, or similarly in a greenhouse. (As Fourier knew, the main effect of the glass is to keep the air, heated by contact with sun-warmed surfaces, from wafting away. The glass does also keep heat radiation from escaping, but that's less important.) Nevertheless, people took up his analogy and trapping of heat by the atmosphere eventually came to be called "the greenhouse effect."(11*)       Fourier =>Other gases Not until the mid-20th century would scientists fully grasp, and calculate with some precision, just how the effect works. A rough explanation goes like this. Visible sunlight penetrates easily through the air and warms the Earth’s surface. When the surface emits invisible infrared heat radiation, this radiation too easily penetrates the main gases of the air. But as Tyndall found, even a trace of CO2 or water vapor, no more than it took to fill a bottle in his laboratory, is almost opaque to heat radiation. Thus a good part of the radiation that rises from the surface is absorbed by these gases in the middle levels of the atmosphere. Its energy transfers into the air itself rather than escaping directly into space. Not only is the air thus warmed, but also some of the energy trapped there is radiated back to the surface, warming it further.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 4:47pm:

These questions, desperate lee, were asked very early in the piece.

And you still can't answer. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I am going through some of this website, desperate lee: https://history.aip.org/

It covers the history, desperate lee, of the development of climate science and understanding of AGW.

Quote:

Fourier, Tyndall and most other scientists for nearly a century. . . .tended to think of the atmosphere overhead as a unit, as if it were a single sheet of glass. (Thus the "greenhouse" analogy.) But this is not how global warming actually works, if you look at the process in detail.       What happens to infrared radiation emitted by the Earth's surface? As it moves up layer by layer through the atmosphere, some is stopped in each layer. (To be specific: a molecule of carbon dioxide, water vapor or some other greenhouse gas absorbs a bit of energy from the radiation. The molecule may radiate the energy back out again in a random direction. Or it may transfer the energy into velocity in collisions with other air molecules, so that the layer of air where it sits gets warmer.) The layer of air radiates some of the energy it has absorbed back toward the ground, and some upwards to higher layers. As you go higher, the atmosphere gets thinner and colder. Eventually the energy reaches a layer so thin that radiation can escape into space.       What happens if we add more carbon dioxide? In the layers so high and thin that much of the heat radiation from lower down slips through, adding more greenhouse gas means the layer will absorb more of the rays. So the place from which part of the heat energy finally leaves the Earth will shift to higher layers. Those are thinner and colder layers, so they do not radiate heat as well.(11a*) The planet as a whole is now taking in more energy than it radiates (which is in fact our current situation). As the upper levels radiate some of the excess downwards, all the lower levels down to the surface warm up. The imbalance must continue until the upper levels get warmer and radiate out more energy. As in Tyndall's analogy of a dam on a river, the barrier thrown across the outgoing radiation forces the level of temperature everywhere beneath it to rise until there is enough radiation pushing out to balance what the Sun sends in.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 4:51pm:

I am going through some of this website, desperate lee: https://history.aip.org/ It covers the history, desperate lee, of the development of climate science and understanding of AGW.

No it is about the belief in AGW.

You can't refute petal. You have no credibility.

Even SKS you favoiurite source says it is likely rhat the net effects of clouds is positive. That is not something that has proven to be true. You just close your eyes, fingers in the ears and listen to your own little perturbations.

" The balance between the cooling and warming actions of clouds is very close although, overall, averaging the effects of all the clouds around the globe, cooling predominates."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Clouds

Ooops.

Just going through the site which covers the history of the development of AGW science.

Quote:

Arrhenius: Carbon Dioxide as Control Knob       These elementary ideas were developed much further by the Swedish physical chemist Svante Arrhenius, in his pioneering 1896 study of how changes in the amount of CO2 may affect climate. Following the same line of reasoning as Tyndall, Arrhenius pointed out that an increase in the blocking of heat radiation would make for a smaller temperature difference between summer and winter and between the tropics and the poles.       Arrhenius's model used an "energy budget," getting temperatures by adding up how much solar energy was received, absorbed, and reflected. This resembled what his predecessors had done with less precise physics.But Arrhenius's equations went well beyond that by taking into account another physical concept, elementary but subtle, and essential for modeling real climate change. This was what one turn-of-the-century textbook called "the mutual reaction of the physical conditions" — today we would call it "feedback."(15)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 5:37pm:

Just going through the site which covers the history of the development of AGW science.

Yeah and how much it hasn't developed. 50 years of climate models and CMIP6 projections are hotter than CMIP5 models. No improvement in ECS in 40 years. And billions in funding. ;)

Nice!


Quote:

An early example had been worked out by James Croll, a self-taught British scientist who had worked as a janitor and clerk in institutions where he could be near the books he needed to develop his theory of the ice ages. Croll noted how the ice sheets themselves would influence climate. When snow and ice had covered a region, they would reflect most of the sunlight back into space. Sunlight would warm bare, dark soil and trees, but a snowy region would tend to remain cool. If India were somehow covered with ice (or anything white), its summers would be colder than England's. Croll further argued that when a region became cooler, the pattern of winds would change, which would in turn change ocean currents, perhaps removing more heat from the region. Once something started an ice age, the pattern could become self-sustaining.

Quite an insight!

Quote:

