[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

Your-on says
But a global warming, and diminishing resources, makes it essential.....

henry says
there is no more global warming
and there won't be
until at least 2040.

[yor_on]

As for your 'Grand Design', why not place it in 'New theories', as a suggestion. Either that, or go to the sites refuting your view to refute theirs first. Then come back when your views are the ones agreed upon by a majority of peer reviewed papers and experiments, to show me where we all went wrong

But not before that.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

henry@yor-on
I have given you a lot of clues in this thread. Go figure.

[damocles]

Henry, here is the balance sheet you have been calling for:

Incoming solar radiation: 1360 watt/m²
Far infrared component of incoming ~10 watt/m²
removed by CO2 absorption: natural ~ 100 milliwatt/m²
    anthropogenic ~40 milliwatt/m²
These last two components will cause cooling of the Earth's surface.

Outgoing Earth radiation 340 watt/m²
far infrared component of outgoing ~250 watt/m²
removed by CO2 absorption: natural ~2.5 watt/m²
   anthropogenic ~ 1 watt/m²

these last two components will cause warming.

The result? Net warming of the local atmosphere as the result of 2.4 watt/m² natural and 0.96 watt/m² anthropogenic.

However these figures (which you can easily check with a google search, which in turn might lead you to read and get a better appreciation of the mainstream literature) are only considering the effect of the CO2 greenhouse effect, and do not take into account interactions with other Earth systems.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

Damocles says
however these figures (which you can easily check with a google search, which in turn might lead you to read and get a better appreciation of the mainstream literature)
henry@damocles
if you will take the time to investigate where these figures come from, you will find out that they "calculate" this from models. Furthermore, the models are based on observations.
When I first realized what had happened I said:
you cannot calculate that which has never been measured.
The initial value of 1.7 that was used for a long time came originally from the IPCC  AR4 2007.
When I first studied this, I realized what they had done. 
1) make a decision: earth is getting warmer, and man is to blame.
everybody agreed.
2) scientists then went ahead and made a (proportional) weighting of various factors that changed from 1750-2005 versus the amount of observed warming 1750-2005....
the weighting for CO2 increase ended up at 1.7

You see what the problem is? You are looking from the wrong end because you have not established exact cause.... It is the worst mistake a scientist can make... and I blame the IPCC and all that signed their names to it.

so if you want to impress me and prove to me that these values are real, you have to come up with actual test methods and actual test results.

[yor_on]

Ahh yes

The c o n s p i r a c y unfolded..
=

Henry, if you just would exchange 'the scientists' for  'the evil climate wizards.'
That would really catch my imagination

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

henry@damocles

I already know (from my own research) that the 88 year Gleisberg solar weather cycle is very real. That is why we are currently cooling and we will continue to cool until ca. 2038.

going back to cliffordk's sine wave on the first page of this blog

assuming that his observation is correct, and that precision of temp. measurement and recording stayed constant from 1850 -and this is a big IF -

then it could also be that we are in a number of further solar/weather cycles

like

the De Vries and other cycles which have much longer periodicity than the Gleisberg cycle...

This is what they forgot at the IPCC

[peppercorn]

MCok ~ "my own research" will not be accepted here (on a science forum) as statements with any scientific validity. Therefore, it and other, posts failing to offer supporting scientific evidence (peer reviewed, without question) have and will continue to be 'shrunk' by the Mod team.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

The Gleissberg solar cycle exists, and my own research merely confirmed its existence. You can google it.  Here is some peer reviewed research about it:

Persistence of the Gleissberg 88-year solar cycle over the last ˜12,000 years: Evidence from cosmogenic isotopes

Peristykh, Alexei N.; Damon, Paul E.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics), Volume 108, Issue A1, pp. SSH 1-1, CiteID 1003, DOI 10.1029/2002JA009390
Among other longer-than-22-year periods in Fourier spectra of various solar-terrestrial records, the 88-year cycle is unique, because it can be directly linked to the cyclic activity of sunspot formation. Variations of amplitude as well as of period of the Schwabe 11-year cycle of sunspot activity have actually been known for a long time and a ca. 80-year cycle was detected in those variations. Manifestations of such secular periodic processes were reported in a broad variety of solar, solar-terrestrial, and terrestrial climatic phenomena. Confirmation of the existence of the Gleissberg cycle in long solar-terrestrial records as well as the question of its stability is of great significance for solar dynamo theories. For that perspective, we examined the longest detailed cosmogenic isotope record—INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. The most detailed precisely dated part of the record extends back to ˜11,854 years B.P. During this whole period, the Gleissberg cycle in 14C concentration has a period of 87.8 years and an average amplitude of ˜1‰ (in Δ14C units). Spectral analysis indicates in frequency domain by sidebands of the combination tones at periods of ≈91.5 ± 0.1 and ≈84.6 ± 0.1 years that the amplitude of the Gleissberg cycle appears to be modulated by other long-term quasiperiodic process of timescale ˜2000 years. This is confirmed directly in time domain by bandpass filtering and time-frequency analysis of the record. Also, there is additional evidence in the frequency domain for the modulation of the Gleissberg cycle by other millennial scale processes.

