Long-term warming likely to be significant despite recent slowdown

Mar 11, 2014 by Steve Cole
A new NASA study suggests that projections of Earth's future warming should be more in line with previous estimates that indicated a higher sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Credit: NASA SVS/NASA Center for Climate Simulation

A new NASA study shows Earth's climate likely will continue to warm during this century on track with previous estimates, despite the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming.

This research hinges on a new and more detailed calculation of the sensitivity of Earth's climate to the factors that cause it to change, such as . Drew Shindell, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, found Earth is likely to experience roughly 20 percent more warming than estimates that were largely based on surface temperature observations during the past 150 years.

Shindell's paper on this research was published March 9 in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Global temperatures have increased at a rate of 0.22 Fahrenheit (0.12 Celsius) per decade since 1951. But since 1998, the rate of warming has been only 0.09 F (0.05 C) per decade—even as continues to rise at a rate similar to previous decades. Carbon dioxide is the most significant generated by humans.

Some recent research, aimed at fine-tuning long-term warming projections by taking this slowdown into account, suggested Earth may be less sensitive to greenhouse gas increases than previously thought. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was issued in 2013 and was the consensus report on the state of science, also reduced the lower range of Earth's potential for .

To put a number to climate change, researchers calculate what is called Earth's "transient climate response." This calculation determines how much global temperatures will change as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase – at about 1 percent per year—until the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has doubled. The estimates for transient climate response range from near 2.52 F (1.4 C) offered by recent research, to the IPCC's estimate of 1.8 F (1.0 C). Shindell's study estimates a transient climate response of 3.06 F (1.7 C), and determined it is unlikely values will be below 2.34 F (1.3 C).

Shindell's paper further focuses on improving our understanding of how airborne particles, called aerosols, drive climate change in the Northern Hemisphere. Aerosols are produced by both natural sources – such as volcanoes, wildfire and sea spray – and sources such as manufacturing activities, automobiles and energy production. Depending on their make-up, some aerosols cause warming, while others create a cooling effect. In order to understand the role played by emissions in global warming, it is necessary to account for the effects of atmospheric aerosols.

While multiple studies have shown the Northern Hemisphere plays a stronger role than the Southern Hemisphere in transient climate change, this had not been included in calculations of the effect of atmospheric aerosols on . Prior to Shindell's work, such calculations had assumed aerosol impacts were uniform around the globe.

This difference means previous studies have underestimated the cooling effect of aerosols. When corrected, the range of likely warming based on surface temperature observations is in line with earlier estimates, despite the recent slowdown.

One reason for the disproportionate influence of the Northern Hemisphere, particularly as it pertains to the impact of aerosols, is that most man-made aerosols are released from the more industrialized regions north of the equator. Also, the vast majority of Earth's landmasses are in the Northern Hemisphere. This furthers the effect of the Northern Hemisphere because land, snow and ice adjust to atmospheric changes more quickly than the oceans of the world.

"Working on the IPCC, there was a lot of discussion of climate sensitivity since it's so important for our future," said Shindell, who was lead author of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report's chapter on Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. "The conclusion was that the lower end of the expected warming range was smaller than we thought before. That was a big discussion. Yet, I kept thinking, we know the Northern Hemisphere has a disproportionate effect, and some pollutants are unevenly distributed. But we don't take that into account. I wanted to quantify how much the location mattered."

Shindell's climate sensitivity calculation suggests countries around the world need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions at the higher end of proposed emissions reduction ranges to avoid the most damaging consequences of change. "I wish it weren't so," said Shindell, "but forewarned is forearmed."

Explore further: Climatologist challenges low-end claims of Intergovernmental panel

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Volcanoes helped offset man-made warming: study

Feb 23, 2014

Volcanoes spewing Sun-reflecting particles into the atmosphere have partly offset the effects of Man's carbon emissions over a 15-year period that has become a global-warming battleground, researchers said Sunday.

Recommended for you

New challenges for ocean acidification research

2 hours ago

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

3 hours ago

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

Finding innovative solutions for reducing CO2 emissions

5 hours ago

Today, the company Gaznat SA and EPFL signed an agreement for the creation of two new research chairs. The first one will study ways to seize carbon dioxide (CO2) at its production source and increase its value ...

