Please do … I’m very curious how YOU define ‘forcing’.
Returning to SCIENCE! once more.
I get a kick out of how they frame the question.
“Can naturally occurring processes selectively buffer the full brunt of global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activities?”
Why call it naturally occurring processes? Why not call it the laws of physics? The reason we have never seen any runaway global warming before? Or why increasing water vapor doesn’t lead to more warming?
Probably because that would make it sound like global warming isn’t the scary deadly catastrophic disaster we have heard about for decades now.
Who the fuck knows?
Now back to the Superbowl.
Full paper here
Global warming is a good thing, we’re at the dawn of a new golden age of human advancement not seen since Classical Greece … blah blah blah …
Are those naked women in Figure 6?
Yes, that is what is in Fig 6. But it’s Fig 8 that really is offensive.
I wish you wouldn’t have pointed that out … EWWWWW … I though astronomers were craven. Fuck, now the stratosphere is warming too, right here, like we can start growing tomatoes or something. I hope it doesn’t start raining again …
Sudden change of focus.
While Wikipedia is usually dominated by the insanity of the warmistas, personified by the supreme wikidiot of all time, William Connolley, there are actually all these little bits of actual science, that he and the legion of like minded fools don’t know about. Because they are actually sort of stupid in their efforts to control all articles on anything climate related.
Not that such a total tool wouldn’t give it a try if anyone clued him in. And Connolley outlived his ban, and once again uses his every waking moment to try and control what sources of information should not be allowed on Wikipeida. For example, this sweet little page from NASA’s Earth Observatory, and let me tell you, if William the idiot doesn’t like something, it’s usually a good scientific source. In this case you can look at the Land Surface Temperature Anomaly for the entire planet from March 2000- December 2013.
It’s a fantastic little data set that shows some of the things the GISS data I’ve been linking to, but it’s way quicker. It also looks a lot more extreme because it’s surface temps, not the troposphere. You can also click the play button and watch it all as an animation. The extreme winter events show up quite well. Like JFeb 2012, or Feb 2005. Like all accurate datasets it clearly shows the unexpected and dramatic NH winter cooling trend, if you know what to look for.
Look at Feb 2008 and March 2008, you can see the expected warming that CO2 forcing is predicted to cause. Contrasted with what is usually seen, it’s dramatic and shit like that. SCIENCES!!
But seriously, just look at the last three months of 2013. For the US and Canada. And Greenland. Remember all that “warm arctic is causing it” bullshit? Or that “November was warmer than ever!”, or “Global Warming is faster than ever!”.
Yeah. That’s right.
Fuck you William Connolley, you complete turd in a punchbowl.
Yeah, well what else would you expect some dumb fuckhead to say when they can’t counter simple links to evidence? And simple arguments based on evidence anyone can look at?
The NASA page I linked to also has all kinds of other cool shit to look at, like cloud cover and rainfall amounts, combined with the anomaly data.
It’s really fucking cool, and all science based. While the monthly resolution isn’t the greatest for research, it’s still enough to find some cool shit. or just click play and watch the seasonal rain bands moving up and down in Africa. Fuck it I don’t care, I just think science is cool.
And fuckheads are not.
I know you are, but what am I?
Ha ha ha! Mr Not-A-Scientist thinks incoming solar radiation is only in the visible light spectrum…tell me more!
I don’t define it, I use the IPCC definition sine that’s the one used by the scientists actually working on understanding climate change (that’s the definition for “radiative forcing”, which you can find in section 6.1.1 of TAR (and AR4 section 2.2 says "The definition of RF from the TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. ".)
Full definition: [spoiler]6.1.1 Definition
The term “radiative forcing” has been employed in the IPCC Assessments to denote an externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the Earth’s climate system. Such a perturbation can be brought about by secular changes in the concentrations of radiatively active species (e.g., CO2, aerosols), changes in the solar irradiance incident upon the planet, or other changes that affect the radiative energy absorbed by the surface (e.g., changes in surface reflection properties). This imbalance in the radiation budget has the potential to lead to changes in climate parameters and thus result in a new equilibrium state of the climate system. In particular, IPCC (1990, 1992, 1994) and the Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996) (hereafter SAR) used the following definition for the radiative forcing of the climate system: “The radiative forcing of the surface-troposphere system due to the perturbation in or the introduction of an agent (say, a change in greenhouse gas concentrations) is the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus long-wave; in Wm-2) at the tropopause AFTER allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropo-spheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values”. In the context of climate change, the term forcing is restricted to changes in the radiation balance of the surface-troposphere system imposed by external factors, with no changes in stratospheric dynamics, without any surface and tropospheric feedbacks in operation (i.e., no secondary effects induced because of changes in tropospheric motions or its thermodynamic state), and with no dynamically-induced changes in the amount and distribution of atmospheric water (vapour, liquid, and solid forms). Note that one potential forcing type, the second indirect effect of aerosols (Chapter 5 and Section 6.8), comprises microphysically-induced changes in the water substance. The IPCC usage of the “global mean” forcing refers to the globally and annually averaged estimate of the forcing.