Arrhenius: Carbon Dioxide as Control Knob TOP OF PAGE       These elementary ideas were developed much further by the Swedish physical chemist Svante Arrhenius, in his pioneering 1896 study of how changes in the amount of CO2 may affect climate. Following the same line of reasoning as Tyndall, Arrhenius pointed out that an increase in the blocking of heat radiation would make for a smaller temperature difference between summer and winter and between the tropics and the poles.       Link from below Arrhenius's model used an "energy budget," getting temperatures by adding up how much solar energy was received, absorbed, and reflected. This resembled what his predecessors had done with less precise physics.But Arrhenius's equations went well beyond that by taking into account another physical concept, elementary but subtle, and essential for modeling real climate change. This was what one turn-of-the-century textbook called "the mutual reaction of the physical conditions" — today we would call it "feedback."(15)       An early example had been worked out by James Croll, a self-taught British scientist who had worked as a janitor and clerk in institutions where he could be near the books he needed to develop his theory of the ice ages. Croll noted how the ice sheets themselves would influence climate. When snow and ice had covered a region, they would reflect most of the sunlight back into space. Sunlight would warm bare, dark soil and trees, but a snowy region would tend to remain cool. If India were somehow covered with ice (or anything white), its summers would be colder than England's. Croll further argued that when a region became cooler, the pattern of winds would change, which would in turn change ocean currents, perhaps removing more heat from the region. Once something started an ice age, the pattern could become self-sustaining.       Arrenius stripped this down to the simple idea that a drop of temperature in an Arctic region could mean that some of the ground that had been bare in summer would become covered with snow year-round. With less of the dark tundra exposed, the region would have a higher "albedo" (reflectivity), that is, the ground would reflect more sunlight away from the Earth. That would lower the temperature still more, leaving more snow on the ground, which would reflect more sunlight, and so on. This kind of amplifying cycle would today be called "positive feedback" (in contrast to "negative feedback," a reaction that acts to hold back a change). Such a cycle, Arrhenius suggested, could turn minor cooling into an ice age. These processes were far beyond his power to calculate, however, and it would be a big enough job to find the immediate effect of a change in CO2.       Arrhenius showed his physical insight at its best when he realized that he could not set aside another simple feedback, one that would immediately and crucially exaggerate the influence of any change. Warmer air would hold more moisture. Since water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, the increase of water vapor in the atmosphere would augment the temperature rise. Arrhenius therefore built into his model an assumption that the amount of water vapor contained in the air would rise or fall with temperature. He supposed this would happen in such a way that relative humidity would remain constant. That oversimplified the actual changes in water vapor, but made it possible for Arrhenius to roughly incorporate the feedback into his calculations. The basic idea was sound. The consequences of adding CO2 and warming the planet a bit would indeed be amplified because warmer air held more water vapor. In a sense, raising or lowering CO2 acted mainly as a throttle to raise or lower the really important greenhouse gas, H2O.       Then why pay attention at all to CO2, when water was far more abundant? Although Arrhenius understood the answer intuitively, it would take a century for it to be explained in thoroughly straightforward language and confirmed as a central feature of even the most elaborate computer models. The answer, in brief, is that the Earth is a wet planet. Water cycles in and out of the air, oceans, and soils in a matter of days, exquisitely sensitive to fluctuations in temperature. By contrast CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for centuries. So the gas acts as a "control knob" that sets the level of water vapor. If all the CO2 were somehow removed, the temperature at first would fall only a little. But then less water would evaporate into the air, and some would fall as rain. With less water vapor, the air would cool further, bringing more rain... and then snow. Within weeks, the air would be entirely dry and the Earth would settle into the frozen state that Fourier and Tyndall had pictured for a planet with no greenhouse gases.(16a

That must be why Arrhenius amended his view in 1906.

"Much discussion took place over the following years between colleagues, with one of the main points being the similar effect of water vapour in the atmosphere which was part of the total fig-ure. Some rejected any effect of CO2 at all. There was no effective way to determine this split precisely, but in 1906 Arrhenius amended his view of how increased carbon dioxide would af-fect climate.  He thought the effect would be much less in terms of warming, and whatever warming ensued would be beneficial. He published a paper in German. It was never translated at the time or widely distributed, though many European scientists knew of it and read it."

I wonder why true believers never mention that? ;)

Don’t they? I mention it. The extract I posted mentioned it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 9:21pm:

Don’t they? I mention it. The extract I posted mentioned it.

No it doesn't petal. Why do you lie? ;)

"CO2 lasts for centuries" ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It mentions water vapor, poor desperate lee.


Quote:

But climate is not a simple physical system. A true calculation of greenhouse effect warming requires measurements far more accurate and far more complete than Langley's. The details of exactly what bands of radiation are absorbed by CO2 and water molecules might have happened to be arranged so as to produce a markedly higher or lower amount of warming. As for theory, Arrhenius's model planet was mostly static. He deliberately left aside factors he could not calculate, such as the way cloudiness might change over the real Earth when the temperature rose. He left aside the huge quantities of heat carried from the tropics to the poles by atmospheric movements and ocean currents, which also might well change when the climate changed. Most important, he left aside the way updrafts would carry heat from a warmer surface into the upper atmosphere. In 1963, when a scientist made a calculation roughly similar to Arrhenius's, but with the aid of improved data on the absorption of radiation and an electronic computer, he found a far greater greenhouse warming — indeed impossibly greater. The assumptions left out too much that was necessary to get a valid answer.(19*) Yet Arrhenius understood that he had not overlooked any terribly potent effect. Calculations aside, since the atmosphere keeps the surface of the Earth warm — in fact, roughly 40°C warmer than a bare rock at the same distance from the Sun — a few degrees sounded like about the right effect for a change in the atmosphere that modestly altered the balance of radiation. Arrhenius also knew that in past geological ages the Earth’s climate had in fact undergone changes of a few degrees up or down, not many tens of degrees nor mere tenths of a degree. While neither Arrhenius nor anyone for the next half-century had the tools to show what an increase of CO2 would really do to climate, he had given a strong hint of what it could possibly do.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 9:25pm:

It mentions water vapor, poor desperate lee.

So did 1896. ;)

Quote:

Arrhenhius's 1896 paper stimulated an American geologist and bold thinker, Thomas C. Chamberlin, to look into the planet's carbon system more deeply. In 1897 he published "a paper which, I am painfully aware, is very speculative..." The speculations revolved around the great puzzle of the ice ages. Chamberlin later remarked how ice ages were "intimately associated with a long chain of other phenomena to which at first they appeared to have no relationship." He was the first to demonstrate that the only way to understand climate change was to understand almost everything about the planet together — not just the air but the oceans, the volcanoes bringing gases from the deep interior, the chemistry of how minerals gradually disintegrated under weathering, and more.

So gradually other factors are considered. Still the obsession with Ice Ages tho—that is to do with permutations of the earths orbit and inclination. In the absence of man volcanoes add more CO2 to the atmosphere and weathering removes it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 9:25pm:

indeed impossibly greater.

Ooh look he added it later. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 8:51pm:

By contrast CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for centuries

But you didn't fix this. ;)

Quote:

Chamberlin seemed only to be adding to the tall pile of speculations about ice ages, but along the way he had pioneered the modeling of global movements of carbon. He made rough calculations of how much carbon was stored up in rocks, oceans, and organic reservoirs such as forests. He went on to point out that compared with these stockpiles, the atmosphere contained only a minor fraction — and most of that CO2 cycled in and out of the atmosphere every few thousand years. It was a delicate balance, he warned. Climate conditions "congenial to life" might be short-lived on geological time scales.Chamberlin quickly added that "This threat of disaster is not, however, a scientific argument..." He was offering the idea more for its value "in awakening interest and neutralizing inherited prejudice," namely, the assumption that the atmosphere is stable.

That assumption covered tomorrow.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 9:46pm:

Chamberlin quickly added that "This threat of disaster is not, however, a scientific argument..."

