tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post2945355555435448861..comments2021-01-15T22:29:30.694+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Ed Hoskins' pseudo-science claptrap brings out all the nutters at WUWTSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64035998765084726462018-11-18T06:51:20.486+11:002018-11-18T06:51:20.486+11:00Deniers of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) argu...Deniers of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) argue that the ability of CO2 to increase global warming is “exhausted,” having reached “saturation,” so that adding forever more and more CO2 to the atmosphere will result in only a minuscule amount of more warming, and that warming will soon reach a limit and stop. This shows that the deniers suffer a lack of understanding of logarithms, exponents and the simple math involved. Leaving aside the outward radiation dynamics of the upper atmosphere, the logarithmic response to linearly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration would indeed show a declining-slope, “roll-off” effect, but only if the CO2 concentration argument on the x-axis increases linearly, 1,2,3,4,…., etc., and then even though the forcing response increases at a slowing rate, it will never stop increasing. The important thing, and what the deniers overlook, either out of incompetence or carefully crafted sophistry, is that we are increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration exponentially, not linearly, in real time. The denier “saturation” meme says that CO2 is “tuckered out” in its ability to add to the Earth’s heat retention. As shown here that is not at all the present real-world case. Curve fitting the Mauna Loa CO2 hard data shows that the annual exponential multiplier is about 1.0175 (1.75% increase in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 annually), so that the change in the ability of CO2 to trap heat (“downward radiative forcing”) can be expressed by:<br />ΔF = 5.35 x LN(1.0175^n)<br /><br />where ΔF is the increased level of forcing after “n” years, in Watts per square meter, LN is the natural log function, and n is the number of years from the beginning of the sequence. <br /><br />When logarithms are taken for an exponentially increasing quantity, as in the case here, instead of the resulting response line over time tapering-off, as the deniers like to depict it, it is a straight line with a positive slope. This is because the property of logarithms is such that<br /> a x log(b^n) = a x n x log(b), so that ΔF = 5.35 x n x LN(1.0175)<br />which, as anthropogenic CO2 becomes the dominant portion of atmospheric CO2, approaches being a straight line having a positive slope of 5.35 x LN(1.0175), a constant 0.093 W/m2 annual increase. So, forcing is NOT tapering off, and it will continue as a positive, nearly straight-line increase as long as we continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere at exponentially increasing rates. Unfortunately there is no signal in the Mauna Loa data to suggest any slowing of the rate of increase. At our present 1.75% rate of annual increase, the doubling time of anthropogenic CO2 concentration is only 40 years.<br />Another way deniers claim “saturation” is to say that “CO2 has only a 5% remaining ability to increase forcing.” If this were true, then the present forcing must be 95% of the limiting maximum forcing, and to calculate that supposed maximum a little simple math will do:<br />Present forcing = 95% of maximum forcing, or 5.35 x LN(407) = 0.95 x 5.35 x LN(C02 at max) <br />Solving for (CO2 at max), we get 558 PPMv CO2 concentration. The extrapolated Maona Loa data show that will be in 2057, only 39 years from now (2018), but at that time forcing will be vigorously increasing on its way to still higher levels, clearly disproving the deniers’ “only 5% left” claim.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14612399594729723464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79838205896444652672014-08-13T18:21:20.673+10:002014-08-13T18:21:20.673+10:00There is a lot more wrong with Loehle's paper ...There is a lot more wrong with Loehle's paper than just missing Aerosols.<br /><br />FWIW, it isn't the first paper he has published in Ecological Modeling about cyclic models <br /><br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380003003600<br /><br />that has been the subject of criticism<br /><br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380005002899Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55825969335939529622014-08-13T18:14:57.793+10:002014-08-13T18:14:57.793+10:00The bit I liked was "It is certainly not much...The bit I liked was "It is certainly not much discussed."