<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: More on the Logarithmic Formula</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/</link>
	<description>by Steve McIntyre</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 May 2013 21:15:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: metro70</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/#comment-417289</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[metro70]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 01:08:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2570#comment-417289</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[James Hansen, as well as Steven Schneider, was involved in the above research,]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James Hansen, as well as Steven Schneider, was involved in the above research,</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: metro70</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/#comment-417287</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[metro70]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 01:06:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2570#comment-417287</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.abstract




Science 9 July 1971: 
Vol. 173 no. 3992 pp. 138-141 
DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138 
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
1. S. I. Rasool1, 
2. S. H. Schneider1 
+ Author Affiliations
1. 1Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, New York 10025 
Abstract
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.abstract" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.abstract</a></p>
<p>Science 9 July 1971:<br />
Vol. 173 no. 3992 pp. 138-141<br />
DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138<br />
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate<br />
1. S. I. Rasool1,<br />
2. S. H. Schneider1<br />
+ Author Affiliations<br />
1. 1Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, New York 10025<br />
Abstract<br />
Effects on the global temperature of large increases in carbon dioxide and aerosol densities in the atmosphere of Earth have been computed. It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For aerosols, however, the net effect of increase in density is to reduce the surface temperature of Earth. Because of the exponential dependence of the backscattering, the rate of temperature decrease is augmented with increasing aerosol content. An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5 ° K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease over the whole globe is believed to be sufficient to trigger an ice age.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kramer</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/#comment-410282</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kramer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2013 13:08:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2570#comment-410282</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Drake</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/#comment-410256</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Richard Drake]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2013 11:23:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2570#comment-410256</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thanks for noticing and caring, SoD.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for noticing and caring, SoD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Science of Doom</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/#comment-410232</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Science of Doom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2013 08:01:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2570#comment-410232</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Radiative forcing, F, is in W/m^2.

The factor: ln(C/C0) is obviously dimensionless, but the constant (5.35) is in units of W/m^2.

It is the net change in rate of energy transfer per unit area due to an instantaneous change in CO2 concentrations. 

This equation is not an analytical solution to the radiative transfer equations. This equation is an empirical fit to change in CO2 concentrations over a certain range - with the results for this empirical fit derived from the radiative transfer equations - see, for example, &lt;a href=&quot;http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/07/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-“greenhouse”-effect-–-part-six-the-equations/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part Six – The Equations&lt;/a&gt;.
&lt;strong&gt;
Steve: I know that it is an &quot;empirical fit&quot;. That was one of the purposes of this post.&lt;/strong&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Radiative forcing, F, is in W/m^2.</p>
<p>The factor: ln(C/C0) is obviously dimensionless, but the constant (5.35) is in units of W/m^2.</p>
<p>It is the net change in rate of energy transfer per unit area due to an instantaneous change in CO2 concentrations. </p>
<p>This equation is not an analytical solution to the radiative transfer equations. This equation is an empirical fit to change in CO2 concentrations over a certain range &#8211; with the results for this empirical fit derived from the radiative transfer equations &#8211; see, for example, <a href="http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/02/07/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-“greenhouse”-effect-–-part-six-the-equations/" rel="nofollow">Understanding Atmospheric Radiation and the “Greenhouse” Effect – Part Six – The Equations</a>.<br />
<strong><br />
Steve: I know that it is an &#8220;empirical fit&#8221;. That was one of the purposes of this post.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: kramer</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/#comment-410181</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[kramer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 06 Apr 2013 02:59:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2570#comment-410181</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[F = 5.35 ln(C/C0)

What units is this in? K, F, or C?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>F = 5.35 ln(C/C0)</p>
<p>What units is this in? K, F, or C?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: scienceofdoom</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/#comment-222957</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[scienceofdoom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 08:33:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2570#comment-222957</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ron Broberg - you can see the post at http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/

- I don&#039;t go into the IPCC expression a lot more but there is an extract from the paper Myhre and some background. Feel free to ask a question over at that post..]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ron Broberg &#8211; you can see the post at <a href="http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/" rel="nofollow">http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/02/19/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-seven-the-boring-numbers/</a></p>
<p>- I don&#8217;t go into the IPCC expression a lot more but there is an extract from the paper Myhre and some background. Feel free to ask a question over at that post..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ron Broberg</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/#comment-222950</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ron Broberg]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2010 06:53:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2570#comment-222950</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi SoD.

Just ran into this post tonight. I was wondering if Steve had ever come to a &#039;conclusion&#039; regarding the plausibility of logarithmic forcing.

So, yeah, I appreciate the update. Even by a stranger, passing in the night.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi SoD.</p>
<p>Just ran into this post tonight. I was wondering if Steve had ever come to a &#8216;conclusion&#8217; regarding the plausibility of logarithmic forcing.</p>
<p>So, yeah, I appreciate the update. Even by a stranger, passing in the night.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: scienceofdoom</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/#comment-222649</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[scienceofdoom]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:54:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2570#comment-222649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I wonder if anyone is still reading the comments here.. because the answer is simple.

I&#039;ve been doing my own research of old papers for http://scienceofdoom.com and the &quot;source&quot; is clear.

IPCC TAR cites &quot;New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixes greenhouse gases&quot; Myhre et al 1998.

Their paper, published in GRL, explains clearly what they do. At least, they follow on from a couple of decades of work with &quot;radiative-convective models&quot;, so a few things might be implied rather than explicit.

They are running the RTE (radiative transfer equations) using both LBL (line by line) and well-proven band models. They use the results from a few standardized profiles because the results from one &quot;average&quot; profile have been demonstrated to not match the average of results from many profiles.

And the &quot;simplified expression&quot; - the holy grail - comes from running these averaged 1-d simulations for different CO2 values and plotting the results.

Consequently, they find the new coefficient for the ln(C/Co) formula which best fits. 

Delta F = 5.35 ln(C/Co)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder if anyone is still reading the comments here.. because the answer is simple.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve been doing my own research of old papers for <a href="http://scienceofdoom.com" rel="nofollow">http://scienceofdoom.com</a> and the &#8220;source&#8221; is clear.</p>
<p>IPCC TAR cites &#8220;New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixes greenhouse gases&#8221; Myhre et al 1998.</p>
<p>Their paper, published in GRL, explains clearly what they do. At least, they follow on from a couple of decades of work with &#8220;radiative-convective models&#8221;, so a few things might be implied rather than explicit.</p>
<p>They are running the RTE (radiative transfer equations) using both LBL (line by line) and well-proven band models. They use the results from a few standardized profiles because the results from one &#8220;average&#8221; profile have been demonstrated to not match the average of results from many profiles.</p>
<p>And the &#8220;simplified expression&#8221; &#8211; the holy grail &#8211; comes from running these averaged 1-d simulations for different CO2 values and plotting the results.</p>
<p>Consequently, they find the new coefficient for the ln(C/Co) formula which best fits. </p>
<p>Delta F = 5.35 ln(C/Co)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: More on Functional Forms: Wigley 1987 &#171; Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2008/01/07/more-on-the-logarithmic-formula/#comment-209035</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[More on Functional Forms: Wigley 1987 &#171; Climate Audit [Welcome to our new home!]]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:50:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2570#comment-209035</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] noted that AR4 endorsed these particular TAR results (here), that Myhre et al 1998 was the primary source for these TAR results here and that Myhre et al 1998 [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] noted that AR4 endorsed these particular TAR results (here), that Myhre et al 1998 was the primary source for these TAR results here and that Myhre et al 1998 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
