MOTR wrote on Jan 1
st, 2013 at 5:47pm:
progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1
st, 2013 at 5:36pm:
MOTR wrote on Jan 1
st, 2013 at 4:06pm:
progressiveslol wrote on Jan 1
st, 2013 at 3:41pm:
MOTR wrote on Jan 1
st, 2013 at 3:11pm:
The triangle or delta symbol represents change. It's a comparison between data collected in 1970 and 1996. It's a measure of the change in outgoing radiation between these two points in time.
It would be helpful to include h2o so we can see if that has dropped or gained seeing as it covers all co2 wavelengths. It would also be helpful to have 2 lines. Each representative of time.
Water Vapour is not an external forcing, it is a function of temperature.
Well one would think the cult would want to be proving their point then wouldnt you. Guess they dont.
As to proving their point, the graph would show or should show but doesnt
is, as co2 caught more energy, more water vapor was in the air with h2o catching more energy.
My request still stands. I take it the reason why they do not include it is because it would not show what the cult wanted it to.
Progs, I'm struggling to work out the exact nature of your criticism. That's the problem with Chinese whispers. Do you have a direct link.
The reason it should be important is because the graph is trying to represent greenhouse gases. H2O is a greenhouse gas. The major GHG. The importance factor becomes clear when you consider the earth loses more heat, the hotter the earth is. So if you are going to try and represent the greenhouse gases, you would need to include all so we can see what all have been doing over a time period.
Here is information on a good correlation for heat loss dependant on temperature.
Temperature Dependence of the Earth’s Outgoing Energy
I have been involved in some pretty extensive discussions with the TRCS group over the past few weeks. The posts lately have been offshoots of that discussion. The following one is one that I am putting together for that team as well, enjoy.
What determines how quickly the Earth loses energy? There is a simple answer and a complex answer to that. Since the Earth can only lose energy to space by infra-red (IR) transmission, the simple answer is that the Earth’s temperature determines the rate of energy loss since it is temperature that determines the intensity of the IR transmission as shown in the Stefen-Boltzmann Law
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/11/radiative-heat-transfer-medium-overvie....
more info at site
................
...............
What this indicates is that for each 1K increase in temperature, there will be an associated 2.2 W/m^2 increase in the OLR. There can be no more an effective feedback mechanism than this for regulating the Earth’s temperature. There are many reasons for this, but the best is simplicity. The warmer the Earth is, the faster it loses energy (which means it cools down faster).
Many warmists have noted that the annual change in OLR is smaller than the calibration error for measurement device (spaced based satellite in this case). Fortunately there is no need to depend on the overall annual data when all that is needed is to look at monthly data and build from the monthly change in temperature and OLR.
Based on the OLR measurements, the Earth was losing 2.6 W/m^2 more over the 5 year period from 2007-2011 than it did in the 5 year period from 1979-1983. The satellite temperature difference for those two periods show that the later period was 0.27 °C warmer. Based on the easily proven temperature dependency of the OLR, there is no reason to believe that the difference is satellite calibration error (although that doesn’t mean there is none).
While the Earth has been warmer over the past 10 years than it was 30 years ago, it is also losing energy at a higher rate, even though the CO2 level is higher now.
Energy is what matters and if the Earth is losing it faster now than ever before (based on an entire 34 years of satellite data), then it doesn’t look like CO2 is doing a very good job at slowing the rate of energy loss. Conversely it appears that the tried and true Stefen-Boltzmann law is working just fine.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/08/temperature-dependence-of-the-earths-o...