So you typed every single bit in your post from memory? I am flattered, but somewhat disbelieving. Especially when I see the characteristic square opening brackets that show the cite has not quite been removed.
And I did better already, as we already saw you were wrong on thinking that the cites came from Wikipedia, in reality sources like Skeptical Science do link at the science they are quoting and talking about. And Gavin Schimidt is the Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and he is a climatologist and climate modeler.
Somehow, many times, it has to be pointed to many contrarians that the blue links in the Skeptical Science often go to the published scientific articles or magazines. And of course, experts are dismissed by the contrarians as it is nowadays the only hope they have to guide the narrative.
Because they are not really relevant to the current warming. Or to be more precise, like Professor Muller can tell you it is also an alternative explanation some contrarians use (seen recently in congress) that unfortunately for them it does not explain properly the sudden rise in warming like CO2 and other greenhouse gases do.
And you were indeed wrong about the Wikipedia thing, but it is clear that that is not enough to make a contrarian humble it seems.
And this is really a very silly argument, deal with the science in the links, do not shoot the messenger.
And as pointed before, there is no good source that even defends what you are declaring so far, so let me tell you only that real scientists also post in the SDMB and they have told me before that I do understand this issue just fine, in reality it is not hard to find that there is plenty of good evidence that has already been catalogued. (If you have not figured out, is also a consequence of where the consensus of evidence actually is, contrarians and sceptics are being misled by bad information that also denies that people that have experience with the issue could also make a site that debunks contrarian memes.)
Really, you might as well claim that sites like Talkorigins.org are impossible to comprehend or to think that they could exist, but it just simple catalogues the already tired myths that creationists repeat often and point to the proper scientific or expert replies that scientists made to creationists or Intelligent designers for ages.
Just a quick quiz - and I mean quick, no peeking allowed. It’s intended to see if you are player or a spectator.
-
How long does it take for the energy of a thermal photon emitted at ground level at mid latitudes over land, long wave IR, to escape from the earth’s atmosphere? Within 20% will do to take account of velocity of light not in a vacuum. And we’ll say the edge of space is 150km and we’ll say it’s emitted straight up.
-
Why on earth does it matter?
:rolleyes:
Like telling others to disarm and ignore that we are living in the 21st century, I’ll pass.
The issue at hand is about CO2 and temperature, what I do know is that there is empirical evidence about what CO2 is doing to the IR photons emitted from the Earth’s surface.
This item also give us even more evidence that you are wrong about disparaging the models that the climate scientists use.
Moderator Note
I realize this is a hot button topic for some folks so I’m going to be a bit lenient here. That said, let’s all dial it back a notch or two. This is GQ, not GD. If you want to have GD style arguments, then by all means, start a new thread (or join an existing one) in GD. While this is in GQ, let’s all focus more on facts and cites and less on trying to prove a point.
I don’t think you understand what the word “flattered” means, but yes, except for looking up the specific numbers for fossil fuel vs. land use emissions, everything I wrote was entirely my own. And I clearly attributed the source that I looked up for those numbers – the ones that show your claim to be completely wrong – to the IPCC AR5 WG1.
As I also pointed out, you also got everything else completely wrong, without exception. You’re using GQ to regurgitate denialist talking points. But hey, since you claim knowledge on this topic – though have so far utterly failed to demonstrate any – please feel free to start a thread in GD and we’ll see where that goes.
Now I repeat: You will cite what it is that I supposedly cut and pasted or you will withdraw the accusation and apologize. Also please point out the “opening square brackets” that you’re apparently hallucinating.
I apologize to the OP for having to respond to this thread-shitting but at this point it’s kind of a matter of principle and setting the record straight in GQ.
ETA: Composed and posted before I saw preceding mod note. Still think it should stand, but my argument with the poster is now over. He can take it up elsewhere if he wants.
Umm… It’s the most critical part of the physical models used in calculating energy transport in the atmosphere. It involves a huge amount of modelling of CO2 and H2O effect on photon transport and physical transport of energy in the atmosphere.
It’s what makes the completely misnamed ‘greenhouse effect’ work. and furthermore it’s failure to model that transport correctly that makes many models completely wrong.
Have a read of ScienceOfDoom. He has a good introductory section on it. Intro at Understanding atmospheric radiation and the Greenhouse Effect
And especially relevant Part 4 of that, Part 4. But do read all the parts. You might learn something.
And nothing that you pointed out makes you correct anyhow.
And as pointed out your ruse is really silly, what you think I do not know does not invalidate that you were wrong. And I was already aware of how important it is, and the models did work really well.
I think that we can agree on these points:
- We don’t have a good handle on what our current climate sensitivity is
- There are reasons climate sensitivity can be different at different times, particularly because
- there are many climate feedbacks, slow and fast, into which multiple parameters feed.