I therefore kindly request you to put my previous comment back up again or else stand accused of deliberate censorship to further your own particular (financial ?) aims here.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

@peppercorn
btw
I must add, that I only stumbled upon it (i.e. the Gleissberg solar/weather cycle) by accident. I had to interpret some puzzling data coming from a random sample of 47 weather stations.....I therefore kindly request you to put my previous comment back up again. Thanks.

[imatfaal]

MoreCarbonOK

Accusations of impropriety and imputations that moderators act for personal financial gain are beyond the pale.  We moderate this site because we love science - all the moderators are volunteers. 

To situate my moderation note properly please note that Chris and the Naked Scientists maintain this site as a Science Question and Answer forum where interested members of the public and listeners to the radio show/podcast can find answers to scientific questions both straightforward and quirky alike.  The makeup of both the membership and the moderators range from professional research/academic scientists to the rank amateur (like me) - we come here to pose and debate questions of a scientific nature. 

Your insinuation of an ulterior motive and outright claim of financial bias, your refusal to accept the scientific method, and your actions in treating this as a blog rather than a debate are all completely at odds with the ends, spirit, and foundational underpinnings of this site.  I have suspended your posting rights pending a full moderator/admin discussion


 

../ snipped
I therefore kindly request you to put my previous comment back up again or else stand accused of deliberate censorship to further your own particular (financial ?) aims here.

[imatfaal]

I have locked this thread.  It may be opened at a later date - however, if you have a question that has been raised but not quite answered by this topic why not open a new thread? 

[imatfaal]

Topic moved to New Theories and re-opened.

[MoreCarbonOK (OP)]

I will only discuss this further if you put up my last comment that was incorrectly censored by peppercorn?

[Ophiolite]

I will only discuss this further if you put up my last comment that was incorrectly censored by peppercorn?

Well, that's a relief.

[damocles]

First of all, I will point out to anyone reading this thread that henry comes to this thread with a preconceived notion -- his chosen name and the fact that he was so ready to weigh in when I introduced ocean acidification, his continual referrals to non-mainstream publications and websites all provide good evidence of this. So I am going to be unable to convince him, or, indeed, elicit more than an adversarial response.
I will admit that I do as well, so if there are any of you out there who are going to be persuaded by scientific evidence, I have a response to henry's latest points:

Damocles says
however these figures (which you can easily check with a google search, which in turn might lead you to read and get a better appreciation of the mainstream literature)
henry@damocles
if you will take the time to investigate where these figures come from, you will find out that they "calculate" this from models. Furthermore, the models are based on observations.

Let me just point out that my "balance sheet" was a "back of envelope" effort. It was based on the wikipedia discussion of the solar constant,  which is the source of both my 1360 W/m^2 and my estimate of the amount of far IR in the spectrum was based on the (observed, which agrees with theoretical) graph in that article.

340 W/m^2 is just one quarter of 1360 W/m^2 because the Earth's interception of solar radiation is based on the amount of radiation intercepted by the Earth's disk (π*R^2) and the amount of Earth's radiation, which must balance or there will be sudden and catastrophic heating, is based on the Earth's surface area (4*π*R^2).

The proportion of the radiation absorbed by CO2 is based on experimentally measured Earth radiation.

Even if these figures are not quite accurate, there is no possible reason why the anthropogenic greenhouse effect should work in a different direction to the natural greenhouse effect, and there is no question that the natural greenhouse effect (mainly H2O vapour) is responsible for the Earth's surface being about 35°C warmer than it ought to be.

There is no modelling involved anywhere in my reasoning.

When I first realized what had happened I said:
you cannot calculate that which has never been measured.
The initial value of 1.7 that was used for a long time came originally from the IPCC  AR4 2007.
When I first studied this, I realized what they had done. 
1) make a decision: earth is getting warmer, and man is to blame.
everybody agreed.
2) scientists then went ahead and made a (proportional) weighting of various factors that changed from 1750-2005 versus the amount of observed warming 1750-2005....
the weighting for CO2 increase ended up at 1.7

You see what the problem is? You are looking from the wrong end because you have not established exact cause.... It is the worst mistake a scientist can make... and I blame the IPCC and all that signed their names to it.

so if you want to impress me and prove to me that these values are real, you have to come up with actual test methods and actual test results.

The IPCC worked at its various meetings by splitting up into several groups of experts which examined and reviewed the various bodies of experimental and observational evidence, and reported back to the full group. The detail of their deliberations can be found in the complete proceedings of the various meetings. The executive summary may well give the impression that henry refers to, but it is backed up by intensive labour (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/fifth-assessment.aspx). Note that the last two stages are subject to political interference.