User comments : 330

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

The Shootist
2 / 5 (24) Mar 11, 2014
How warm, for how long? The Medieval Climate Optimum lasted the better part of 500 years. or rather: It was so warm in Greenland 1250 years ago that dairy farming occurred for nigh on to 500 years. (hint: It's still too cold to farm dairy in Greenland).

I note he hasn't tempered or repudiated this: "The polar bears will be fine". - Freeman Dyson.
HannesAlfven
1.8 / 5 (24) Mar 11, 2014
Why do the articles on climate change refuse to address the extremely accurate correlation between stratospheric temperatures and sunspot numbers? This correlation suggests that the climate is driven by the Sun, and that the scientists have simply failed to figure out the exact mechanism, to date. They might consider studying electric joule heating, for starters ...

See Our Changing Climate and the Variable Sun
http://www.youtub...p_6FAXCY
Benni
1.7 / 5 (23) Mar 11, 2014
"To put a number to climate change, researchers calculate what is called Earth's "transient climate response." This calculation determines how much global temperatures will change as atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to increase – at about 1 percent per year—until the total amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide has doubled. The estimates for transient climate response range from near 2.52 F (1.4 C) offered by recent research, to the IPCC's estimate of 1.8 F (1.0 C). Shindell's study estimates a transient climate response of 3.06 F (1.7 C), and determined it is unlikely values will be below 2.34 F (1.3 C)."

OK, all you AGW mathematical geniuses: Why does this above formula not work right now? Here we are, we've been spewing unprecedented quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere for the past 16 years & the planet has gotten cooler. The quantitative starting point of tonnage of CO2 for the above proposed formula must have a base tonnage from which to start after AGW breaks 16 down years.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (21) Mar 11, 2014
Benni: You state: "Here we are, we've been spewing unprecedented quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere for the past 16 years & the planet has gotten cooler."

The planet has not gotten cooler. What has happened is that the measured points of surface temperature have risen much slower than expected by the models (not cooled). The heat input is still continuing, just the surface measurements have shown slower rise. Here is an explanation:

"Just because the global surface temperature has not risen significantly in the past decade doesn't mean the Earth's heat energy imbalance has vanished, though. Excess heat energy trapped by greenhouses gases can have more than one fate in the Earth system; among other things, it can cause water to evaporate, it can melt ice, and it can be mixed into the deep ocean by overturning currents."

http://www.climat...t-decade
Benni
1.9 / 5 (22) Mar 11, 2014
Annual Mean Growth Rate of CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory:

1960 - 70: 0.85 ppm
1970 - 80: 1.30 ppm
1980 - 90: 1.70 ppm
1990 - 20: 1.60 ppm
2000 - 10: 1.90 ppm
2011: 1.84 ppm
2012: 2.66 ppm
2013: 2.07 ppm

http://www.esrl.n.../trends/

The CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory does not correlate even closely with temperature drop for the past 16 years, in fact it is nearly inversely related. Those years CO2 ppm have been the highest have been in this century, a period even the author (s) clearly admits we've seen cooler temperatures.

So now the question to Drew Shindell is: "In what year at what concentration of ppm of CO2 will be the base from which you plan to make all these magical numbers work that you have inserted in this article?"

............Oh, that's right, I almost forgot, you are a government guy & sensible numbers are devoid of meaning if they don't fit the hypotheses, therefore you are exempt from introspection of your overly simplistic math.

gregor1
2.1 / 5 (18) Mar 11, 2014
The above paper has been pretty much demolished by Nic Lewis here http://climateaud...e-sense/
Benni
1.8 / 5 (16) Mar 11, 2014
Temperature Trends at the Mauna Loa Observatory: http://www.clim-p...2011.pdf