I think we can still have a reasonable, if not entirely quantitative, GQ discussion about this, without getting into the weeds about how useful or not the models are. If the OP is into that sort of thing.
Actually that points to one item that has been mentioned many times before: uncertainty is not our friend.
The late climate researcher, Stephen Schneider, used to make the point that for less risk than those we insure our homes and cars.
And that is why the **full **results of the experiment that we are doing to the climate will not be seen until a few hundred years, but as the arctic amplification (among other things) is showing up already, the most likely thing is that we will see a few of the expected bad outcomes for the fast ones sooner than many expected, like with the loss of cap ice and volume.
Of course you have to notice that you are relying on Wikipedia and you are already discredited… 
Nah, one has to only check if the cites and information matches what one has seen reported elsewhere, specially in an academic or scientific settings. What I can see from the Wikipedia article you linked is that indeed the IPCC has pointed at the range of uncertainty regarding the climate sensibility, but what one can miss is that they also do point that the probabilities still show the mid range of about 2.5 to 3.5 degrees as the most likely outcome.
What one should take into account more regarding the risks is that more studies and simulations give us higher values and therefore more danger than the ones that show lower values that could justify complacency. IOW, there are studies made that do report low temperature increases due to a possible low sensibility, unfortunately that is as likely as several of the worst scenarios. Some studies and simulations do point to 11 degrees C as possible and slightly more probable than the 1 to 2 degree ones.
So what I pointed early stands:
Looking at the most likely outcomes and dangers of letting the CO2 increase, we do have to control our emissions ASAP. Because we are acting late it is much likely now that we will have to invest in adaptation to minimize the bad effects that we will very likely encounter.
Or:
Ignore that, expecting the less likely low increases, and we will more likely run into even worse scenarios. And more costs for adaptation and even geoengineering to deal with the issue.
Since Paleo climatology is showing that the high sensibilities are more probable it is wishful thinking to expect the low end of the increases and danger.
What does any of that have to do with the OP?
It explains more about the temperatures and more likely sensibility and how soon the effects can be seen as the OP was looking for. It also takes into account what paleo climate science is telling us, and it is telling us that it could be as bad as the worst estimates.
Not to mention that it was a reply (actually adding to what you pointed out and cited) to you.
It depends on the frequency of the IR. Certain frequencies, absorbed and radiated by what we call greenhouse gases, may not ever “leave”, while others it will take no time at all, so to speak. It’s like asking how long will a photon in the visible light range to reach the ground, from 150km out?
It may be in an instant, or ot might not ever reach the ground, or it might be reflected by clouds, absorbed by dust, there is no such thing as an average photon.
But it’s a good question in regards to understanding how CO2 modifies the heat balance of the planet. You could ask the exact same question about incoming IR
How long does it take for the energy of a thermal photon emitted by the sun, to reach the ground at mid latitudes over land, long wave IR, once it enters the earth’s atmosphere?
And why does it matter?
To make it clear, the same CO2 in the atmosphere that slows heat energy at certain frequencies from leaving, also prevents the heat from the sun from reaching the ground.
Why does this matter?
Missing? A lot.
Methane? Nobody really knows.
Stronger? Nobody real knows. Consensus says no. There is a possibility there was less interstellar dust at the time. But nobody knows.
Closer? The Earth wasn’t much closer. Not enough to explain it.
What data? Our knowledge of the distant past is incomplete and can change as we discover more. Certainly we know that in the distant past CO2 levels were very high compared to present. Plants evolved in a carbon rich atmosphere. But we don’t know if CO2 was a cause or an effect.
Nobody is even sure why the Holocene climatic optimum was so much warmer than present. CO2 levels from ice cores say it wasn’t from CO2, but we do know that the current climate is much colder than it was between 9000 and 5000 years ago. In fact, all the current glaciers melting away did not exist then. Tree lines were higher, forests grew in the Siberian and Alaska arctic regions, and warm water corals and organisms populated the northern oceans. Global sea level was 3 meters higher on average. Why? Nobody really knows.
Does CO2 control the climate? That is the essential question still not answered. Theory says more CO2 should result in warming, but until it happens, there is no way to know. Since it was far warmer in the past, and CO2 levels were not high, we do know other factors are involved.
What were they? What are they? It’s a great question of our time.
This looks like it is making it less clear, most of the sunlight passes trough the atmosphere, the problem comes when the light turns into heat close or at the ground and instead of the reflected energy going to space the CO2 prevents enough of that energy from leaving the earth and that increases the overall temperature.
http://www.epa.gov/climatestudents/basics/today/greenhouse-effect.html
Richard Alley and many others already replied: “The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth’s Climate History”
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/the-biggest-control-knob-co2-in-earths-climate-history