The prior IPCC Assessments as well as other recent studies (notably the SAR; see also Hansen et al. (1997a) and Shine and Forster (1999)) have discussed the rationale for this definition and its application to the issue of forcing of climate change. The salient elements of the radiative forcing concept that characterise its eventual applicability as a tool are summarised in Appendix 6.1 (see also WMO, 1986; SAR). Defined in the above manner, radiative forcing of climate change is a modelling concept that constitutes a simple but important means of estimating the relative impacts due to different natural and anthropogenic radiative causes upon the surface-troposphere system (see Section 6.2.1). The IPCC Assessments have, in particular, focused on the forcings between pre-industrial times (taken here to be 1750) and the present (1990s, and approaching 2000). Another period of interest in recent literature has been the 1980 to 2000 period, which corresponds to a time frame when a global coverage of the climate system from satellites has become possible.
We find no reason to alter our view of any aspect of the basis, concept, formulation, and application of radiative forcing, as laid down in the IPCC Assessments to date and as applicable to the forcing of climate change. Indeed, we reiterate the view of previous IPCC reports and recommend a continued usage of the forcing concept to gauge the relative strengths of various perturbation agents, but, as discussed below in Section 6.2, urge that the constraints on the interpretation of the forcing estimates and the limitations in its utility be noted. [/spoiler]
For those for whom that was tl;dr, it can be summed up as “an externally imposed perturbation in the radiative energy budget of the Earth’s climate system.” Of course, anyone who has any familiarity with how science works, or even elementary logic, can see why that means H[sub]2[/sub]O must be excluded from the definition (hint for the denialist non-scientists: it’s all about the definition of “climate system.”
Now, do you need me to also hold your hand through how that’s different from cloud forcing (the change in radiative energy budget produced by cloud cover) or other forcings? I mean, it should be obvious to anyone with even a modicum of understanding of English, but I’m not sure that covers you, so…
Peak absorption at the stratospause, or do you mean the thermosphere? I have peak radiation around 500 nm, what do you get?
An interesting political definition, who am I to refute the diplomatic interpretation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. 70 W/m[sup]2[/sup] just disappears by legislative action, the majority is always right, eh? You’ll notice that your use of the IPCC definition is exclusive to that report, and with their mandate to provide advice to legislative bodies.
In real science, the numbers have to all add up … and Laws aren’t subject to democratic processes. If you choose to ignore water vapor, then you have a major gap in your transport mechanisms, and all your forces disappear. What’s next, carbon dioxide in the air causes more carbon dioxide to magically appear? Maybe gravity is a pseudo-force? If we get contrails without albedo, we’d have a pay-out from the trifecta.
Seriously, the IPCC disavows rainfall?
(Forcing = input flux + output flux) … that stands no matter how much the energy rattles around inside the system. You cannot disappear the water, either the IPCC is wrong or you just aren’t understanding what they say.
Ignoring water vapor, I get the oceans beginning to boil off in 116 days … we should definitely panic.
Who said anything about “peak”? Certainly not you - you made no such weasely qualification. You just blanketly said “Water vapor is inert to the wavelengths that are received from the sun”. Which is complete ignorant bunk.
And BTW, while the absorption spectrum peak is in the visible, it’s a looong tail into the infrared. More energy in that region than the visible, by a chunk.
So that’s a big fat “No” on any understanding of “Let’s not include the things we want to measure in our variables”, then. Like I said, clearly not a scientist.
Next you’ll be claiming temperature is a forcing, too. I mean, why not go for broke in our insanity, right?
Science is hard
Using the IPCC report as a scientific source.
Priceless.
BTW, y’all might be freezing up north, but it’s still unseasonably warm in Florida. Never before have I had to run the AC in February.
The IPCC report is the work of scientists. What is your point?
I know! It never gets this warm in February. Goddamn global warming.
Oddly for someone who claims to like science, you seem to be under the impression that actual scientists (including “top climate experts” and the vast majority of all other climate scientists) can’t do science.
Bitching about people bitching is so meta