<br /><br />The logarithmic nature of CO2 radiative forcing is climate change 101 material, there is a good reason why it is not much discussed, which is that nobody disagrees with it (outside skeptic [sic] blogs), and anybody who has looked into the science to any degree ought to know it. <br /><br />There is also the point that the logarithmic nature of the forcing is implicitly mentioned whenever climate sensitivity is discussed (and that IS "much discussed") as climate sensitivity is generally expressed in terms of the expected warming per doubling of CO2 and (for the mathematically literate) that is equivalent to saying that the relationship is logarithmic.<br /><br />"This diminution effect is probably the reason there was no runaway greenhouse warming caused by CO2 in earlier eons when CO2 levels were known to be at levels of several thousands ppmv."<br /><br />obviously never hear of the "feint young sun paradox".Dikran Marsupialnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77450324600077679552014-08-12T08:53:41.411+10:002014-08-12T08:53:41.411+10:00Americans in general tend to be binary thinkers, i...Americans in general tend to be binary thinkers, in my experience -- much more so than Europeans anyway. At least, "in general" among the people I've met.<br /><br />My favourite example was a NYT story about turning the heat down in winter, or up in summer. So they go and interview people who decided to switch from warming to 80 F down to 65 F, and found it a bitter pill to swallow...numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84522491126130503172014-08-12T00:24:19.466+10:002014-08-12T00:24:19.466+10:00For all the discussion of the logarithmic forcing ...For all the discussion of the logarithmic forcing of CO2 increases, there is not a single mention of the fact that currently <a href="http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/09/mo-better-monckey-business/" rel="nofollow">CO2 levels are rising at or faster than exponentially</a> - meaning that the CO2 forcing is increasing at least linearly at present. Hardly a cause for celebration.<br /><br />The cognitive biases shown at WUWT seem to preclude high school math...KRnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-55742982322618193892014-08-11T23:05:18.136+10:002014-08-11T23:05:18.136+10:00Thanks for that little gem.Thanks for that little gem.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46235696159065791612014-08-11T23:03:24.907+10:002014-08-11T23:03:24.907+10:00For deniers, science stopped at some point after T...For deniers, science stopped at some point after The Bomb but before the US Surgeon General's report on smoking in 1964.Cugelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-91029991909881506262014-08-11T23:00:04.912+10:002014-08-11T23:00:04.912+10:00Sou, there was an easy target you missed here,
htt...Sou, there was an easy target you missed here,<br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/23/new-paper-finds-transient-climate-sensitivity-to-doubled-co2-levels-is-only-about-1c/<br /><br />3 Guesses for who wrote it.<br /><br />Ok, it was Heartland Expert, Craig Loehle.<br /><br />His very simple model missed one thing. Aerosols.<br /><br />And what prestigious journal did it get published in. Nature, Science?<br /><br />Naa, Ecological Modelling<br /><br />And how did he get it published?<br /><br />Well he's on the Editorial Advisory Board of course.<br />http://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling/editorial-board/<br /><br />I know, What a crooked dope. Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17887868920975786342014-08-11T22:01:09.770+10:002014-08-11T22:01:09.770+10:00Usually Steve does keep up with the science to som...Usually Steve does keep up with the science to some degree. I think in the case you're referring to, he was just responding to someone who claimed that he thinks that the sun doesn't affect climate at all. Deniers have a tendency to see everything in black and white, all or nothing. They are not very cluey.<br /><br />https://archive.today/cA3EP#selection-4619.0-4619.137Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86832978035138054862014-08-11T21:54:25.809+10:002014-08-11T21:54:25.809+10:00Mosher seems to play "it's the sun" ...Mosher seems to play "it's the sun" late in the archived comments. Strange; I thought he was now keeping up with the science, except for a vendetta against Mann.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-29581280451018529692014-08-11T21:52:19.624+10:002014-08-11T21:52:19.624+10:00"jew" and "yev" are two transl..."jew" and "yev" are two transliterations of the same syllable.