Another Blow to the Crumbling Wall of AGW

[Snow_Miser]

The CAGW predictions are pretty much toast, now that this new research has been published.

Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains

P. Jonathan Gero, Space Science and Engineering Center, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

David D. Turner, NOAA / National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, Oklahoma and Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

Abstract: A trend analysis was applied to a 14-year time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) located at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) site in the U.S. Southern Great Plains. The highly accurate calibration of the AERI instrument, performed every 10 minutes, ensures that any statistically significant trend in the observed data over this time can be attributed to changes in the atmospheric properties and composition, and not to changes in the sensitivity or responsivity of the instrument. The measured infrared spectra, numbering over 800,000, were classified as clear-sky, thin cloud, and thick cloud scenes using a neural network method. The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-year time period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site. The AERI data also show many statistically significant trends on annual, seasonal, and diurnal time scales, with different trend signatures identified in the separate scene classifications. Given the decadal time span of the dataset, effects from natural variability should be considered in drawing broader conclusions. Nevertheless, this data set has high value due to the ability to infer possible mechanisms for any trends from the observations themselves, and to test the performance of climate models.

[BethesdaWX]

Ehhhhh, not so fast.

I disagree, This is only over the Plains of the US, and not the Globe.......although Co2 is supposed to increase everywhere.

However, this is an Important Issue! Decreasing Clouds over the Globe as a whole are likely the reason for any satellite measurements regarding infrared radiance, since we cannot accurately measure them coverage wise. The assumption that the Warming is/will be the cause of GCC drops is only an assumption...not that the decreasing GCC is/will be the cause of the warming, which really could go contrary.

It only takes a 3% drop in GCC over a timespan to warm the planet 0.9C, a 5% decrease would yield a 1.5C increase.

[skierinvermont]

Ehhhhh, not so fast.

I disagree, This is only over the Plains of the US, and not the Globe.......although Co2 is supposed to increase everywhere.

However, this is an Important Issue! Decreasing Clouds over the Globe as a whole are likely the reason for any satellite measurements regarding infrared radiance,

Wrong... if changes in cloudiness were responsible for the changing infrared radiance then the changes would occur in the spectrum of LW radiation blocked by clouds.

Instead, we are finding that the atmosphere is becoming more opaque in the CO2 spectrum.

[BethesdaWX]

Wrong... if changes in cloudiness were responsible for the changing infrared radiance then the changes would occur in the spectrum of LW radiation blocked by clouds.

Instead, we are finding that the atmosphere is becoming more opaque in the CO2 spectrum.

False! Alert Alert ALERT! Error Error! Changes in infrared radiation due to Co2 increase thus far are too small to measure with todays satellites. It is applied theoretically into climate models, assuming its there. We CAN measure the CO2 spectrum all in all, but the increase has been too small to quantify, so we really cannot measure the mechanism that supposedly drives AGW!

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the Feedback System within the Climate system, and whether it will allow any warming, or excessive warming.

Infrared radiation is infrared radiation. We find measured decreasing outgoing Longwave Radiation in a general base scan would occur based on anything enhancing the GHE. Could easily be GCC.

[skierinvermont]

False! Alert Alert ALERT! Error Error! Changes in infrared radiation due to Co2 increase thus far are too small to measure with todays satellites. It is applied theoretically into climate models, assuming its there. We CAN measure the CO2 spectrum all in all, but the increase has been too small to quantify, so we really cannot measure the mechanism that supposedly drives AGW!

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the Feedback System within the Climate system, and whether it will allow any warming, or excessive warming.

Infrared radiation is infrared radiation. We find measured decreasing outgoing Longwave Radiation in a general base scan would occur based on anything enhancing the GHE. Could easily be GCC.

