Henry Passfield

I don't have time for a detailed exposition, but the logic goes like this. If you want detail look in the science section of AR5.

1) Cause, CO2

The absorption and emission spectra of CO2 have been measured in the laboratory. The same spectra have been observed in the OLR and the DLR.

From the laboratory data one can calculate the expected downwelling radiation and the equivalent decrease in OLR relative to black body radiation.Both have been observed and match the predicted values.

One can also predict and observe how both change with increasing CO2. Once again they match.

The link between CO2 increase and fossil fuel burn can be demonstrated by accounting and by the dilution of 13C.

Under natural conditions orbital changes drive temperature changes and the temperature changes drive CO2 changes. T and CO2 act as an amplifying feedback which turns a 1C change into a 5C difference between glacial and interglacial conditions. Naturally the orbital changes precede the temperature changes which precede the CO2 changes.

Over the last 120 years the increase in CO2 has preceded the rise in temperature. This indicates that increasing CO2 is presently driving increasing temperature. Since the CO2 increase is artificial, so is the temperature increase.

2) Effect. Temperature and energy content.

Land, sea and air temperatures are measured, and the amount of heat required calculated. Add in the latent heat required for the observed ice melt and you can calculate the increase in heat content.

The surface temperatures are below the equilibrium value for the current equilibrium temperature for the current CO2 concentration. As a result there is a reduced OLR relative to insolation, a net energy gain for the climate system which matches the measured increase in. heat content.

3) Consequences.

Sea level rises as ocean heat content increaseand land ice melt increase the volume of the oceans. The rate of change matches the expansion due to increasing energy accumulation plus the amount of ice melt.

Desert and other biome boundaries shift with temperature and rainfall changes.

Put the observed behaviour of CO2 in the laboratory, the atmosphere and in the paleo data witt the measured energy flows and temperature and then the secondary effects such as sea level rise. They fit together like pieces of the same jigsaw.

I have an early start tomorrow. Goodnight.

EM. "Over the last 120 years the increase in CO2 has preceded the rise in temperature. This indicates that increasing CO2 is presently driving increasing temperature. Since the CO2 increase is artificial, so is the temperature increase".

You get a F

No realization that correlation does not equal causation. No realisation that the correlation very poor. No acknowledgement that the CO2 effect is very limited and decreases as atmospheric CO2 concentration rises. No treatment of feedbacks or proof they exist or do what is needed to achieve a temperature increase. And the biggie - with CO2 increases causing smaller and smaller temperature rises, and feedbacks responding to these decreasing temperature rises, these feedbacks are expected to cause either a steady enhanced temperature rise or an ever increasing one. How do you do this magic EM?

ERM: You write:

The absorption and emission spectra of CO2 have been measured in the laboratory. The same spectra have been observed in the OLR and the DLR.

From the laboratory data one can calculate the expected downwelling radiation and the equivalent decrease in OLR relative to black body radiation.Both have been observed and match the predicted values.

This spectra that has been measured: is it restricted to 'man-made' CO2, or all CO2?
And, the calculations? Mere modelling, surely.
I refer you to ACK's comment re log effect.

You then say:

One can also predict and observe how both change with increasing CO2. Once again they match.

Which planet are you observing? On mine, the CO2 levels have gone through the 400ppm level yet temps have failed to follow them. But, I note the models do. Does that not give you pause? In fact, all of your comment, which I note you haven't the time 'for a detailed exposition', was based on model conjecture.

EM, thank you for your simple and easy to understand explanation. It follows the same logic that I used to accept, and is still taught to children and other politicians. It is why Mann drew his Hockey Stick as a simple teaching aid.

Since then it has been fail after fail, requiring the likes of William M Connolley and others to start doctoring the records, as any "effect" noticed has been blamed on one single cause.

Children are realising it now, politicians are following, and Clinton and Trump are both expected to remember that the 70s Ice Age Scare was false?

Why don't you spend some time working out where climate science got it wrong, and help save the good bits?

How Wikipedia etc are corrupted by malicious advocates of Climate Science.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/10/the-wonderful-world-of-wikipedia/

Climate Science can't self correct, so might just aswell be astrology.

Martin A, interesting! I am sure the minion looked up the answer on Wikipedia.

Climate Science has cooked it's own financial Golden Goose, by not having any form or sense of self correction, and is now screaming foul, because no one trusts climate science anymore.