It is to today's AGW'ers ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

According to a simple experiment, there was already enough CO2 in the air so that its effect on infrared radiation was "saturated" — meaning that all the radiation that the gas could block was already being absorbed, so that adding more gas could make little difference. Moreover, water vapor also absorbed heat rays, and water was enormously more abundant in the atmosphere than CO2. How could adding CO2 affect radiation in parts of the spectrum that H2O (not to mention the CO2 itself) already entirely blocked?       These studies with the crude techniques of the early 20th century were inaccurate. Modern measurements show that even in the parts of the infrared spectrum where water vapor and CO2 are effective, only a fraction of the heat radiation emitted from the surface of the Earth is blocked before it escapes into space. And that is beside the point anyway. The greenhouse process works regardless of whether the passage of radiation is saturated in lower layers. As explained above, the energy received at the Earth's surface must eventually work its way back up to the higher layers where radiation does slip out easily (in the language of physics, this is the side "wings" of the absorption spectrum, where the gas only partially blocks radiation). . Adding some greenhouse gas to those high, thin layers must warm the planet no matter what happens lower down.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 5^th, 2021 at 10:27pm:

As explained above, the energy received at the Earth's surface must eventually work its way back up to the higher layers where radiation does slip out easily (in the language of physics, this is the side "wings" of the absorption spectrum, where the gas only partially blocks radiation). . Adding some greenhouse gas to those high, thin layers must warm the planet no matter what happens lower down.

And of course that also happens to incoming radiation. That seems to slip through unnoticed. ;)

You forgotten already?

Radiation from the sun is _____wave radiation

Radiation from the surface is ____wave radiation

(Answer Short or Long)


If the atmosphere absorbs a lot of IR (but little sunlight) we expect the stratosphere to become:

1. Cooler? or

2. Warmer?

The stratosphere is in fact 1. Cooling or 2. Warming. Your answer__________?

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2021 at 1:01pm:

You forgotten already?

Nope but you have.

"Incoming ultraviolet, visible, and a limited portion of infrared energy (together sometimes called "shortwave radiation") from the Sun drive the Earth's climate system. "

https://science.nasa.gov/ems/13_radiationbudget

BTW - what happened to that "hundreds of years" of CO2 residence time? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Short wave, OK.

Now answer the quiz, doofus.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2021 at 2:01pm:

Short wave, OK.

I don't need to petal. The earth receives infrared energy from the sun. End of story. Infrared is longwave. ;)

Not in the frequencies where AGW happens—near infrared from the sun, far infrared from the surface. Do try to read a science book some time.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 7^th, 2021 at 3:08pm:

Not in the frequencies where AGW happens—near infrared from the sun, far infrared from the surface. Do try to read a science book some time.

So this AGW component is getting smaller and smaller by the comment.

"The far infrared (FIR) spectral region from 100 to 667 cm-1 (100-15 μm) of the Earth's outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) has never been spectrally observed from space. "


    20th EGU General Assembly, EGU2018, Proceedings from the conference held 4-13 April, 2018 in Vienna, Austria, p.11022

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..2011022P/abstract

It's there; we know it's there;  we just can't find it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Of course once (if) they find it they will have nothing to compare it to; but it will be "worse than we thought". ;)

This is 1901!


Quote:

This had been described correctly already in 1901: "radiation from the earth into space does not go directly from the ground," Nils Ekholm explained, "but on the average from a layer of the atmosphere having a considerable height above sea-level... The greater is the absorbing power of the air for heat rays emitted from the ground, the higher will that layer be. But the higher the layer, the lower is its temperature relatively to the ground; and as the radiation from the layer into space is the less the lower its temperature is, it follows that the ground will be hotter the higher the radiating layer is. . . ." While most people thought it was obvious from everyday observation that the climate was self-regulating, scientists had not identified the mechanisms of regulation. They had several to choose from.       Through the first half of the 20th century, one common objection to the idea of a future global warming was that only a little of the CO2 on the planet's surface was in the air. Vastly more was locked up in seawater, in equilibrium with the gas in the atmosphere. The oceans would absorb any excess from the atmosphere, or evaporate gas to fill out any deficiency. This was a main reason for dismissing Arrhenius's speculation about future global warming: the relatively puny byproducts of human industry would no doubt be dissolved in the oceans as fast as they were emitted. (In fact, at the rate industry was producing CO2 around 1900 that was a reasonable guess.) "The sea acts as a vast equalizer," as one scientist wrote, making sure all fluctuations "are ironed out and moderated."(23)       If the oceans somehow failed to stabilize the system, there was another large reservoir of carbon stored up in organic matter such as forests and peat bogs. That too seemed likely to provide what one scientist called "homeostatic regulation."(24) For if more CO2 entered the atmosphere, it would act as fertilizer to help plants grow more lushly, and this would lock up the excess carbon in soil and other organic reservoirs.

Amazing!


Quote:

An important example of work on the topic was an idea developed by the meteorologist Alfred Wegener in the 1920s. It happened that Wegener loved geology as much as meteorology (he was also dedicated to studies in Greenland, where he disappeared on an expedition in his fiftieth year). In collaboration with another meteorologist, Wladimir Köppen, Wegener worked through the geological evidence of radical climate change. Traces of ancient ice caps were found in rock beds near the equator, and fossils of tropical plants in rocks near the poles. Wegener hoped to resolve the puzzle with his controversial claim that continents drifted about from tropics to Arctic and back. Along the way the two meteorologists worked out a climate change theory.       They started off from Arrhenius's idea that the key variable, albedo, depended on whether snow melted or persisted through the summer. The great sheets of ice that reflected away sunlight could persist only if they rested on land, not ocean. So the authors figured that the recent epoch of ice ages had begun when the North Pole wandered over Greenland, and ice ages had ceased once it moved on into the Arctic Ocean.       Wegener and Köppen went into further detail using a theory that had been hanging around since the 19th century. Croll had suggested that ice ages could be linked with regular cycles in the Earth's orbit, the kind of thing astronomers computed. Over many centuries these shifts caused minor variations in the amount of sunlight that reached a given latitude on the Earth. The variations gave rise to ice ages, Croll argued, whenever enfeebled sunlight allowed excess snow accumulation. In the 1920s a Serbian engineer, Milutin Milankovitch began to develop these astronomical calculations and plugged them into equations that simulated the global climate. His energy budget model was like Arrhenius's, but paid closer attention to how much sunlight was received at each latitude in each season, and what that would mean for ice and snow. Milankovitch found that it was summers with weaker sunlight, in other words colder summers, that counted for keeping the reflective snow in place — not cold winters, as Croll had supposed. Wegener and Köppen took up these ideas, insisting that they were "nearly self-evident, and yet contested by some authors!"(30)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 10:39am:

This was a main reason for dismissing Arrhenius's speculation about future global warming: the relatively puny byproducts of human industry would no doubt be dissolved in the oceans as fast as they were emitted. (In fact, at the rate industry was producing CO2 around 1900 that was a reasonable guess.) "The sea acts as a vast equalizer," as one scientist wrote, making sure all fluctuations "are ironed out and moderated."(23)

Very good as far as it goes. It does not say anything about CO2 outgassing. Which is the largest component of CO2 emissions. ;)

The burning of fossil fuels and the making of cement are the main sources of atmospheric CO2.