Wrong... satellites detect a clear and strong increasing opacity to LW radiation int he CO2 spectrum:

This graph represents the change, as detected by satellite, in outgoing LW radiation across the various spectra:

http://www.skeptical...-co2-effect.htm

This is irrefutable empirical satellite evidence that CO2 is preventing large amounts of LW radiation from escaping to space. The three primary studies relied upon in the above link are found here:

http://www.nature.co...s/410355a0.html

http://rose.bris.ac....999/1/paper.pdf

http://citeseerx.ist...10.1.1.131.3867

Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation^{8, 9, 10}, which is a measure of how the Earth cools to space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible for the greenhouse effect^{11, 12, 13}. Here we analyse the difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997. We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH₄, CO₂ and O₃ as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Previously published work using satellite observations of the clear sky infrared emitted radiation by the Earth in 1970, 1997 and in 2003 showed the appearance of changes in the outgoing spectrum, which agreed with those expected from known changes in the concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases over this period. Thus, the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these concentration changes. In the present work, this analysis is being extended to 2006 using the TES instrument on the AURA spacecraft.

[BethesdaWX]

There was a Peer reviewed study refuting this, let me find it.

[skierinvermont]

There was a Peer reviewed study refuting this, let me find it.

sure thing.. i am quivering with anticipation

[nzucker]

It's true that satellites can't detect a daily change in outgoing radiation due to CO2 obstruction, as it's much too small to measure on short timescales, but they do pick up on an imbalance on a yearly basis when the radiative budget is analyzed...

[BethesdaWX]

I take my statement back...for now.

Although it really doesn't affect my argument at all regarding the reality of anthropogenic Impact...(not forcing).

[k***]

lol

[Clifford]

It's true that satellites can't detect a daily change in outgoing radiation due to CO2 obstruction, as it's much too small to measure on short timescales, but they do pick up on an imbalance on a yearly basis when the radiative budget is analyzed...

It is very complicated.

We've been monitoring TSI for a little over 30 years, yet each satellite gives different readings, and we are left with reconstructions, each with subtle differences.

You can download solar flux information from NASA.

http://earthobservat...ERES_NETFLUX_M#

But, it is dependent on seasons, day/night, clouds, etc.

Satellites typically take one or two measurements a day of each point on earth. However, weather doesn't just happen at noon and midnight.

Outgoing flux would certainly be dependent on ocean currents that change on annual and decadal cycles and affects everything from temperatures to cloud cover.

To detect a 1 degree change per century would be a very small percent difference, well below the error of any direct flux comparison.

The Griggs paper and chart posted by skierinvermont discusses outgoing light spectrum changes, and so one could directly observe changes in the absorption in CO₂ absorption bands, compared to the rest of the spectrum, and I believe they were eliminating the effects of water and other feedback mechanisms.

But, they also loose half the environmental balance system if clouds and other feedback mechanisms are ignored.

[skierinvermont]

What the studies I cited show are relative changes over time. The satellite measurements are not accurate and contain biases, but because they are precise and use a consistent methodology over time, relative changes are easily detected. We cannot yet quantify the absolute imbalance at any given moment (at least from space we can't), but we can quantify how the imbalance has changed over time, and in what spectra the changes are occurring.

What is observed is declining outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum.

The absolute imbalance at a particular period of time can be estimated using surface measurements of ocean heat content, atmospheric heat content, and ice melt.

[tacoman25]

What the studies I cited show are relative changes over time. The satellite measurements are not accurate and contain biases, but because they are precise and use a consistent methodology over time, relative changes are easily detected. We cannot yet quantify the absolute imbalance at any given moment (at least from space we can't), but we can quantify how the imbalance has changed over time, and in what spectra the changes are occurring.

What is observed is declining outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum.

The absolute imbalance at a particular period of time can be estimated using surface measurements of ocean heat content, atmospheric heat content, and ice melt.

Shouldn't this also apply to satellite temperature measurements? In other words, even if the measurement is not completely accurate, the general trend should be.

[BethesdaWX]

The absolute imbalance at a particular period of time can be estimated using surface measurements of ocean heat content, atmospheric heat content, and ice melt.

Ummm, Are you arging that OHC, AHC, IM, etc, are due to the Imbalance caused by Co2?

If so, thats pure speculation, and likely false. Those effects are due to Warming in general that cannot be traced to CO2, that is the issue/debate here, regarding feedbacks. A forcing is one thing, but that does not quantify a measurable response from the climate system, because you can have 3 drivers in tandom to a warming climate system, and only one of them may have an actual impact measurably due to Feedbacks, as they can be positive to one Forcing,and negative to another...AKA, small forcings, large feedbacks, visa versa not taking into account positivity or negativity. There is powerful evidence that the feedbacks to CO2 are strongly negative, simply based on latest measurements of global temperatures flatlining. Remember there are millions of feedbacks within the climate system.