Chart from 1975 - 2005; Chart clearly shows only one temperature data point in this century that is above the MEAN, all other temperature data points are below the mean calculated from 1975 - 2005. This is atmospheric temperature, it's immaterial what obscure scattered surface temperatures are because the greenhouse effect is created far above the surface, not at the surface. The temperature spike in 1998 is so out of proportion to the Mean that if it were the only point discounted, the Mean on the temperature graph would bring it to just about level up to 2013, but how so many AGW's love to see the bias that one year creates on a graph. Take all the data from Mauna Loa add in the data from 2006 to present, then strip out the bias of the single highest temperature & the single lowest for the range of years, and voila, you get a graph for which the MEAN is level.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (20) Mar 11, 2014
The CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory does not correlate even closely with temperature drop for the past 16 years, in fact it is nearly inversely related. Those years CO2 ppm have been the highest have been in this century, a period even the author (s) clearly admits we've seen cooler temperatures.
Not cooler temperatures there Mr Engineer, less surface heating than expected. One would have thought an engineer could figure out how those numbers work.

............Oh, that's right, I almost forgot, you are a government guy & sensible numbers are devoid of meaning if they don't fit the hypotheses, therefore you are exempt from introspection of your overly simplistic math.

Oh that's right, your an Engineer and therefore you are exempt from having to use math, logic or reason in determining how you approach problems of atmospheric science!
malapropism
4.8 / 5 (18) Mar 11, 2014
@Benni:
The CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory does not correlate even closely with temperature drop for the past 16 years ... a period even the author (s) clearly admits we've seen cooler temperatures.

Do you actually get that "lesser increase than expected" is not the same thing as "decrease"? Because that's what this article is saying.

Also, the paper that you quote & link to about the temperature trends at Mauna Loa observatory:
1. Do not include the past 16 years, they very clearly stop at 2006.
2. Figure 5(a) shows the averaged diurnal temperatures for the observatory over the period they study and the daytime maximum drops slightly while the nighttime minimum increases - that is, the overall minimum temperature increases while the temperature range narrows.
3. In the Abstract, the authors clearly state that, "Overall, at Mauna Loa Observatory, there is a mean warming trend of 0.021◦C yr−1."
.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (17) Mar 11, 2014
Do you actually get that "lesser increase than expected" is not the same thing as "decrease"? Because that's what this article is saying.


I didn't say that, Shindell did. I looked at the MEAN & stripped the bias as all good Engineers are taught to do.

In the Abstract, the authors clearly state that, "Overall, at Mauna Loa Observatory, there is a mean warming trend of 0.021◦C yr−1.".


But stripping the bias created by the highest & lowest points and the MEAN flatlines. Give it a try, it still comes up with a slight rise but is well within the range of instrumentation error.
Howhot
4 / 5 (23) Mar 11, 2014
Drew Shindell, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, found Earth is likely to experience roughly 20 percent more warming than estimates that were largely based on surface temperature observations during the past 150 years.


The estimates for transient climate response range from near 2.52 F (1.4 C) offered by recent research, to the IPCC's estimate of 1.8 F (1.0 C). Shindell's study estimates a transient climate response of 3.06 F (1.7 C), and determined it is unlikely values will be below 2.34 F (1.3 C).


I think that says it all. If I was a betting man, I would pick the HIGH value of 3.06 F (1.7 C) for the transient (global) climate response just to piss you deniers off. Haha. But facts are facts and it does stand to reason that the Earth's response to current CO2 levels at 400ppm will be devastating and disastrous for mankind and civilization. Add in population pressures and BAM! It's too damn hot.

Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 11, 2014
@ Howhot, Thank you!
meBigGuy
4.6 / 5 (18) Mar 12, 2014
You keep putting heat into a glass of ice water and it doesn't get hotter until the ice melts. (ignoring layering for the moment - assume it is being stirred). The people on the island in the middle keep saying it is all a conspiracy.
malapropism
5 / 5 (13) Mar 12, 2014
But stripping the bias created by the highest & lowest points and the MEAN flatlines.
I'm assuming from this that you removed the low and high points (1978 & 1998 for minima, respectively, plus 1982/84 and 1989/2002 for maxima, respectively, in Fig. 5(a)). But these are already mean values - performing this calculation on already-derived values is not statistically valid. You'd need to use the raw data points and exclude based on Std Deviations.

