bdgwx

So as of 2018 the Earth is about 1.1C above the preindustrial average. Berkeley Earth says the warming rate is 0.19C/decade. Assuming that rate holds firm the Earth will achieve 3C of warming (the center of the IPCC's 1.5-4.5C envelope) by (3 - 1.1) / (0.19 * 10) + 2018 = 2118. And if CO2 concentration growth holds firm at about 2.3 ppm/yr we will reach a doubling at (280*2 - 410) / 2.3 + 2018 = 2083. The difference being 35 years which is in the ballpark of what you expect the lag of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate response (ECR) to be. And analyzed in another way the TCR at 2083 using the 0.19C/decade rate is (2083 - 2018) * (0.19 / 10) + 1.1 = 2.3C. Thus the ratio of TCR=2.3C to ECR=3.0C is 0.75. Again this is in the ballpark of estimates derived from multiple lines of evidence. And one last point...if we assume TCR-to-ECR is 0.75 that means the 1.1C of warming of transient warming will produce 1.1 / 0.75 = 1.45C of equilibrium warming. In other words 1.5C of warming may already be baked in.

17 hours ago, snowlover91 said:

 

Then why have Mann and others been attempting to silence critics or express a willingness to "redefine" what peer review is? What about people in the academic circle who were quickly ostracized as soon as they took a skeptical or more moderate position on AGW? Judith Curry is a person who has been around a long time and seen these issues first hand, here is what she noted...

"Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.

How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)." Source

 

I'm not really sure what to tell you here. I only follow the hard science. I'm not saying your concerns aren't worthy of discussion. I'm just not the type of person that typically engages is in this line of debate. If you think either Mann or Curry or anybody has submitted their work to the scientific community (via the peer review process) with the intention of fraud either by unwarranted manipulation of data or the omission data without cause then we can talk about that. If you can identify a substantiated claim of fraud then I'll join you in repudiating that scientist. But, understand that neither Curry nor Mann define the scientific consensus on climate topics. We can eliminate both Mann's and Curry's scientific works and it still wouldn't change the consensus. And yes, I realize Mann is an AGW advocate and Curry is an AGW skeptic. I'm familiar with both and I've read many of their scientific works.

15 hours ago, BillT said:

Nobody claims that CO2 is the dominating factor in Earth's equilibrium temperature (T).

 

what is this equilibrium temperature please?  seems that would be when there is no climate change and th temperature remains the same for a very long time.....no such state of equilibrium is evident in any record....i submit rather thermodynamics makes the overall system SEEK balance(equilibrium)but can never find it because too many factors constantly change and no such state can be achieved.

When I say equilibrium temperature I'm talking about the actual global mean surface temperature (T) and not an anomaly (ΔT). Berkeley Earth recorded this temperature as being 15.058C ± 0.095 for December 2018. Note that this equilibrium temperature is higher than the Stefan-Boltzmann law predicts for an ideal black body radiator. This is due in large part to the greenhouse gas effect and other thermodynamic processes occurring in the atmosphere. The magnitude of this effect is ~33C.

Note that when I used the term equilibrium to describe the temperature I'm using it in it's more loose sense to describe the approximate temperature that represents an equilibrium in the climate system. The climate system is obviously in a perpetual state of change and thus the equilibrium temperature is also in a perpetual state of change. I am specifically discounting other concepts like transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate response (ECR) that would cause a lag between the true equilibrium temperature between TCR and ECR. ECR always chases TCR with the lag times being different depending on the process that is trying to perturb the temperature.

Anyway, the point is that of this 288.21K (15.06C) temperature 2.73K may be attributable to the cosmic microwave background. ~33K is attributable to the greenhouse gas effect and other thermodynamic processes within the atmosphere. Smaller components can be pinned on radioactive decay in the Earth's core (maybe around 0.1 W/m2) and tidal transfer of the Earth/Moon system (maybe around 0.01 W/m2). And, of course, the heat fluxes between the different heat storage mediums on Earth (hydrosphere, cryosphere, land, etc.) play a role as well. The Sun is by far the dominating factor in what the actual equilibrium temperature is.