While the oceans have, naturally, warmed their vast mass and high specific heat means the temperature increase is tiny while the partial pressure of CO2 increases by much more so the oceans are net absorbers not emitters of CO2.

Rosby waves are part of the mechanism of weather and climate.


Quote:

Dishpan Experiments      TOP OF PAGE       To wrestle with complex systems, for centuries scientists had imagined mechanical models, and some had physically constructed actual models. If you put a fluid in a rotating pan, you might learn something about the circulation of fluids in any rotating system — like the ocean currents or trade winds of the rotating Earth. You might even heat the edge of the pan to mimic the temperature gradient from equator to pole. Various scientists had tried their hand at this from time to time since the turn of the century.(38) The results seemed encouraging to the leading meteorologist Carl-Gustav Rossby, who invited young Athelstan Spilhaus to join him in such an experiment at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the 1930s. In their pan they produced a miniature current with eddies. If this represented an ocean, the current would have looked like the Gulf Stream; if an atmosphere, like a jet stream (a phenomenon not understood at that time). But they could not make a significant connection with the real world.(39)       Rossby persevered after he moved to the University of Chicago in 1942 and built up an important school of meteorologists. His group was the pioneer in developing simple mathematical fluid-dynamics models for climate, taking climate as an average of the weather seen in the daily circulation of the atmosphere. They averaged weather charts over periods of 5 to 30 days to extract the general features, and sought to analyze these using basic hydrodynamic principles. The group had to make radical simplifying assumptions, ignoring essential but transient weather effects like the movements of water vapor and the dissipation of wind energy. Still, they began to get a feeling for how large-scale features of the general circulation might arise from simple dynamical principles.(40) In the 1950s, Rossby's students and others moved this work onto computers.       Meanwhile, to get another peephole into the physics, Rossby encouraged Dave Fultz and others to experiment with rotating mechanical systems. Funding came from the Geophysics Research Directorate of the U.S. Air Force, always keen to get a handle on weather patterns. The Chicago group started with a layer of water trapped between hemispheres (made by sawing down two glass flasks). They were delighted to see flow patterns that strongly resembled the Earth's pattern of trade winds, and even, what was wholly unexpected, miniature cyclonic storms. The group moved on to rotate a simple aluminum dishpan. They heated the dishpan at the outer rim (and later also cooled it in the middle), injecting dye to reveal the flow patterns. The results, as another meteorologist recalled, were "exciting and often mystifying."(41) The crude, physical model showed something rather like the wavering polar fronts that dominate much of the real world's weather.(42)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 1:36pm:

The burning of fossil fuels and the making of cement are the main sources of atmospheric CO2.

No they are not. Even SKS your go to site disagrees with you.

"But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2"

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm

You have trotted this out before, been shot down before; but still you persist with lies.

lee pretends he has forgotten the carbon cycle. Shows how desperate he is.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 4:29pm:

lee pretends he has forgotten the carbon cycle. Shows how desperate he is.

Poor petal. Can't debunk again. Shoots at the messenger; misses. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Have a look at their representation -

https://static.skepticalscience.com/images/Carbon_Cycle.gif

Even the quote from SS talks of the carbon cycle.

We discussed that before, you thought CO2 was absorbed in the fall  ;)



Desperate lee.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

Meanwhile a group at Cambridge University carried out experiments with water held between two concentric cylinders, one of which they heated, rotating on a turntable. Their original idea had been to mimic the dynamics of the Earth's fluid core in hopes of learning about terrestrial magnetism. But the features that turned up looked more like meteorology. "The similarity between these motions and some of the main features of the general atmospheric circulation is striking," reported the experimenter. The water had something like a little jet stream and a pattern of circulation that vacillated among different states, sometimes interrupted by "intense cyclones."(43) It seemed reminiscent of certain changing wind patterns at middle latitudes that Rossby had earlier observed in the atmosphere and had explained theoretically with a simple two-dimensional mathematical model (the "Rossby waves" seen in the meanderings of the jet stream and elsewhere).       Following up with his own apparatus, Fultz reported in 1959 the most interesting result of all. His rotating fluid sometimes showed a symmetric circulation regime, resembling the real world's "Hadley" cells that bring the regular mid-latitude westerly winds. But at other times the pattern looked more like a "Rossby" regime with a regular set of wiggles. This pattern was somewhat like the standing waves that form in swift water downstream from a rock (in the real Earth, the Rocky Mountains act as the rock). Perturb the rotating fluid by stirring it with a pencil, and when it settled down again it might have flipped from one regime to the other. It could also flip between a Rossby system with four standing waves and one with five. In short, different configurations were equally stable under the given external conditions.(44) This was realistic, for the circulation of the actual atmosphere shifts among quite different states (the great trade winds in particular come and go with the seasons). Larger shifts in the circulation pattern might represent long-term climate changes.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 4:34pm:

Even the quote from SS talks of the carbon cycle.

And I didn't deny it.  ::)


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 4:34pm:

We discussed that before, you thought CO2 was absorbed in the fall

You mean it is absorbed in the rise? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It is what you thought back then.

Can you explain the Carbon Cycle in your own words?

Quote:

