- Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth
- scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases,
- and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000
Scenarios B and C are nonsense. The fact that Gavin and Cook continue to lie about this is quite astonishing.
Hansen also predicted another .5C of warming between 2010-2020. See:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/#bib_1
We’re nearly 25% into the decade, so how’s that working out for him?
According to Joe, it’s super calafragalistic exponential growth
My response to: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/13/warming-in-the-ushcn-is-mainly-an-artifact-of-adjustments/
I saw this graph on a dutch website
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/images/sverdrup.gif
from
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/oceaanopwarming-of-zeespiegelstijging-door-co2-is-niet-mogelijk_193094.html
“The solar radiation penetrates the ocean to 100 metres at visible wavelengths but to much shallower depth as wavelength increases. Back radiation in the far infra-red from the Greenhouse Effect occurs at wavelengths centred around 10 micrometres and CANNOT penetrate the ocean beyond the surface ‘skin’.”
If the oceans warm the Earth but CO2 cannot warm the oceans and we know that the last years we had no warming in the oceans
http://www.klimaatfraude.info/flitspost/images/2011-05-30_021050.jpg
Warming must be mainly an artifact of adjustments.
Reply other WUWT reader.
I wish that I could understand the Dutch site. It is probably very interesting.
As I see matters there is a considerable problem with DWLWIR and the oceans which has not been fully nor properly thought through. .
First, as you note, due to its wave length, DWLWIR is fully absorbed within the first 10 microns of the ocean. However, of more significance, 20% of all DWLWIR is absorbed within 1 micron and 60% within 4 microns. If DWLWIR has the intensity suggested by the K & T energy diagram. it would mean that from an optical physics persepctive there would be so much energy being absorbed in the first couple of microns that it would lead to rampant evaporation. There is a problem here since if there was such eavporation, the energy would not enter the ocean but would end up in the atmosphere (as a consequence of the evaporation and latent heat change). We are not seeing rampant evaporation and this therefore suggests that DWLWIR is not of the order of magnitude claimed, or lacks sensible energy, or is merely nothing more than a signal incapable of performing sensible work, or that much of the DWLWIR is either blocked from reaching the ocean, or is simply reflected by the ocean.
Second, water is essentially an LWIR block (this follows from the fact that LWIR is fully absorbed within 10 microns and 60% of all LWIR within 4 microns). If there is a very thin veil of sea swept mist/spume/spray of just a couple of microns thickness, lying immediately above the oceans, then this very thin veil would be sufficient to effectively block DWLWIR from penetrating the oceans below. For much of the time over much of the oceans there will inevitably be such a thin veil of wind swept mist/spray/spume.
Third, the K & T energy diagram shows solar irradiance being reflected from the surface. This is predominantly from the oceans reflecting solar rays at low angles of incidence. Why does the diagram not show any reflection of DWLWIR? Since GHGs radiate in all directions, it follows that some DWLWIR must be bombarding the oceans at a low angle of incidence? Why is this not reflectsd? Can DWLWIR not be reflected? Can the oceans not reflect DWLWIR? Not sufficient consideration has been given to the reflection of DWLWIR.
Fourth. at the very top micron level of the ocean, the energy flow is upward. The top micron layer is colder than the 4 to 8 micron layer. It follows from this and from the first two points that it would appear that there is no effective mechanism whereby DWLWIR could warm the bulk ocean. It would appear that given that the energy flow is upwards, heat cannot run against it and thus any energy absorbed in the first few microns could not find its way downwards into the bulk ocean and thereby cannot heat the bulk ocean.
The upshot of the above is that ocean heat is almost certainly driven simply by solar irradiance and an increase in ocean heat is a factor of an increase in solar energy, possibly (I would say probably) due to a reduction in cloudiness.
A lot of blue
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2012/anomnight.4.16.2012.gif
For me more man made CO2 is only the sign of more wealth and wealthy nations adapt when there is a problem whatever the problem.
“The fact that Gavin and Cook continue to lie about this is quite astonishing.”
Unfortunately it is not even out of character.
Steven:
I disagree! Scenario A is way below the accumulation of GHGs since it was created. If scenario A were even close to definitive, temperatures should have risen above those depicted in scenario A.