However, that does NOT mean that the Sun is the dominating factor in what drives the perturbations or changes of this temperature. Again, change is the key concept here. This is an incredibly important and crucial distinction. If there is any confusion please ask questions. There are a lot of smart people on this forum that could probably articulate this better than I.

55 minutes ago, BillT said:

>>>that the Earth is warming and that anthroprogenically modulated physical processes are dwarfing the naturally modulated physical process today.  <<<

 

TY for confirming your religious dogma.....that claim is the co2 humans release is more powerful that the SUN......the claim co2 drives the temperature on earth is IDIOCY and NO science of any kind backs that idiotic claim.

Nobody claims that CO2 is the dominating factor in Earth's equilibrium temperature (T). What the scientific consensus claims is that CO2 is a significant factor in the change in temperature (ΔT) and the net anthroprogenic radiative forcing for change is larger than the net natural radiative forcing for change. Note the difference here. T vs ΔT. Those are not the same thing. The key concept here is change. And there's more to it than just CO2. Didn't I explain this once before?

There isn't a big conspiracy to hide or fraudulently manipulate data. Science occurs in an open forum and is available to review by anyone that wants to. If someone even so much as makes a math mistake it's usually discovered quickly. I'm not saying we shouldn't be concerned about the possibility of it happening. I'm just saying that it isn't the problem it's often made out to be. Even after all of these accusations of fraud the abundance of evidence clearly and decisively indicates that the Earth is warming and that anthroprogenically modulated physical processes are dwarfing the naturally modulated physical process today.  

This thread was about the accusation that Bates leveled against Karl of fraudulently manipulating the NOAA GlobalTemp dataset to show more warming than there actually was. Here are the facts that have been discovered over the last two years as they relate to the accusation.

- Bates first accused Karl of fraudulently manipulating the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset according to the Daily Mail outfit.

- Bates was quoted as saying "it's not trumped up data in any way shape or form".

- Bates actually accused Karl of rushing the publication through the review process. 

- These accusations are in direct reference to the Karl 2015 publication: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469

- The above publication is describing the change of Karl's datasets from ERSSTv3 to ERSSTv4.

- Karl is not listed as a contributor to the ERSSTv4 dataset. The changes in ERSSTv4 are documented, available to the public, and were necessary to fix a few issues that were discovered since the previous version was published. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00006.1

The conclusions from the formal investigation were as follows.

- Not only did Karl (or NOAA in general) not fraudulently manipulate any data he didn't even commit the review blunders that Bates accused him of. Nevermind that he wasn't in control of the timing of the publication anyway. 

- The change from ERSSTv3 to ERSSTv4 was evolutionary in nature and was done to fix known issues with the inputs. It was not fraudulent nor was it stealthily done. The change described in Karl 2015 was submitted to the peer reviewed journal Science and is in the public domain.

- NOAAGlobalTemp is consistent with all of the other conventional global mean surface temperature datasets including Cowtan&Way, NASA GISS, HadCRUT, Berkeley Earth, etc.

- It was actually Bates that had authority over the review process and thus the blunders that he tried to pin on Karl were made him. He was not forthcoming about this in his correspondence with the public.

- Although the MITRE investigation found no wrong doing (other than that committed under Bates' authority) they do have recommendations for policy changes for NOAA to implement to clarify ambiguous or contradictory procedures.

I also feel it important to point out that the net sum of all necessary adjustments to the NOAAGlobalTemp dataset done by Karl actually work to reduce the amount of warming compared to the raw data. This is clearly documented in Karl's 2015 publication. Refer to figure 2B.

2018 data isn't in yet for the troposphere, but the hydrosphere data is now available.

For those don't know the hydrosphere is important because it takes up > 90% of the excess heat. Land, ice, and atmosphere all combine to account for the remaining heat uptake budget.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00376-019-8276-x

New information related to this thread which was released just a few weeks ago...

https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/MITRE-DoC-NOAA-Assessment-Report.pdf

It was concluded that there was no wrong doing or fraudulent manipulation of data on the part of Karl and that it was actually Bates who committed the review blunders that he accused Karl of.