Lets say we double Co2 from 400ppm to 800ppm. Without Feedbacks, that equates to about 1.2C warming. In a Climate system loaded with positive feedbacks, that number would be greatly increased. In a Climate system loaded with negative feedbacks, Co2 warming could be rendered unmeasurable!

you may say that TSI then could not be the cause of warming in a Negative Climate feedback system.. Not true, remember, there are millions of feedbacks, and can be positive to one aspect and negative to another.

One issue...we do not know what the Planets Natural Equilibrium even Is! Despite our measurements, the Earth's equilibrium during the 1950's/1900's was certainly lower than what we'd expect.

The Climate System has been absorbing solar Hyperactivity until about 2002. The oceans hold/absorb much more energy than the atmosphere ever could regarding Solar. Its not About the Decrease in TSI from 1980-2000's...its the fact that the Climate System Continued to Absorb record amounts of energy from the Sun from 1980-2003, and rapid equilibirum cannot me applied because it would ruin theAGW theory. Who says the Planet's Nautral Equilibrium is what it was back in the 1850's? The 1980's through 2000's were all above the mean solar activity we've seen in our past...rapid equilibrium is what you're assuming, quick....how long it takes the Sun's energy to Balance from the Climate system to the Sun...if its quick, it means the Atmosphere is loaded with negative feedbacks, and AGW is thus less of a worry.

[skierinvermont]

Shouldn't this also apply to satellite temperature measurements? In other words, even if the measurement is not completely accurate, the general trend should be.

No because the temperature measurements are not precise and the methods change over time due to satellite drift, constant replacement of old broken satellites with new ones which require calibration etc.. all of these things affect the trend.

[skierinvermont]

Ummm, Are you arging that OHC, AHC, IM, etc, are due to the Imbalance caused by Co2?

No what I said was the increasing OHC indicates the earth is in radiative imbalance and rapidly accumulating heat.

This imbalance could be attributable to any number of things, but we know that it is CO2 because the amount of outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum is decreasing. If the imbalance were caused by changes in cloud cover, or increasing solar radiation etc., then the changes in outgoing LW radiation would occur in the spectrum reflected by clouds, not CO2.

[BethesdaWX]

No what I said was the increasing OHC indicates the earth is in radiative imbalance and rapidly accumulating heat.

This imbalance could be attributable to any number of things, but we know that it is CO2 because the amount of outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum is decreasing. If the imbalance were caused by changes in cloud cover, or increasing solar radiation etc., then the changes in outgoing LW radiation would occur in the spectrum reflected by clouds, not CO2.

I agree with your first Sentence, except you should say "rapidly accumulating energy" instead of "heat", since it is a non-relative circumstance in general.

I think I might be able to help provide some insight here actually.

1) Infrared LW radiation has not changed only in the CO2 spectrum, The issue here is whether increased SW radiation into the atmopshere from the sun, or decreased outgoing LW from the GHGes, will provide adequate forcing/feedback relationships to warm the planet. BUT...it doesn't equate as Forcing = Warming/Cooling, it equates as Feedback = Warming/Cooling. THIS what will dictate whether an increase in CO2 (internal imbalance with less LW radiation escaping).....will cause the warming, or........the Sun, (An External Imbalance with Increasing High Amplitude SW radiation into the climate system) will warm the Planet.

2) Its a given fact that TSI was hyperactive this past Century, and that there was indeed an increase in the total energy going INTO earth's climate system, so there is more energy available and present. This is where the feedback issue plays in . We cannot measure GCC to any accuracy yet, but if GCC is affected by the Sun, which is close to being proven, then a 3% increase could provide all the additional incoming IR needed to give us our warming.

Remember, High & Mid level GCC and Low-Level GCC have opposite impacts! Since we cannot dignify & measure to the "overall" imbalance, we're stuck!