Ewing and Donn's Unstable Climate      TOP OF PAGE       The most influential new theory was deployed by two scientists at the Lamont Geological Observatory in New York, Maurice Ewing and William Donn. They had been interested for some time in natural catastrophes such as hurricanes and tsunamis.(47) Provoked by recent observations of a surprisingly abrupt end to the last ice age, they sought a mechanism that could produce rapid change. Also influencing them was recent work in geology — indications that over millions of years the Earth's poles had wandered, just as Wegener had claimed. Probably Ewing and Donn had also heard about speculations by Russian scientists that diverting rivers that flowed into the Arctic Ocean might change the climate of Siberia. In 1956, all these strands came together in a radically new idea.(48*)       Our current epoch of ice ages, Ewing and Donn argued, had begun when the North Pole wandered into the Arctic Ocean basin. The ocean, cooling but still free of ice, had evaporated moisture and promoted a pattern of severe weather. Heavy snows fell all around the Arctic, building continental ice sheets. That withdrew water from the world's oceans, and the sea level dropped. This blocked the shallow channels through which warm currents flowed into the Arctic Ocean, so the ocean froze over. That meant the continental ice sheets were deprived of storms bringing moisture evaporated from the Arctic Ocean, so the sheets began to dwindle. The seas rose, warm currents spilled back into the Arctic Ocean, and its ice cover melted. And so, in a great tangle of feedbacks, a new cycle began.(49*)       This theory was especially interesting in view of reports that northern regions had been noticeably warming and ice was retreating. Ewing and Donn suggested that the polar ocean might become ice-free, and launch us into a new ice age, within the next few thousand years — or even the next few hundred years.       The theory was provocative, to say the least. "You will probably enjoy some criticism," a colleague wrote Ewing, and indeed scientists promptly contested what struck many as a far-fetched scheme. "The ingenuity of this argument cannot be denied," as one textbook author wrote, "but it involves such a bewildering array of assumptions that one scarcely knows where to begin."(50) Talk about a swift onset of glaciation seemed only too likely to reinforce popular misconceptions about apocalyptic catastrophes, and contradicted everything known about the pace of climate change. Critics pointed out specific scientific problems (for example, the straits are in fact deep enough so that the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans would exchange water even in the midst of an ice age). Ewing and Donn worked to patch up the holes in their theory by invoking additional phenomena, and for a while many scientists found the idea intriguing, even partly plausible. But ultimately the scheme won no more credence than most other theories of the ice ages.(51) "Your initial idea was truly a great one," a colleague wrote Ewing years later, "...a beautiful idea which just didn't stand the test of time."(52)       Ewing and Donn's theory was nevertheless important. Picked up by journalists who warned that ice sheets might advance within the next few hundred years, the theory gave the public for the first time a respectable scientific backing for images of disastrous climate change.(53) The discussions also pushed scientists to inspect data for new kinds of information. For example, the theory stimulated studies to find out whether, as Ewing and Donn claimed, the Arctic Ocean had ever been ice-free during the past hundred thousand years (evidently not). These studies included work on ancient ice that would eventually provide crucial clues about climate change. Above all, the daring Ewing-Donn theory rejuvenated speculation about the ice ages, provoking scientists to think broadly about possible mechanisms for climate change in general. As another oceanographer recalled, Donn would "go around and give lectures that made everybody mad. But in making them angry, they really started getting into it."

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 5:20pm:

It is what you thought back then.

It must have been at the same time you were telling all and sundry the temperature rise in a greenhouse was because of increased CO2 and not because there was no airflow. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 5:23pm:

For example, the theory stimulated studies to find out whether, as Ewing and Donn claimed, the Arctic Ocean had ever been ice-free during the past hundred thousand years (evidently not).

And yet the Arctic was sailed in the late 18th Century. Amazing feat when it wasn't ice free. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

And of course there is anecdotal evidence of sailings in 1660.

"At the end of the 17th century the french naval lieutenant La Madeleine was in Portugal, on a mission from his minister, Count Louis de Pontchartrain, to get information on Portuguese navigation and trading in the East. In the course of his mission he heard, from a Havre sailor who lived in Oporto, of an extraordinary voyage from Japan to Portugal effected by a Portuguese with whom the French sailor was personally acquainted. In January 1700 he communicated the information he had got from him to his minister, who had it archived. It was reproduced in a memoir in 1754 by the French Philippe Buache, the distinguished royal geographer of Louis XV.

The French sailor told that on 14 March 1660 the Dutch sailing ship «Padre Eterno» under the Portuguese David Melgueiro was ready to set sail from the Japanese port of Cangoshima. It was loaded with rich oriental goods and carried passengers, Dutch and Spanish and perhaps also Portuguese, since they had already entered the Nipponic empire in the previous century. At that time Europe was in the throes of war, Holland against France, Spain against Portugal, Spain against England, Portugal’s ally, who was fighting for her independence. The Atlantic and the eastern seas were infested by armed warships, to which pirates should be added. If the tried to return by the sole route till then used, via the Cape of Good Hope it was almost certain to be taken, so that Melgueiro decided to risk taking the other route open to him, by the arctic seas surrounding the old continent. He thus sailed up the current which washes the eastern coasts of Japan and goes up as far as the Anian-Bering strait, sailed round the coast of North Siberia, presumably far off shore, since he did not know the area. He reached the latitude of 84º N, passed between Greenland and the Spitzberg archipelago and sailed down Norway, where he sailed to windward of Ireland and thus reached a Dutch port, where he disembarked his passengers and goods. "

This text refers to the writings of Philippe Buache, a French geographer. The original writings of Philippe Buache are in “Considérations Géographique et physiques sur les nouvelles découvertes au Nord de la grande mer“, 1753, and are available here. The interesting references to Melgueiro are available between pages 137 and 139.

“Sailing the Arctic” including winters stuck in the ice is the same as “ice free” is it?   ;)



Poor desperate lee. Notice Desperate lee has skipped out of explaining the Carbon Cycle?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 6:15pm:

“Sailing the Arctic” including winters stuck in the ice is the same as “ice free” is it?   ;)

Only the 18th century one and that didn't have an ice breaker escort. It did have a 1.5hp motor. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Nothing about the 16th century one stuck in the ice.

And apparently the new meme for "ice free" is if it get to less than 1m Sq Km. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Still skipping describing the carbon cycle. Pissweak description of the Arctic.

Can you do better lee? I doubt it.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

Pissweak description of the Arctic.

poor petal. 

"The new research, published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, uses the latest generation of climate models from 21 research institutes from around the world. In climate studies, the Arctic Ocean is said to be ice-free when it shrinks to fragments with a combined area below 1m sq km, which is 75% lower than in 2019."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/21/ice-free-arctic-summers-now-very-likely-even-with-climate-action

You do believe the garudian; don't you?

Or perhaps this -

"Still, most CMIP6 models fail to simulate at the same time a plausible evolution of sea‐ice area and of global mean surface temperature. In the vast majority of the available CMIP6 simulations, the Arctic Ocean becomes practically sea‐ice free (sea‐ice area <1 × 10⁶ km2) in September for the first time before the Year 2050 in each of the four emission scenarios SSP1‐1.9, SSP1‐2.6, SSP2‐4.5, and SSP5‐8.5 examined here."

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/19448007


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 6:55pm:

Can you do better lee? I doubt it.

You really, really need to keep up petal. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So you don’t know the carbon cycle.

OK.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 7:31pm:

So you don’t know the carbon cycle. OK.

Poor petal. trying so hard to be woke. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Poor desperate lee, trying so hard to be relevant he uses words he does not know the meaning of, like he uses concepts he does not understand, like the carbon cycle.

poor lee, I pity the coward, a bit.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 7:41pm:

Poor desperate lee, trying so hard to be relevant he uses words he does not know the meaning of, like he uses concepts he does not understand, like the carbon cycle.