Here's Karl's original paper that is the subject of this thread.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469

Looks good. I like the changes. It's getting a lot more usable. 

I-70 in MO cashes in on the 9Z SREF.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen models this aggressive with QPF in St. Louis. I have my doubts that we'll see 10:1 ratios, but who knows. I will say that during the March 2013 storm the temperature remained above freezing during a huge part of the that event and that was after the daily high reached 41F and the day before was 58F and the airport still recorded 12.5" with 1.25" liquid.

57 minutes ago, MUWX said:

At least you guys were never in it. SWMO is about to have another one ripped away after looking like we were in a good spot.

Yeah. I hear you. Springfield has gotten the shaft worse than St. Louis these past several years.

By the way, I went to high school in Republic so I'm very familiar with the area.

The FV3 is once again far more amped in terms of moisture than the GFS. St. Louis cashes in once again.

18Z GFS/FV3 QPF...

6 minutes ago, Cincy02 said:

Can you post the link to this again? It looks like the ones you provided earlier both take you to the OP run.

mag is op

mageval is parallel

The sites look exactly the same and the links are similar. Best to just click them below.

http://mageval.ncep.noaa.gov - parallel

http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov - op

18Z FV3 continues to look favorable for most of the subforum. 

STL AFD is saying widespread 4-6" amounts with higher amounts possible.

FV3 runs at the same time as the GFS. There may be a distribution problem delaying products for 3rd parties.

You can get limited FV3 products directly from the NOAA site. They are available at the same time as the old GFS products. They do provide the FV3 snow depth product.

http://mageval.ncep.noaa.gov for parallel run

http://mag.ncep.noaa.gov/ for operational run

There's a night and day difference on the 12Z cycle of the op GFS and para GFS (FV3). The later is further north and significantly more amped up. Pretty much everyone in this subforum would cash in. 

Euro has some snow...more on the east side of MO than the west, but Springfield is still in the ballpark right now for some accumulation at least as modeled.

Preliminary numbers show that the annual mean extents for the NH finished second lowest behind 2016. SH was similar...it finished second lowest behind 2017. 

The SH is whole different beast, but the fact that we had 2018 end badly lends a bit of credence to the idea that 2017 may not have a fluke. I wonder if we're beginning to observe the paradigm shift down there too. Any thoughts csnavy?

6 hours ago, BillT said:

ty for the tone of your response bdgwx.......the release is random with NO directional push at all isnt it? and since the photon was moving away from the earth why when released from the co2 doesnt it continue moving away from the earth?

Once a photon is "captured" by a polyatomic molecule via molecular vibration it ceases to exist. The quantized energy of the photon is added to the molecule by increasing the kinetic energy of the chemical bonds by causing the individual atoms to vibrate. One way the molecule can "use" this added energy is by creating a new photon with the same frequency as the original (sort of). This new photon is emitted in a random direction. So whereas the original photon may have had an escape vector any resultant photon would only have a 50%'ish probability of having an escape vector. The short answer to your question is that the photon doesn't continue moving away from Earth because it no longer exists.

CO2 is IR active at two primary wavenumbers. They are 667 and 2349. 667 is the most interesting because it lies right in the heart of the highest outgoing radiation flux channels Refer to skierinvermont's plot above. And notice that the molecule is absorbing radiation at both higher and lower frequencies. This happens for several reasons, but I believe the two primary reasons are due to pressure broadening and doppler shifting. Pressure broadening happens when two or more molecules "share" energy. This allows the molecules to work together to capture a photon. The higher the pressure the closer the molecules are and the more likely they are to successfully capture a photon that isn't exactly 667. Doppler shifting refers to the way a molecule will perceive the photon frequency. If the molecule is moving toward/away from the photon then the photon will be blue/red shifted from the molecule's perspective.  Again notice in skierinvermont's graph that the breadth of the absorption spectrum is larger at 300K than it is at 220K. This is due in part to both doppler shifting and pressure broadening because higher temperatures are associated with both higher pressures and higher molecule velocities.