3) Equilibirum...big issue here. Rapid/Slow Equilibirum cannot apply just to Solar, it has to apply to the entire climate system, because it is the climate system's response to such factors, not the forcing itself! If you are going to argue rapid equilibirum for Solar, then you are arguing against AGW!

Thats the issue. Ice Melt, Atmspheric temps, will be dictated by feedbacks, but what has not been proven is whether the increase in Incoming SW radiation, or the decrease in outgoing LW radiation, are the cause here...its all up to the Feedbacks within the climate system. If its the Incoming SW... and clouds are affected/driven, well there you go. Then one could argue, "well outgoing LW decrease has to warm the globe if GCC is being driven by the sun thru Negative feedbacks".

Eh, well, rapid equilibrium would coincide with the negative feedback, thus the impact from AGW would be minimal, but still potentially measurable. We cannot measure anything related to GCC at this moment, so that makes our Job alot harder.

If we have not warmed further by 2020, then we'll know that the the contrary option is dominant, and AGW is a farce. If we resume warming, then we know its the latter!

We just need to wait and see

[skierinvermont]

1. The increase in incoming SW radiation from the sun is an order of magnitude smaller than the decrease in outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum. In other words, the increase in incoming energy from the sun is insignificantly small compared to the decrease in energy escaping in the CO2 spectrum. So it's not the sun.

2. If it were low level clouds decreasing, then we would find a decrease in outgoing SW radiation reflected by clouds. No such decrease is found.

3. It is perfectly acceptable to say the earth is accumulating energy. In fact it is better to say energy than heat. because some of the energy gained is chemical energy not thermal energy. IE The melting of ice to water is a gain of chemical energy not thermal energy.

[BethesdaWX]

1. The increase in incoming SW radiation from the sun is an order of magnitude smaller than the decrease in outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum. In other words, the increase in incoming energy from the sun is insignificantly small compared to the decrease in energy escaping in the CO2 spectrum. So it's not the sun.

2. If it were low level clouds decreasing, then we would find a decrease in outgoing SW radiation reflected by clouds. No such decrease is found.

I think you're focusing too heavily on the forcing aspect here. Please read this.

1) Feedbacks are what matter in the end, not the strength of the forcing. SW radiation is not the same as LW radiation, it has a higher frequency, and Incoming SW radiation increase increases the overall energy budget of the Planet. LW outgoing radiation trapping increases the radiative imbalance, but that is cannot be tied into warming, because of not only the complex feedbacks invloved, but Equilibrium...as in, how fast the Climate system can equalize the difference between the Incoming and Outgoing radiation! We can measure an imbalance from increased CO2, but how quickly equilization, whether it be 2 yrs, 6 yrs, 10 yrs, etc, determines the impact & the ability of feedbacks to overwhelm it. That is where our stupidity can kill. ;) If either one is off, then AGW is Screwed.

2) We cannot measure what is reflected from LLCC alone, because MLCC & HLCC make it impossible, since they trap IR, and LLCC reflects it. We cannot measure this, we can measure the overall reflectivity from GCC, but individually, no. What goes on in the Lower Tropopause is key to the LT anoms in satellite measurements. HLCC traps outgoing radiation.

3) The Feedback to solar is what really matters. Overall incoming SW radiation increase involves a different frequency, & likely different feedbacks. Its the climate systems response that creates the warming, not the Forcing. (the climate systems response are know as feedback).

[skierinvermont]

I think you're focusing too heavily on the forcing aspect here. Please read this.

1) Feedbacks are what matter in the end, not the strength of the forcing. SW radiation is not the same as LW radiation, it has a higher frequency, and Incoming SW radiation increase increases the overall energy budget of the Planet. LW outgoing radiation trapping increases the radiative imbalance, but that is cannot be tied into warming, because of not only the complex feedbacks invloved, but Equilibrium...as in, how fast the Climate system can equalize the difference between the Incoming and Outgoing radiation! We can measure an imbalance from increased CO2, but how quickly equilization, whether it be 2 yrs, 6 yrs, 10 yrs, etc, determines the impact & the ability of feedbacks to overwhelm it. That is where our stupidity can kill. ;) If either one is off, then AGW is Screwed.