Ironic that Wikipedia is putting out cash calls, having been used by climate scientists to promote dodgy climate science.

Sheesh, RR! Thanks for the link. The first (nearly) line set the tone of the whole thing - and it just went down from there:

Roberts had not held paid employment for eight years prior to his election in 2016.

Followed vey soon after by:

He is the leader of a climate change denial[7] group...

Yeah, Wiki, such a balanced, disinterested, unbiased publication. Mr Wales must be a very proud man to see his 'baby' become such a slut.

PS: RR. I see that the reference to the second quote I used (....denial group) was actually from John Cook:

Cook, John (5 August 2016). "One Nation's Malcolm Roberts is in denial about the facts of climate change". The Conversation. Retrieved 16 September 2016.

Say no more.

RR: You could start a BLOG: Catsupwiththat. Might catch on....I'll ketchup with you later. (You gave me a big grin....tanx).

Harry Passfield, you forgot the same article in The Guardian that was listed twice for Graham Redfearn of The Guardian, in the Wikipedia hit piece.

John Cook's article could have been the vote winner for Roberts, after John Cook's previous praise for Julia Giddard. Trump is doing very nicely out of climate science's support for Clinton.

Catsupwiththat? Ratsupwiththat, surely?

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/09/42-of-us-adults-dont-want-to-pay-even-12-a-year-to-stop-climate-change/illiam

Connolley's Con is up in lights on the Internet, across the UK, USA, Australia, Germany, France etc.

Just one question to Clinton and Trump about their memories of events in the 70s will increase the heat on climate science, as everyone else notices that climate science is trying to alter their memories.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-climate-timeline/

All fixed by Josh

ACK

What is your opinion of the Rock Weathering Thermostat hypothesis?

EM. Not much. As far as I'm concerned it falls at the first hurdle, it depends primarily upon CO2 being a major determinant of temperature. I have little doubt that any process that changes the rate of weathering will change how much CO2 is withdrawn from the atmosphere. However I think the authors of the hypothesis, described in the link below, have got it the wrong way around. More likely is that increasing temperatures increase weathering rates that consume more atmospheric CO2. This was an explanation for the increasing acidity of Alpine lakes. Increasing temperatures caused increased rock weathering which, in turn, increased water acidity.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5909/20140206/weathering-mountainous-regions-act-thermostat-earth.htm

The hypothesis has some similarities with the "coral reef hypothesis", one part of which involved increase limestone weathering at times of low sea level. That hypothesis has been resoundingly disproven.

EM, is it worth another thread, or is there not much to discuss?

Golf Charlie, ACK

is it worth another thread, or is there not much to discuss?

It is consistent for ACK to reject a long term thermostat involving CO2, as he rejects short term warming due to CO2.

A new thread would only rehash the old arguments,(It's CO2, no it's not, yah boo sucks) I really don't want to go around that rock again. it has become tedious.

Perhaps ACK has alternative temperature control mechanisms to explain the "young sun" problem, snowball Earths, the PETM, quaternary glaciation cycles etc.

That might make a basis for an interesting discussion.

EM I not only rejected the hypothesis, I suggested an alternative - that it is temperature that determines weathering rates (for which there is abundant evidence) and this will cause a greater withdrawal of CO2 from the atmosphere. However the new hypothesis also fails to incorporate the CO2 fertilization effect which could entirely negate its causal mechanisms.

We have already discussed the snowball earth, or had you forgotten?

ACK

I remember earlier, rather unproductive, discussion of Snowball Earth. You were opposed to any CO2 based mechanism, but had no alternative explaination for tropical glaciation.

I'm interested in the larger thermostat problem

You suggest,temperature drives CO2 and CO2 does not affect temperature. That still leaves the problem of what drove temperature. Do you have an alternative mechanism by which weathering can act as a thermostat, or is weathering irrelevant?

The big question is "What kept Earth between 0C and 20C, with liquid water and life for almost 4 billion years?"

EM. The most promising hypothesis for snowball earth was (is?) that the solar system passed through a region of space containg more gas. This reduced the energy flux from the Sun. I mentioned this hypothesis before, but you have conveniently forgotten it. Perhaps because such a hypothesis does not require CO2 to act as a super greenhouse gas, you found the discussion unsatisfactory. But there it is.

ACK

Evidence for the gas hypothesis?

There is also the problem that the onset of the reduced insolation and low temperature should have increased CO2, not decreased it.