United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell -- Separating Science Fom Bullshit
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/
Published: Feb 5, 2011
Author: Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D
Post Date: 2011-02-05 09:10:50 by no gnu taxes
Keywords: None
Views: 48602
Comments: 66
Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (“IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter. Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%. Global warming theory says that the lower atmosphere must then respond to this energy imbalance (less IR radiation being lost than solar energy being absorbed) by causing an increase in temperature (which causes an increase in the IR escaping to space) until the emitted IR radiation once again equals the amount of absorbed sunlight. That is, the Earth must increase its temperature until global energy balance is once again restored. This is the basic explanation of global warming theory. (The same energy balance concept applies to a pot of water on a stove set on “low”. The water warms until the rate of energy loss through evaporation, convective air currents, and infrared radiation equals the rate of energy gain from the stove, at which point the water remains at a constant temperature. If you turn the heat up a tiny bit more, the temperature of the water will rise again until the extra amount of energy lost by the pot once again equals the energy gained from the stove, at which point a new, warmer equilibrium temperature is reached.) Now, you might be surprised to learn that the amount of warming directly caused by the extra CO2 is, by itself, relatively weak. It has been calculated theoretically that, if there are no other changes in the climate system, a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F). This is NOT a controversial statement…it is well understood by climate scientists. (As of 2008, we were about 40% to 45% of the way toward a doubling of atmospheric CO2.) BUT…everything this else in the climate system probably WON’T stay the same! For instance, clouds, water vapor, and precipitation systems can all be expected to respond to the warming tendency in some way, which could either amplify or reduce the manmade warming. These other changes are called “feedbacks,” and the sum of all the feedbacks in the climate system determines what is called ‘climate sensitivity’. Negative feedbacks (low climate sensitivity) would mean that manmade global warming might not even be measurable, lost in the noise of natural climate variability. But if feedbacks are sufficiently positive (high climate sensitivity), then manmade global warming could be catastrophic. Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical; this is the subject of most of my research. Here you can read about my latest work on the subject, in which I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system. Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved. Here you can read about my favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
#5. To: no gnu taxes (#0)
Global warming isn't a theory; it's a fact - even most of the most ardent deniers stipulate that temps have been rising. Only loons like Bastardi and Padlock believe otherwise. Warming is a fact. Given the fact of warming, theories of its affect were developed. Climate change being one. Now, what is hilarious, is that with the theorized affects of warming on climate coming true, these same deniers point to those same predicted affects as somehow being refutative of the affects of warming.
What predictions would that be, Willie? From 5 or 6 years ago when there were mild winters and that was touted as the effect of global warming or the cold winters now when that is the the effect of global warming?
Until you learn to control yourself, you're on bozo. You do not have permission to use any part of what you believe is my name other than what I may choose to use here.
If
you had come to my defence when my name was being dropped on this site, then I
might have some empathy for you, but as it is, the shoe is on the other foot
now, wear it..(Deleted by me the moderator)! And no one here objected to posting
personal info on badeye either, so STFU!!! There is no deep, dark secret as
to who you are willie, your face, and name, is exactly where you put it on the
internet.....
I don't understand his hissie fit. I could be talking about Willie Stargell as far as anyone knows
His self-rightious snit pissed me off, they don't expect their nastiness to come back on them and bite them on the ass....
BTW, Mammy, in PM's I told certain posters that I was not comfortable with personal information of other posters being put on these boards. One of these exchanges occurred around the time that you let Boofer suck you into that vortex by posting what came dangerously close to libelous inferences about FM. Ironically, once was with someone posting Padlock's stuff and the other was when someone was posting about....wait for it...YOU. I have never posted any personal information about anyone here. EVER. I have never posted my full name anywhere EVER. Put your foot in your mouth much?
Hey! It's your euro-trash friends you want to convince, my word doesn't matter...and what you have to say to me, or about me, matters even less...
Mammy, you are seriously bi-polar. Dueling Mammy's... Mammy 1: If you had come to my defence [sic] when my name was being dropped on this site, then I might have some empathy for you, but as it is, the shoe is on the other foot now, wear it..(Deleted by me the moderator)! And no one here objected to posting personal info on [boofer] either, so STFU!!! Mammy 2: ..and what you have to say to me, or about me, matters even less... So on one hand she's whining because of something I didn't say and on the other she doesn't care ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If I were to guess...Mammy #1 is telling the truth and #2 is the liar. The question is...when I put her on bozo, will she require two spots?
OBTW, cute pics, but they don't look a thing like me, and if you had been smart cough..cough...lol, you'd have seen the real me by now....
I hope that you have Boofer on video cam to witness this meltdown, Mammy. ON the Twinkie Wagon to Bozoland - where the Prozac flows so freely - you go.
ROTFLMAO....
He's a coward who always hides when the truth comes too fast and furious.
You can add 'LIAR' to the list of things he is....he and the cyber trash he hangs out with actually think calling me mammy and liar must make it so, I suppose, I think any woman could intimidate them tho....lol
Since he came back, two people have put me on filter. How gutless must you be to hide on a message board? Just children who love to snipe.
There are no replies to Comment # 35. End Trace Mode for Comment # 35.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#7. To: war (#5)
Now, what is hilarious, is that with the theorized affects of warming on climate coming true
#15. To: no gnu taxes, A K A Stone (#7)
(Edited)
#19. To: war, no gnu taxes, A K A Stone, ALL (#15)
"You do not have permission to use any part of what you believe
is my name other than what I may choose to use here".
#21. To: Murron (#19)
#22. To: no gnu taxes (#21)
"I don't understand his hissie fit. I could be talking about Willie Stargell as far as anyone knows"
#23. To: Murron, Ferret Mike, Skip Intor (#22)
(Edited)
#24. To: war (#23)
I have never posted my full name anywhere EVER.
#25. To: Murron (#24)
It's your euro-trash friends you want to convince, my word doesn't matter...and what you have to say to me, or about me, matters even less...
#28. To: war (#25)
#30. To: Murron. A K A Stone (#28)
#31. To: war (#30)
ON the Twinkie Wagon to Bozoland - where the Prozac flows so freely - you go.
#32. To: Murron (#31)
#34. To: Rudgear (#32)
He's a coward who always hides when the truth comes too fast and furious.
#35. To: Murron (#34)
Replies to Comment # 35.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]