2) We cannot measure what is reflected from LLCC alone, because MLCC & HLCC make it impossible, since they trap IR, and LLCC reflects it. We cannot measure this, we can measure the overall reflectivity from GCC, but individually, no. What goes on in the Lower Tropopause is key to the LT anoms in satellite measurements. HLCC traps outgoing radiation.

3) The Feedback to solar is what really matters. Overall incoming SW radiation increase involves a different frequency, & likely different feedbacks. Its the climate systems response that creates the warming, not the Forcing. (the climate systems response are know as feedback).

You don't appear to understand the difference between forcing and feedbacks. Feedbacks simply create additional forcing which are themselves detectable at the top of the atmosphere. All changes in surface temperature are directly related to a change in surface forcing.

If increasing incoming SW radiation had decrease LLCC then outgoing SW radiation would decrease.

We know that the earth is rapidly gaining heat, that this gain in heat is responsible for the rising temperature, and that the outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum has decreased. This is direct empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the earth to gain heat and for surface temperatures to increase.

[BethesdaWX]

You don't appear to understand the difference between forcing and feedbacks. Feedbacks simply create additional forcing which are themselves detectable at the top of the atmosphere. All changes in surface temperature are directly related to a change in surface forcing.

If increasing incoming SW radiation had decrease LLCC then outgoing SW radiation would decrease.

We know that the earth is rapidly gaining heat, that this gain in heat is responsible for the rising temperature, and that the outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum has decreased. This is direct empirical evidence that CO2 is causing the earth to gain heat and for surface temperatures to increase.

False.

You didn't read...you're looking silly now. All feedbacks are detectable?!? Thats the most hilarious statement I've ever read.

1) Feedbacks are not seperate forcings, they are a response to a forcing, and it is required we understand the planets energy system and how it works to measure them in their own spectrum. We simply do not know of most of the feedbacks & inter-mechanisms within the climate system. Really the impact it has on the energy that Is trapped, what is done, etc, is where we stumble.

2) We cannot measure what is reflected from LLCC alone, because MLCC & HLCC make it impossible, since they trap IR, and LLCC reflects it. We cannot measure this, we can measure the overall reflectivity from GCC, but individually, no. What goes on in the Lower Tropopause is key to the LT anoms in satellite measurements. HLCC traps outgoing radiation.

3) SW radiation is not the same as LW radiation, it has a higher frequency, and Incoming SW radiation increase increases the overall energy budget of the Planet. LW outgoing radiation trapping increases the radiative imbalance, but that is cannot be tied into warming, because of not only the complex feedbacks invloved, but Equilibrium...as in, how fast the Climate system can equalize the difference between the Incoming and Outgoing radiation! We can measure an imbalance from increased CO2, but how quickly equilization, whether it be 2 yrs, 6 yrs, 10 yrs, etc, determines the impact & the ability of feedbacks to overwhelm it

[skierinvermont]

False.

You didn't read...you're looking silly now. All feedbacks are detectable?!? Thats the most hilarious statement I've ever read.

1) Feedbacks are not seperate forcings, they are a response to a forcing, and it is required we understand the planets energy system and how it works to measure them in their own spectrum. We simply do not know of most of the feedbacks & inter-mechanisms within the climate system. Really the impact it has on the energy that Is trapped, what is done, etc, is where we stumble.

2) We cannot measure what is reflected from LLCC alone, because MLCC & HLCC make it impossible, since they trap IR, and LLCC reflects it. We cannot measure this, we can measure the overall reflectivity from GCC, but individually, no. What goes on in the Lower Tropopause is key to the LT anoms in satellite measurements. HLCC traps outgoing radiation.

3) SW radiation is not the same as LW radiation, it has a higher frequency, and Incoming SW radiation increase increases the overall energy budget of the Planet. LW outgoing radiation trapping increases the radiative imbalance, but that is cannot be tied into warming, because of not only the complex feedbacks invloved, but Equilibrium...as in, how fast the Climate system can equalize the difference between the Incoming and Outgoing radiation! We can measure an imbalance from increased CO2, but how quickly equilization, whether it be 2 yrs, 6 yrs, 10 yrs, etc, determines the impact & the ability of feedbacks to overwhelm it

Feedbacks are in and of themselves separate forcings. For example, a CO2 forcing of 1.2W/m2 may create a positive water vapor feeback which itself has a forcing of .8W/m2 (hypothetical #). Feedbacks are simply additional forcings which occur in response to an initial forcing.