<br /><br />But indeed, deniers like to claim that science stopped sometime around the Apollo program; everything since is just garbage. It's a sentiment I've heard expressed by a number of people I know who grew up during that program, or wish they had.numerobisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-15553792364833275962014-08-11T20:24:07.250+10:002014-08-11T20:24:07.250+10:00I read the article, and it basically references th...I read the article, and it basically references this image.<br />http://www.junksciencearchive.com/Greenhouse/co2greenhouse-X2.png<br /><br />I decided to check the references, and this is what I found.<br />For Charnock & Shine it goes all the way back to this letter.<br />http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/46/12/10.1063/1.2809140<br />which then references this paper from 1991.<br />http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v354/n6352/abs/354382a0.html<br /><br />And the other<br />Kondratjew & Moskalenko doesn't seem to actually reference any paper, but is referenced in a 1984 book "The Global Climate" edited by John Houghton.<br /><br />The 13th chapter is actually written by K. Ya. Kondratyev & N. I. Moskalenko, and the particular section is here.<br />http://books.google.com.au/books?id=SV04AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=by+Houghton+%22The+Global+Climate%22+Kondratjew&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dZboU-rxCcvioASxoIC4Bg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false<br />(What is it with deniers always getting the author spelling wrong)<br /><br />That's where they get the 7.2K from, the rest is just a fiction.<br /><br />Interesting isn't it. You will often hear deniers say that the 'science isn't settled', but that is science that they don't like. Denier science on the other was 'settled' sometime late last century. (What is it with deniers and their inability to grasp the latest science. They will often cite the 1969 Lamb paper for Medieval Climate, but all the papers done over the last 20 years, well that's just blasphemous.)<br /><br />If these were the references for a graduate science paper, they would fail dismally. To any deniers reading this. There are these things called journals, where scientists publish the latest research. Oh, and another thing. There is this new invention called Google. Google it!!<br />Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27174453372496449372014-08-11T19:58:40.989+10:002014-08-11T19:58:40.989+10:00The irony of all this is that the logarithmic it m...The irony of all this is that the logarithmic it makes CO2 at low concentrations compared with H2O that much more significant than it would be if the relationship were linear.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-44189259613822682482014-08-11T19:44:36.748+10:002014-08-11T19:44:36.748+10:00Thanks, Dave. I've added a couple of modifiers...Thanks, Dave. I've added a couple of modifiers to the paragraph in question to clarify this.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-80173856452453539882014-08-11T19:25:00.909+10:002014-08-11T19:25:00.909+10:00Sou, there is a natural logarithm component in the...Sou, there is a natural logarithm component in the radiative forcing of CO2.<br /><br />It is defined by following equation<br />delta F = alpha * ln(C/C0) where alpha is 5.35, C is the variable of CO2, and C0 is 280.<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing<br /><br />There are also a number of other formulas<br />http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm<br />(This is the page that is 'hidden')<br /><br />If you plot this on Excel, it produces a line which diminishes as CO2 increases. This is the formula that deniers will look at and say that it diminishes.<br /><br />It is true that the radiative forcing of CO2 diminishes as the concentration increases, but from one doubling, to the next, the value is about 10%.<br /><br />To compute the effect on temperature, the forcing is then multiplied by 0.8, which gives about 3K for a doubling from 280ppm. So the next doubling would be slightly less, at about 2.7K. But really, once you get to about 6K, to quibble over 0.3K is quite pointless. At 5.7K or 6K, the effect will be quite disastrous, yet this is the argument that deniers try to project.<br />Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-23523698259869153242014-08-11T18:39:17.901+10:002014-08-11T18:39:17.901+10:00I love the language used by Hoskins to emphasise h...I love the language used by Hoskins to emphasise how weak the CO2 effect is. It does not just follow a logarithmic curve. No, it does it "radically" or "rapidly" and it is a "diminution" effect.<br /><br />This is great:<br /><br /><i>The rapid logarithmic diminution effect is an inconvenient fact for Global Warming advocates ..."</i><br /><br />Oh no, that radical, rapid, logarithmic diminution is just so inconvenient. And to cap it all, it is a fact. <br /><br /><br /><br />Jammy Dodgernoreply@blogger.com