Poor petal. Trying to prove something? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 10^th, 2021 at 7:41pm:

poor lee, I pity the coward, a bit.

Yes you are a coward. And more than a bit. ;)

Quote:

Ewing and Donn's Unstable Climate The most influential new theory was deployed by two scientists at the Lamont Geological Observatory in New York, Maurice Ewing and William Donn. They had been interested for some time in natural catastrophes such as hurricanes and tsunamis.(47) Provoked by recent observations of a surprisingly abrupt end to the last ice age, they sought a mechanism that could produce rapid change. Also influencing them was recent work in geology — indications that over millions of years the Earth's poles had wandered, just as Wegener had claimed. Probably Ewing and Donn had also heard about speculations by Russian scientists that diverting rivers that flowed into the Arctic Ocean might change the climate of Siberia. In 1956, all these strands came together in a radically new idea.(48*)       Our current epoch of ice ages, Ewing and Donn argued, had begun when the North Pole wandered into the Arctic Ocean basin. The ocean, cooling but still free of ice, had evaporated moisture and promoted a pattern of severe weather. Heavy snows fell all around the Arctic, building continental ice sheets. That withdrew water from the world's oceans, and the sea level dropped. This blocked the shallow channels through which warm currents flowed into the Arctic Ocean, so the ocean froze over. That meant the continental ice sheets were deprived of storms bringing moisture evaporated from the Arctic Ocean, so the sheets began to dwindle. The seas rose, warm currents spilled back into the Arctic Ocean, and its ice cover melted. And so, in a great tangle of feedbacks, a new cycle began.(49*)       This theory was especially interesting in view of reports that northern regions had been noticeably warming and ice was retreating. Ewing and Donn suggested that the polar ocean might become ice-free, and launch us into a new ice age, within the next few thousand years — or even the next few hundred years.       The theory was provocative, to say the least. "You will probably enjoy some criticism," a colleague wrote Ewing, and indeed scientists promptly contested what struck many as a far-fetched scheme. "The ingenuity of this argument cannot be denied," as one textbook author wrote, "but it involves such a bewildering array of assumptions that one scarcely knows where to begin."(50) Talk about a swift onset of glaciation seemed only too likely to reinforce popular misconceptions about apocalyptic catastrophes, and contradicted everything known about the pace of climate change. Critics pointed out specific scientific problems (for example, the straits are in fact deep enough so that the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans would exchange water even in the midst of an ice age). Ewing and Donn worked to patch up the holes in their theory by invoking additional phenomena, and for a while many scientists found the idea intriguing, even partly plausible. But ultimately the scheme won no more credence than most other theories of the ice ages.(51) "Your initial idea was truly a great one," a colleague wrote Ewing years later, "...a beautiful idea which just didn't stand the test of time."(52)       Ewing and Donn's theory was nevertheless important. Picked up by journalists who warned that ice sheets might advance within the next few hundred years, the theory gave the public for the first time a respectable scientific backing for images of disastrous climate change.(53) The discussions also pushed scientists to inspect data for new kinds of information. For example, the theory stimulated studies to find out whether, as Ewing and Donn claimed, the Arctic Ocean had ever been ice-free during the past hundred thousand years (evidently not). These studies included work on ancient ice that would eventually provide crucial clues about climate change. Above all, the daring Ewing-Donn theory rejuvenated speculation about the ice ages, provoking scientists to think broadly about possible mechanisms for climate change in general. As another oceanographer recalled, Donn would "go around and give lectures that made everybody mad. But in making them angry, they really started getting into it."

It is interesting following the scientific debate, now thought is about unstable climate instead of one regulated by feedbacks. We will see how this is incorporated into increasingly sophisticated and accurate models.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 11^th, 2021 at 11:34am:

It is interesting following the scientific debate, now thought is about unstable climate instead of one regulated by feedbacks.

You mean CO2 is not the control knob via feedbacks? Heresy. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

But you do know that they are not mutually exclusive?

Differing feedbacks, differing time frames. The ocean with its ability to store heat energy has a long feedback time. Air does not. So these differing feedbacks have a different frequency and depending on the start conditions may be in or out of phase to differing degrees at any one time. And that is one of the failures of climate models. The start condition.

OLR.

Two ways the planet can warm, more radiation from the sun (it went a bit quiet in the 1980s) or retaining the heat longer. CO2 etc act to keep the heat energy here longer.

Feedback Catastrophes? (1960s) 
Norbert Wiener, a mathematical prodigy, had interests ranging from electronic computers to the organization of animals' nervous systems. It was while working on automatic control systems for antiaircraft guns during the Second World War that he had his most famous insights. The result was a theory, and a popular book published in 1948, on something he called "cybernetics."(55) Wiener's book drew attention to feedbacks and the stability or collapse of systems. These were timely topics in an era when electronics opened possibilities ranging from automated factories to novel modes of social communication and control. Through the 1950s, the educated public got used to thinking in cybernetic terms. Climate scientists were swimming with the tide when they directed their attention to feedback mechanisms, whereby a small and gradual change might trigger a big and sudden transition.      

At the start of the 1960s, a few scientists began to think about transitions between different states of the oceans. Study of cores drilled from the seabed showed that water temperatures could shift more quickly than expected. A rudimentary model of ocean circulation constructed by Henry Stommel suggested that under some conditions only a small perturbation might shift the entire pattern of deep currents from one state to another. It was reminiscent of the shifts in the dishpan fluid models.(56) All this was reinforced by the now familiar concept that fluctuations in ice sheets and snow cover might set off a rapid change in the Earth's surface conditions.(57)      

Similar ideas had been alive in the Soviet Union since the 1950s, connected to fabulous speculations about deliberate climate modification — making Siberia bloom by damming the Bering Straits, or by spreading soot across the Arctic snows to absorb sunlight. According to the usual ideas invoking snow albedo, if you just gave a push at the right point, feedback would do the rest. These speculations led the Leningrad climatologist Mikhail Budyko to privately advance worries about how feedbacks might amplify human influences. His entry-point was a study on a global scale. Computing the balance of incoming and outgoing radiation energy according to latitude, Budyko found the heat balance worked very differently in the snowy high latitudes as compared with more temperate zones. It took him some time, Budyko later recalled, to understand the importance of this simple calculation.(58) It led him to wonder, before almost any other scientist, about the potentially huge consequences of fossil fuel burning as well as more deliberate human interventions.      
<=>Climate mod

In 1961, Budyko published a generalized warning that the exponential growth of humanity's use of energy will inevitably heat the planet. The next year he followed up with more specific, if still quite simple, calculations of the Earth's energy budget . His equations suggested that climate changes could be extreme. In the nearer term, he advised that the Arctic icepack might disappear quickly if something temporarily perturbed the heat balance. Budyko did not see an ice-free Arctic as a problem so much as a grand opportunity for the Soviet Union, allowing it to become a maritime power (although he admitted the longer-term consequences might be less beneficial).(59)      