An increase in incoming SW radiation has the same affect on the energy budget and surface temperatures as a decrease in outgoing LW radiation with an identical surface forcing. This is true via the definition of surface radiative forcing and the laws of thermodynamics.

[BethesdaWX]

Feedbacks are in and of themselves separate forcings. For example, a CO2 forcing of 1.2W/m2 may create a positive water vapor feeback which itself has a forcing of .8W/m2 (hypothetical #). Feedbacks are simply additional forcings which occur in response to an initial forcing.

An increase in incoming SW radiation has the same affect on the energy budget and surface temperatures as a decrease in outgoing LW radiation with an identical surface forcing.

1) Its pointless to debate whether or not feedbacks are true "forcings", the effect is still the same. We cannot measure Low Level Cloud cover's reflected IR, because changing levels of High Level Cloud Cover (which traps IR), makes it impossible to read. LOL @ your "they are all detectable" comment, you're a funny man. It would require we understand the planets energy system and how to measure them in their own spectrum. We simply do not know of most of the feedbacks & inter-mechanisms within the climate system.

2) One is SW one is LW. SW is obviously higher frequency, and higher frequency energies are on a higher spectrum & thus penetrate deeper into the "body of matter" However, this doesn't matter (no pun intended)...directly. Equilibirum, as in, how fast the earth can equalize the difference between outgoing & incoming energy, is something we are still trying to learn more about. 4yrs, 6yrs, 15yrs, in a mean timespan, will affect how much impact it can have.

[skierinvermont]

1) Its pointless to debate whether or not feedbacks are true "forcings", the effect is still the same. We cannot measure Low Level Cloud cover's reflected IR, because changing levels of High Level Cloud Cover (which traps IR), makes it impossible to read. LOL @ your "they are all detectable" comment, you're a funny man. It would require we understand the planets energy system and how to measure them in their own spectrum. We simply do not know of most of the feedbacks & inter-mechanisms within the climate system.

2) One is SW one is LW. SW is obviously higher frequency, and higher frequency energies are on a higher spectrum & thus penetrate deeper into the "body of matter" However, this doesn't matter (no pun intended)...directly. Equilibirum, as in, how fast the earth can equalize the difference between outgoing & incoming energy, is something we are still trying to learn more about. 4yrs, 6yrs, 15yrs, in a mean timespan, will affect how much impact it can have.

It's not "pointless" to "debate" what a feedback is. This is simply a matter of definitions and keeping basic facts straight. A feedback is simply an additional forcing which occurs in response to an initial forcing.

The fact remains, the earth is rapidly accumulating energy due to a decline in outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum. This is direct empirical evidence that CO2 is responsible for the earth's observed energy imbalance and surface warming.

[BethesdaWX]

It's not "pointless" to "debate" what a feedback is. This is simply a matter of definitions and keeping basic facts straight. A feedback is simply an additional forcing which occurs in response to an initial forcing.

The fact remains, the earth is rapidly accumulating energy due to a decline in outgoing LW radiation in the CO2 spectrum. This is direct empirical evidence that CO2 is responsible for the earth's observed energy imbalance and surface warming.

Satellites measuring LW infrared radiation from earth/changes in the CO2 spectrum, DO NOT measure Reflected Visible Light (SW radiation) By clouds.

And it doesn't matter anyway, because GCC reflections of IR cannot be measured because UL clouds Absorb it, and LL clouds reflect it,so it becomes a clusterf**k.

1) I'm debating what a feedback does, not, "what it is". I have no idea where you got that from.

2) There is no "Fact", there is "Hypothesis". AGW requires positive feedbacks within the climate system, which is based on limited understanding and growing contrary evidence. Negative feedbacks may render CO2 warming un-measurable. Feedbacks from Increasing SW radiation, or visible light, are on a completely different spectrum. Equilibirum, as in, how fast the earth can equalize the difference between outgoing & incoming energy, is something we are still trying to learn more about. 4yrs, 6yrs, 15yrs, in a mean timespan, will affect how much impact it can have.

