/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8759954
>You're saying that your model' can't be tested against the real world, yet the model is so good that you "know" what the answer is.

Not that anon, but this is what you get from regurgitating things you don't understand straight from denier blog.

You're comparing 3 very different things. Let's start with basic definitions.

Top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative imbalance = Measured by satellites on top of atmosphere. Energy from sun coming in = longwave radiation from earth coming out integrated over total Earth surface. Fairly easy measurements to do as the satellite orbits the earth and very precise. This value according to NASA GISS is 0.58 +- 0.15 W/m2 in 2011
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

Surface radiative imbalance = radiative imbalance measured on the surface. This is what Stephens et al. (2012) trying to measure, and it is a very hard measurement to do, because of variables in the surface being very finnicky clouds, changing condition, day/night cycle etc. In theory the number should be the same as TOA radiative imbalance. According to Stephen et al. 2012 and IPCC AR5 supplementary chapter 8 this is where the 0.6 +- 17 W/m2 number comes from.

Change of radiative balance = Change of TOA radiative balance over time, reported to be 0.2 W/m2 +- 0.6 W/m2 over the last decade by Feldman 2015.

An argument that the measurable TOA radiative change over 2000-2010 (0.2 +- 0.6) might be statistically insignificant compared to the TOA radiative imbalance in 2011 (0.58 +- 0.15) might have some merit, but comparing measured TOA radiative change, to SFC radiative imbalance measurements are just straight out dishonest. There's a reason why the IPCC chug the surface radiative imbalance measurements into the supplementary material, because it is an imprecise measurement and less good compared to TOA measurement.

8/10 effort though, a valid try and made me read the paper.

>>8759954
>You're saying that your model' can't be tested against the real world, yet the model is so good that you "know" what the answer is.

Not that anon, but this is what you get from regurgitating from denier blog on things you don't understand.

You're comparing 3 very different things. Let's start with basic definitions.

Top of atmosphere (TOA) radiative imbalance = Measured by satellites on top of atmosphere. Energy from sun coming in = longwave radiation from earth coming out integrated over total Earth surface. Fairly easy to satellite measurement and very precise. This value according to NASA GISS is 0.58 +- 0.15 W/m2 in 2011
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/

Surface radiative imbalance = radiative imbalance measured on the surface. This is what Stephens et al. (2012) trying to measure, and it is a very hard measurement to do, because of variables in the surface being very finnicky clouds, changing condition, day/night cycle etc and this is where the 0.6 +- 17 W/m2 number comes from. In theory the number should be the same as TOA radiative imbalance.

Change of radiative balance = Change of TOA radiative balance over time, reported to be 0.2 W/m2 +- 0.6 W/m2 over the last decade by Feldman 2015.

An argument that the measurable TOA radiative change over 2000-2010 (0.2 +- 0.6) might be statistically insignificant compared to the TOA radiative imbalance in 2011 (0.58 +- 0.15) might have some merit, but comparing measured TOA radiative change, to SFC radiative imbalance measurements are just straight out dishonest.

8/10 effort though, a valid try and made me read the paper.