Even setting aside ice-albedo effects, interest in feedbacks was growing. Improvements in digital computers were the main driving force. Now it was possible to compute feedback interactions of radiation and temperature along the lines Arrhenius had attempted, but without spending months grinding away at the arithmetic. A few scientists took a new look at the old ideas about the greenhouse effect. Nobody fully grasped that the arguments about "saturation" of absorption of radiation were irrelevant, since adding more gas would make a difference in the crucial high, thin layers from which much of the radiation does escape into space. But the way radiation traversed the layers was attracting increasing scientific attention. As spectroscopic data and theoretical understanding improved, a few physicists decided that it was worth their time to calculate what happened to the radiation in detail, layer by layer up through the atmosphere. (The details are discussed in the essay on Basic Radiation Calculations, follow link at right.)      

In 1963, building on pioneering work by Gilbert Plass, Fritz Möller produced a model for what happens in a column of typical air (that is, a "one-dimensional global-average" model). His key assumption was that the water vapor content of the atmosphere should increase with increasing temperature. To put this into the calculations he held the relative humidity constant, which was just what Arrhenius had done long ago.(60) As the temperature rose more water vapor would remain in the air, adding its share to the greenhouse effect.      

. . .Möller was astounded by the result. Under some reasonable assumptions, doubling the CO2 could bring a temperature rise of 10°C — or perhaps even higher, for the mathematics would allow an arbitrarily high rise. More and more water would evaporate from the oceans until the atmosphere filled with steam! Möller himself found this result so implausible that he doubted the whole theory. et others thought his calculation was worth noticing. The model, as one expert noted, "served to increase confusion as to the real effect of varying the CO2 concentration.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 11^th, 2021 at 12:55pm:

OLR. Two ways the planet can warm, more radiation from the sun (it went a bit quiet in the 1980s) or retaining the heat longer. CO2 etc act to keep the heat energy here longer.

So mere radiation over a long term can't do that? You know like putting a pot onto the stove and it gradually increases water temperature? ;D ;D ;D ;D

Look up “equilibrium” lee.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 11^th, 2021 at 1:18pm:

Look up “equilibrium” lee.

Show where the earth has ever been in "equilibrium". ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

In 1896 Svante Arrhenius went a step farther, grinding out a numerical computation of the radiation transfer for atmospheres with differing amounts of carbon dioxide gas (CO2). He did the mathematics not just for one globally averaged column but for a set of columns, each representing the average for a zone of latitude. This two-dimensional or "zonal" model cost Arrhenius a vast amount of arithmetical labor, indeed far more than was reasonable. The data on absorption of radiation (from Langley) was sketchy, and Arrhenius's theory left out some essential factors. On such a shaky foundation, no computation could give more than a crude hint of how changes in the amount of a gas could possibly affect climate.       The main challenge was to calculate how radiation passed through the atmosphere, and what that meant for the temperature at the surface. That would tell you the most basic physical input to the climate system: the planet's radiation and heat balance. This was such a tough task that all by itself it became a minor field of research, tackled by scientist after scientist with limited success. Through the first half of the 20th century, workers refined the one-dimensional and two-dimensional calculations. To figure the Earth's radiation budget they needed to fix in detail how sunlight heated each layer of the atmosphere, how this energy moved among the layers or down to warm the surface, and how the heat energy that was radiated back up from the surface escaped into space. Different workers introduced a variety of equations and mathematical techniques to deal with them, all primitive.(3*)       A landmark was work by George Simpson. He was the first to recognize that it was necessary to take into account, in detail, how water vapor absorbed or transmitted radiation in different parts of the spectrum. Moving from a one-dimensional model into two dimensions, Simpson also calculated how the winds carry energy from the sun-warmed tropics to the poles, not only as the heat in the air's gases but also as heat energy locked up in water vapor.(4*) Other scientists found that if they took into account how air movements conveyed heat up and down, even a crude one-dimensional model would give fairly realistic figures for the variation of temperature with height in the atmosphere

Quote:

Solid methods for dealing with radiative transfer through a gas were not worked out until the 1940s. The great astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar and others, concerned with the way energy moved through the interiors and atmospheres of stars, forged a panoply of exquisitely sophisticated equations and techniques. The problem was so subtle that Chandrasekhar regarded his monumental work as a mere starting-point. It was too subtle and complex for meteorologists.(7) They mostly ignored the astrophysical literature and worked out their own shortcut methods, equations that they could reduce to a sequence of arithmetic exercises to get rough numerical results. What drove the work was a need for immediate answers to questions about how infrared radiation penetrated the atmosphere — a subject of urgent interest to the military for signaling, sniping, reconnaissance, and later for heat-guided missiles.

So radiation for earth climate, lifecycle of suns to heat guided missiles.

Pure science so often produces more practical results than applied science.

[quote]      

The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Demonstrated (1950-1967)

Digital computers were indeed being pressed into service. Some groups were exploring ways to use them to compute the entire three-dimensional general circulation of the atmosphere. But one-dimensional radiation models would be the foundation on which any grander model must be constructed — a three-dimensional atmosphere was just an assembly of a great many one-dimensional vertical columns, exchanging air with one another. It would be a long time before computers could handle the millions of calculations that such a huge model required. So people continued to work on improving the simpler models, now using more extensive electronic computations.      

Most experts stuck by the old objection to the greenhouse theory of climate change — in the parts of the spectrum where infrared absorption took place, the CO2 plus the water vapor that were already in the atmosphere sufficed to block all the radiation that could be blocked. In this "saturated" condition, raising the level of the gas could not change anything. But this argument was falling into doubt. The discovery of quantum mechanics in the 1920s had opened the way to an accurate theory for the details of how absorption took place, developed by Walter Elsasser during the Second World War. Precise laboratory studies during the war and after confirmed a new outlook. In the frigid and rarified upper atmosphere where the crucial infrared absorption takes place, the nature of the absorption is different from what scientists had assumed from the old sea-level measurements.
     
Take a single molecule of CO2 or H2O. It will absorb light only in a set of specific wavelengths, which show up as thin dark lines in a spectrum. In a gas at sea-level temperature and pressure, the countless molecules colliding with one another at different velocities each absorb at slightly different wavelengths, so the lines are broadened considerably. With the primitive infrared instruments available earlier in the 20th century, scientists saw the absorption smeared out into wide bands. And they had no theory to suggest anything else.
     