[skierinvermont]

Paleoclimate studies clearly indicate that the climate system has a net positive feedback. The dramatic swings in the earth's climate that have occurred over time would not be possible without positive feedbacks. Moreover, water vapor is a very clear and strong positive feedback. The water vapor feedback alone will nearly double the initial forcing.

[BethesdaWX]

Paleoclimate studies clearly indicate that the climate system has a net positive feedback. The dramatic swings in the earth's climate that have occurred over time would not be possible without positive feedbacks. Moreover, water vapor is a very clear and strong positive feedback. The water vapor feedback alone will nearly double the initial forcing.

Links? If this were true, the response from the climate system to TSI would come over many decades/centuries, Global temperature in the LT should warm faster and faster, Sea level rise should become more rapid.........

PROBLEM!............Feedbacks can be positive to certain forcing aspects and negative to others...as in, different types of radiation, internal or external oriented imabalances, etc. The atmosphere Millions of years ago cannot be compared to today's, completely different make-up all around.

The feedback relation to CO2 alone is what matters here, millions of years ago, the climate system was structured very differently. Before Man, there was nothing to emit CO2, but CO2 has always increased in response to temperature in the past. This time, Man is emitting it himself, but that means nothing if feedback aspect to CO2 is negative.

[skierinvermont]

The most important feedback, water vapor, occurs regardless of what the source of the warming is. Warming causes an increase in water vapor which causes more warming.

[BethesdaWX]

The most important feedback, water vapor, occurs regardless of what the source of the warming is. Warming causes an increase in water vapor which causes more warming.

Yes. But, Cloud Cover and Precipitation are the most important, because they intract/feedback off high spectrum incoming SW radiation, which due to its high level, penetrates deeper into the body of matter and has a larger effect (AKA, how the sun heats the Earth thru SW intensity). It is important to decipher between SW impacts to the energy budget, & GHE reduced LW impacts to the energy budget.

Yes Water Vapor is a Positive feedback, and equates to more warming, or can cause warming, as it is a powerful GHG responsible for the Majority of the GHE, but the Strength/Effect of the Feedback is very Much up for debate. We know its positive, but how much is the question.

Why? Dealing with feedbacks involving the same energy spectrum (LW outgoing trapping in this case) can be harder to decipher/ analyze, because feedbacks at that spectrum & mechanism (GHE) all tie in. There are so many feedbacks that we don't know of, and feedbacks correlating/driving other feedbacks, that the system may not even feel a blip. We do not understand the mechanisms behind all the inter-complexities of the climate system.

This basically delivers only a fraction of the reaons that "AGW" is a hypothesis. As we continue to measure temperature data, we will be able to test this hypothesis better & more efficiently.

[WeatherRusty]

Links? If this were true, the response from the climate system to TSI would come over many decades/centuries, Global temperature in the LT should warm faster and faster, Sea level rise should become more rapid.........

PROBLEM!............Feedbacks can be positive to certain forcing aspects and negative to others...as in, different types of radiation, internal or external oriented imabalances, etc. The atmosphere Millions of years ago cannot be compared to today's, completely different make-up all around.

The feedback relation to CO2 alone is what matters here, millions of years ago, the climate system was structured very differently. Before Man, there was nothing to emit CO2, but CO2 has always increased in response to temperature in the past. This time, Man is emitting it himself, but that means nothing if feedback aspect to CO2 is negative.

Bethesda

It is my opinion that you have single handedly ruined this forum by throwing endless gobs of unsubstantiated mud against the wall which side tracks the discussion into garbage talk. You are the perfect example of someone distracting us from where the discussion belongs. We should be discussing the peer-reviewed science, not the crack-pot junk you force everyone to respond to. I have little interest in game playing, or in trying to win a debate. The scientific issue of climate change is much more important than that.

We could be spending our time attempting to understand the science from our unique perspectives of understanding and in doing so we would all gain a deeper understanding of the science. But you don't want us to learn the science, you only want to muddy the waters and cause doubt and confusion. Let the scientists work out the science, you and your questionable sources convince no one of anything.

And by the way, some feedback processes do work on the time frame of centuries.