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: 47945
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 # 62.
#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.....
Says the idiot who tried to associate me with child molesters because of a similarity of name. You got better than you tried to give in your stick it to me attempt, and you are still whining. Why am I not surprised. None the less, welcome back.
Why if it isn't the euro-weenie enviromentalist to the rescue....lmao~
Well my dear, I have certainly lived in Europe, but am neither adjective. And I don't rescue anyone in this forum. I assume if one is here, they are tough enough to handle the big bad old Internet by themselves. I would speak up in anyone's defense if I felt them unfairly picked on, even you. But I would do you no special favors. You have a right to be here and to express your viewpoint, as do I. And that's the extent of it. I learned a long time ago not to hold grudges or to just unreasonably hate people. If this trait is a weakness to you, well so it goes. You have a right to be wrong like anyone else here, including me.
OH PULEEEEEEZE, YOUR BREAKING MY HEART!
By the way, I did happen across the post where you took Goldi on for her subtle racism and in which you ended your posting there. I was impressed and I commend you for it. How do you feel about Stone's overt racism though? Have you changed your view in regard to expressions of race hate?
You know, you're really not as smart as you'd like to think you are. I can see right through you like you were a sheet of glass. Your kind just loves to throw the word 'racist' out there, and hope it sticks somewhere, doesn't matter if it's true, just the accusation is all you're going for, and watch the fun of that person trying to deny it. I don't think stone meant anything by what he said, because I'm smart enough to know he was refering to just ONE PERSON, and not an intire race of people. I would be more leary of you as a sneaky closet racist than suspect stone of anything like that~ JMHO!
Cool, how smart do I think I am? I'm curious. ;-D Likewise, I'm sure. Actually, I like Stone despite things about him I do not care for. You take the good with the bad, and I am mainly concerned with people like him - and you - to think about things to a deeper degree and from other angles as they do what they do when reading and posting. It really is not my job to bait or to try to punish. Anything posted on here is fair game to comment on or question. The use of the 'N' word is never appropriate in any context, as it causes pain and hurt to anyone in a demographic group it has been thrown at, and I see no point in doing this. I notice your short hairs rise when anyone makes derogatory reference to 'hillbillies' in reference to a particular person. So imagine how another Black man or woman feels when they see him or anyone else use that term. Also, those who are proudly racist like to see him allow racism to be posted or for him to use that language. IT feeds the fires of their hatred, whether he is pandering to them or not.
You're using logic on Mammy? Good luck with that. Send us a postcard when you get there.
Dear war, Enjoying the view of Murron's train of thought railroad. Hope you like the card. Address: you can't get there from here. ;-D
Hilarious.
There are no replies to Comment # 62. End Trace Mode for Comment # 62.
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".
#36. To: Murron (#19)
"If you had come to my defence when my name was being dropped on this site, then I might have some empathy for you..."
#37. To: Ferret Mike (#36)
"Says the idiot who tried to associate me with child molesters because of a similarity of name. You got better than you tried to give in your stick it to me attempt, and you are still whining. Why am I not surprised".
#38. To: Murron (#37)
#39. To: Ferret Mike (#38)
#41. To: Murron (#39)
#45. To: Ferret Mike, A K A Stone (#41)
"How do you feel about Stone's overt racism though"?
#57. To: Murron (#45)
(Edited)
"You know, you're really not as smart as you'd like to think you are."
"I can see right through you like you were a sheet of glass."
"Your kind just loves to throw the word 'racist' out there, and hope it sticks somewhere, doesn't matter if it's true, just the accusation is all you're going for, and watch the fun of that person trying to deny it."
"I don't think stone meant anything by what he said, because I'm smart enough to know he was referring to just ONE PERSON, and not an entire race of people. I would be more Leary of you as a sneaky closet racist than suspect stone of anything like that~ JMHO!"
#59. To: Ferret Mike (#57)
I notice your short hairs rise when anyone makes derogatory reference to 'hillbillies' in reference to a particular person. So imagine how another Black man or woman feels when they see him or anyone else use that term.
#61. To: war (#59)
"Send us a postcard when you get there."
#62. To: Ferret Mike (#61)
Replies to Comment # 62.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]