On Wednesday, June 6, 2018 at 3:24:55 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Monday, June 4, 2018 at 3:12:00 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

In article ,
says...

I claim the current consensus is biased and those who fawn over it are
likewise biased,

It indeed is ... biased towards the truth.

I disagree.

Do you prefer some other kind of bias?

I would prefer that AGW advocates not try to shut down research that might
affect their agenda in a contrary way. Example: attempting to stop CERN
from doing the CLOUD experiment.

The CLOUD experiment seems to be alive and well.

Now is not when the AGW advocates trid to prevent it from happening.

And while the contribution from cosmic rays in forming clouds in our
atmosphere might be interesting, I don't see the relevance of it to the
AGW question. After all, the amount of cosmic rays striking the Earth
is quite independent from our emissions of CO2.

But it's not independent from global temperature.

BTW which climate researchers have tried to stop the CLOUD experiment at
CERN? Please name a few of them, preferably with relevant references.

I read it on the web but I can't find it now. Funny how those things
disappear.

ANd, yes, they should be researchers in climate science, not zealot
advocates of any kind. Zealit advocates are hardly interesting -- they
are a matter of psychology and mass communication, not of the Earth
sciences.

Indeed, and I find a LOT of zealots in the AGW camp.

even to the point of denigrating skeptics

Skeptics are of course ok. Deniers are not ok.

In your not-so-humble opinion.

Do you disagree with me? DO you think deniers are ok?

That depends upon what they're denying, but calling someone a denier doesn't
mean they actually are one.

with claiming that "overstatement" is not bias. It CERTAINLY is since
they're concocting a false argument. This is baloney. It's also ad
hominem rather than to the discussion.

And this is how AGW advocates tell the truth?

Are you commenting on yourself?

Do you have trouble reading English?

You seem to have missed my earlier point that water vapor is a red
herring; it may contribute more to the greenhouse effect directly
than carbon dioxide, but it's an effect, not a cause.

I think I answered it, but I'm not sure. It's not necessarily an
effect. Certainly, air can hold more water vapor if its warmer,
so IF CO2 causes an increase in temperature, there will be more
greenhouse effect than what comes directly from the CO2. For some
reason, however, this effect is less than what the climate models
predict.

On what do you base this claim? Cherry-picking empiical data? Something
else?

http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

This is not a climate model but merely a radiation model.

And you dishonestly believe radiation is irrelevant?

Yuu wrote "this effect is less than what the climate models predict"
where youwrote "climate models" in the plural form. So you must have
examined more than just one model which isn't even a climate model. Which
climate models are you referring to here? All existing models, without
exception? Or only some models -- which ones?

Oh, good grief! Did you do this:

Play around with it. A doubling of the CO2 level from 400 ppm to 800 ppm
results in about a 1% decrease in the outgoing IR flux, or about 3 W/m^2.
Reduce the level from 400 to 200 ppm increases the outgoing IR flux by
about 1%, or about 2.7 W/m^2. Going from 200 to 400 ppm results in a
decrease of 2.7 W/m^2 whereas going from 400 to 800 ppm results in a
decrease of about 3 W/m^2. As I understand it, IPCC climate models
assume a linear effect, whereas MODTRAN shows it to be quite nonlinear.

3 W/m^2 is equivalent to the variation in the solar constant and earth's
albedo variation, so doubling the CO2 level, which won't happen for 200
years at the present rate of increase, is almost in the noise.

I played around with it and it was fun. However, it gives you the upwards
IR radiation as seen from an altitude of 70 km, well above 99.9% of the
greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. And what you see there is the
radiation from these greenhouse gases, not from the ground.

Yes, it does measure the radiation from the ground. Are you blind?

Look at the
diagram to the right, which shows the radiation intensity as a function
of wavelength (or wavenumber). Although the ground temperature is 300K,
the upward radiation temperature from 70 km altitude never reaches 300K.

The diagram on the right shows temperature vs. altitude. The one on
the LEFT shows intensity vs. wavelength for various temperatures.
And you seem to be criticizing something that is your fantasy.

So what you see here is the radiation balance between the Sun and the
upper atmpsphere of the Earth. OF COURSE the upward IR heat flux at this
altitude is quite independent of the number of ppm's of CO2, as you
noted. The heat flux from the Earth into space must, on the average,
naturally equal the incoming light and heat from the Sun. This says
little about the temperatures at or near the ground, which is what
concerns us humans who live on the ground.

Yep, you completely misread the model.

You would obtain a similar result at Venus: the upward IR radiation from
Venus is on the average the same as the incoming light and heat from the
Sun - revealing little about the oven-like temperatures on the surface on
Venus.

This radiationb model also gives the ground temperature as very nearly
300K (299.7K to be precise). But that value seems to be hardwired into
the program - you can change it by switching from "Tropical atmosphere"
to "Midlatitude Summer" or "Subarctic Winter" or 3 other choices. But
apart from that it seems completely unaffected by e.g. the amount of CO2
I choose.

Try changing temperature offset.

I tried values from 0 ppm CO2 to 999999 ppm CO2 and the ground
temperature remained at 299.7K (Tropical atmosphere), not changing by
even 0.1K.

It's an INPUT parameter controlled by "Temperature Offset."

So you are deluded if you use this model to conclude that
"changing the amount of CO2 does not affect the ground temperature".

You are deluded believing that it is some kind of output. The output
is "Upward IP Heat Flux."

Upward IP Heat Flux is the important thing. Did you try putting in
ths values for CO2 levels that I did? Did you see that doubling the
present CO2 level to 800 ppm only increased the heat flux by about
3 W/m^2? Do you realize that such a difference is about the same that
the solar constant varies? Do you understand the implications of that?
Do you understand that cloud cover has a much larger effect than CO2?
Do you understand that it will take 200 years for CO2 levels to rise
to the point where CO2 will have as big an effect as solar variations?

I gotta go. Later.