A modern spectrograph shows a set of peaks and valleys superimposed on each band, even at sea-level pressure. In cold air at low pressure, each band resolves into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence. There are gaps between the H2O lines where radiation can get through unless blocked by CO2 lines. That showed up clearly in data compiled for the U.S. Air Force, drawing the attention of researchers to the details of the absorption, especially at high altitudes. Moreover, researchers working for the Air Force had become acutely aware of how very dry the air gets at upper altitudes—indeed the stratosphere has scarcely any water vapor at all. By contrast, CO2 is fairly well mixed all through the atmosphere, so as you look higher it becomes relatively more significant.(9a)
     
The main points could have been understood in the 1930s if scientists had looked at the greenhouse effect carefully (or if they had noticed Hulburt's paper, which did take a careful look, or had pursued still earlier remarks by Arrhenius himself). But it was in the 1950s, with the new measurements in hand, that a few theoretical physicists realized the question was worth a long and careful new look. Most earlier scientists who looked at the greenhouse effect had treated the atmosphere as a slab, and only tried to measure and calculate radiation in terms of the total content of gas and moisture. But if you were prepared to tackle the full radiative transfer calculations, layer by layer, you would begin to see things differently. What if water vapor did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by adding CO2 in the lower layers of the atmosphere? It was still possible for CO2 to make a difference in the thin, cold upper layers. Lewis D. Kaplan ground through some extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere the saturation of CO2 lines should be weak. Thus adding more of the gas would certainly change the overall balance and temperature structure of the atmosphere.(10)      

Neither Kaplan nor anyone else at that time was thinking clearly enough about the greenhouse effect to point out that it will operate regardless of the details of the absorption. The trick, again, was to follow how the radiation passed up layer by layer. Consider a layer of the atmosphere so high and thin that heat radiation from lower down would slip through. Add more gas, and the layer would absorb some of the rays. Therefore the place from which heat energy finally left the Earth would shift to a higher layer. That would be a colder layer, unable to radiate heat so efficiently. The imbalance would cause all the lower levels to get warmer, until the high levels became hot enough to radiate as much energy back out as the planet received. (For additional explanation of the "greenhouse effect," follow the link at right to the essay on Simple Models.) Adding carbon dioxide will make for a stronger greenhouse effect regardless of saturation in the lower atmosphere.      

Nearly at the stage of the first real radiative-convective numerical model of Manabe and Wetherald.

Quote:

(And actually, there is no saturation. The primitive infrared techniques of the laboratory measurements made at the turn of the century had given a misleading result. Studies from the 1940s on have shown that there is not nearly enough CO2 in the atmosphere to block most of the infrared radiation in the bands of the spectrum where the gas absorbs it. Nor does water vapor bring complete saturation, in desert regions where the air is extremely dry.)       If anyone had put forth these simple arguments in the 1950s, they would not have convinced other scientists unless they were backed up by a specific, numerical calculation. The structure of the H2O and CO2 absorption bands at a given pressure and temperature did need to be considered in figuring just how much radiation is absorbed in any given layer. Every detail had to be taken into account in order to calculate whether adding a greenhouse gas would warm the atmosphere negligably or by many degrees.       The challenge attracted physicist Gilbert N. Plass, who had already been doing lengthy calculations of infrared absorption in the atmosphere. He held an advantage over earlier workers, having not only the use of digital computers, but also better numbers, from spectroscopic measurements done by a group of experimenters he was collaborating with at the Johns Hopkins University. Military agencies supported their work for its near-term practical applications. But Plass happened to have read Callendar's papers, and he was personally intrigued by the old puzzle of the ice ages and other climate changes.      Gilber PlassGil Plass Plass pursued a thorough set of one-dimensional computations, taking into account the structure of the absorption bands at all layers of the atmosphere. In 1956 he explained clearly, for the first time, that the water vapor absorption lines did not block the quite different CO2 absorption spectrum, adding that there was scarcely any water in the upper atmosphere anyway. He further explained that although some of the CO2 band itself was truly saturated, there were many lines to the side where adding more of the gas would increase the absorption of radiation. His arguments and calculations showed convincingly that adding or subtracting CO2 could seriously affect the radiation balance, layer by layer through the atmosphere, altering the temperature by a degree or more down to ground level.(10a)

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 12^th, 2021 at 9:41am:

And actually, there is no saturation.

And yet the atmosphere has been shown to be effectively saturated. Adding more CO2 produces less response.

According to Happer and van Wijngaarden adding more CO2 is like putting a handkerchief onto a doona.

I told you before that CO2 is not saturated.

If you had read what I posted you would know that the CO2 is not saturated.

More CO2 causes more warming.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 12^th, 2021 at 1:29pm:

If you had read what I posted you would know that the CO2 is not saturated.

It is so close the putative effect is SFA. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 12^th, 2021 at 1:29pm:

More CO2 causes more warming.

How much more warming petal? Remember its effects decrease logarithmically. ;)

Keep reading, Desperate lee.

Jovial Monk wrote on Apr 12^th, 2021 at 3:25pm:

Keep reading, Desperate lee.

Poor petal. Too afraid to put a limit to it.  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

This may help you -

https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/screen-shot-2016-05-28-at-09-43-15.png

Five postulates are shown here, which have been provided by sceptic sources and the IPCC.  The graph shows in orange the remaining temperature effect of CO2 that could be affected by radical worldwide global de-carbonisation policies, maintaining CO2 levels at the current 400 ppmv.  The warming that might result by raising the CO2 level from 400 ppmv up to 1000 ppmv, according to each of these postulates.

The range of alternate postulates shows CO2 affecting in the range of ~2% – ~20%.  Of these a median value of ~10% is agreed between Lindzen, (as published by the IPCC) and other sceptic academics such as Plimer, Carter, Ball and Archibald.  Even lower values are quotes down to ~2% (Salby), whereas other IPCC quoted values give CO2 a significance of  up to ~21%.

The last two studies are from IPCC authors.

https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/2014/09/13/the-diminishing-influence-of-increasing-carbon-dioxide-co2-on-temperature/

Did you have a look at that blog? Loony toons!

Jovial Monk wrote on May 2^nd, 2021 at 3:20pm:

Did you have a look at that blog? Loony toons!

Ah the shoot the messenger again. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

So you didn’t read it.

Read it, it is a laugh, a sad laugh.

Jovial Monk wrote on May 2^nd, 2021 at 5:04pm:

So you didn’t read it. Read it, it is a laugh, a sad laugh.

So sad that you can't critique it. You were supposed to be a scientist. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Critique a heap of rubbish?

Jovial Monk wrote on May 2^nd, 2021 at 6:01pm:

Critique a heap of rubbish?

Of course. IF you have salient points. I guess that means you don't have salient points. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D