It only takes a few ppm of CO2 to completely saturate the ~14 µm channel (wavenumber 667). Additional concentrations beyond the first few ppm then work to broaden the absorption spectra. The higher the temperature the more the absorption spectra will broaden if given repeated pulses of CO2. This in itself is a type of internal feedback. The more CO2 warms the atmosphere the more the absorption spectra will respond to increasing CO2. But that feedback, like most, is self limiting. All other things being equal this broadening of the absorption spectra will equilibriate. For the lower troposphere this requires a lot of CO2...far more than is currently in the atmosphere.

The takeaway here...depending on your precise meaning of "the CO2 effect is saturate" the answer can either be yes or no. Yes, in that the ~14 µm channel is definitely saturated already, but no, that doesn't mean the entirety of the CO2 effect is saturated because there is plenty of longwave radiation surrounding ~14 µm that is still up for grabs. All of the above (plus other reasons) is why the CO2 effect is proportional to the logarithm of the concentration. Specifically, the radiative forcing is about 5.35 * ln(Cn/Cb) where Cn is the new concentration is Cb is the baseline you want to compare it to. For example, a doubling of CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm would yield 5.35 * ln(560/280) = +3.7 W/m2 of additional force on the climate system.

By the way, side note, the ABI instrument on the new GOES-R satellites is very sensitive to CO2. In fact channel 16 (widely available online) is called the "CO2 channel" because it lies near 14 µm (13.3 µm to be precise). The irony here is that if CO2 or H2O weren't really GHGs then a significant portion of the GOES-16 and GOES-17 satellites would be useless!

2 hours ago, BillT said:

how would a molecule of co2 stop the IR wave leaving the atmosphere please??? 

It captures the photon in a process called molecular vibration. For example, CO2's bending mode is activated at wavenumber 667. However, due to the nuances of quantum mechanics, doppler shifting, etc. the bending mode isn't always activated at precisely 667. There is partial absorption on the fringe frequencies. So while adding CO2 may not increase absorption at precisely 667 it will increase the probability of photon capture at the fringe frequencies. See skierinvermont's post above. Anyway, this is how polyatomic convert quantized energy into thermal energy. Google for molecular vibration for more information.

2 hours ago, BillT said:

are you saying co2 in the upper atmosphere can send IR waves back to the earth?

Yes! Molecular vibration works in reverse. The molecule can relax back into a lower energy state and emit a photon in the process to carry away the energy. This photon is emitted in a random direction. Half of the emitted photons have downward vectors while half have upward vectors. This is how the radiation gets "trapped". This is the greenhouse gas effect.

This is probably a good time to mention the smoking gun signal for GHG warming. As IR radiation is trapped with increasing magnitude it should work to warm the lower geosphere at the expense of cooling the upper geosphere. Bingo...that's exactly what we observe. That is the troposphere and hydrosphere are warming while the stratosphere cools. No other physical process can explain this unique observation.

0Z UKMET looks intriguing as well; perhaps more so than the Euro even.

4 hours ago, BillT said:

OR co2 is already impacting as much of the IR spectrum as it can no matter how much more is in the air? IF a dam is holding all the water in the stream does building the dam thicker change anything?

This actually isn't true. This myth has it's origins in an experiment Angstrom and his assistant Koch performed shortly after Arrhenius quantified the greenhouse effect of CO2 and actually predicted it would occur as a direct result of human behavior in the distant future. While the Angstrom/Koch experiment was technically correct in proving that the CO2 effect does saturate the interpretation of how this plays out in the atmosphere got badly bungled for multiple reasons, but mostly because scientists at the time treated the atmosphere as if it were a single homogeneous layer...which it isn't. There are a lot of very physics'y related details involved here but the main takaways are this: 1) Even if a layer of the atmosphere is subject to the saturated CO2 effect itself it will STILL warm via other radiation, conduction, and convection processes through the addition of CO2 because not all layers are subject to the saturation effect and 2) It's not even true that the CO2 effect is saturated to begin with.