... it still comes up with a slight rise but is well within the range of instrumentation error.
But I think the important point they make here is not the individual mean values but the linear best-fit, which clearly shows an increasing trend in the overall average minimum annual temperatures; as you probably know, linear regressions / best-fit analyses tend by design to be resistant to extreme skew by single aberrant data points, which comes back to why your argument about removing low/high values is further likely to be invalid.
aksdad
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2014
Two things: 1.) It's a paper about tweaking the sensitivity of computer generated climate models; models which have been famously bad at predicting surface temperatures. Yawn. 2.) 1.3 to 1.7 C of warming versus 1.0 to 1.4 C in the next, say 70+ years: who cares? We saw about 1 C in the last 100 years and nothing dire came of it.

I'd love to know if any of the climate models factor in the tapering off of human CO2 production in the next few decades as population growth slows and stabilizes (as the U.N. predicts) and innovation and efficiency in energy production result in dramatically less CO2 output (as the U.S. has experienced in the last 5 years) without any need for government regulation. Remember we humans produce only 4% of the CO2 emissions on the planet. The other 96% is from nature.
Mike_Massen
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2014
aksdad
I'd love to know if any of the climate models factor in the tapering off of human CO2 production in the next few decades as population growth slows and stabilizes... Remember we humans produce only 4% of the CO2 emissions on the planet. The other 96% is from nature.
Climate models can be queried any number of times, they are not a static configuration, there are many, they can be run concurrently & be presented with many combinatorial complex inter-related causalities.

However, re your claim:- "Remember humans produce..."
How are we supposed to remember something we were never previously told, eh ?
Where is this source of us been told so we should "remember" ?

If only 4% of emissions were from humans as you CLAIM, then why rapid rise commensurate with human industrialisation:- http://www.woodfo...o2/every

Did nature turn it up at the same time too then ?

Did you perhaps mean to CLAIM humans add a CUMULATIVE 4% extra each year ?

Maths your skill ?
Skepticus_Rex
2 / 5 (16) Mar 12, 2014
This new report brought to you by the same group who predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2013... We all saw how that turned out.
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 12, 2014
Skepticus_Rex mumbled a one liner barb showing clearly he has no idea of combinatorial complexity with this reflection of the level of his appreciation of systems interactions
This new report brought to you by the same group who predicted an ice-free Arctic by 2013... We all saw how that turned out.
You desperately need to come to grips with non-linear relationships and especially so these technical topics, which when studied & understood show quite clearly local minima & maxima have sound basis in physics... We are not talking idiot media alarmists but true Science of cause of heterogeneous thermal issues compounded by chaotic currents etc etc

http://en.wikiped...of_water

http://en.wikiped...iki/Heat

http://en.wikiped...echanics

When attention is given to these topics along with the understanding and practice of calculus,then the flakey statements of media alarmists can be understood.

Am hoping commentators would understand !
EnricM
5 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2014
Why do the articles on climate change refuse to address the extremely accurate correlation between stratospheric temperatures and sunspot numbers? This correlation suggests that the climate is driven by the Sun, and that the scientists have simply failed to figure out the exact mechanism, to date. They might consider studying electric joule heating, for starters ...

See Our Changing Climate and the Variable Sun
http://www.youtub...p_6FAXCY


What are you waiting for presenting yourself for the Nobel Prize?
You are able to outsmart thousands of researchers and yet remain unknown to the general public. Unfair.

Ah, wait, these guys are "climate scientists" and therefore not really scientists, right? And they work for the Illuminati Pokemon Collectors Club... thus minions of EVIL aiming at stealing your hard earned tax money!!!

Anyway, present yourself to the Nobel Prize you have good chances for wining the Noble Prize of Everything.

All Hail Gobal Cooling!!!
jyro
2.1 / 5 (14) Mar 12, 2014
After 4 billion years of climate change on Earth, it's proven natural. Adjust to it or die, That's our choice.
janani_matthew
1 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2014
the Sun of heaven, and that is all I say, scientists chap machines of alcohol.

http://everestind...s.co.in/
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 12, 2014
You keep putting heat into a glass of ice water and it doesn't get hotter until the ice melts. (ignoring layering for the moment - assume it is being stirred).

This is something some people will never understand. Buffer systems. For example there is methane hydrate found on some parts of the ocean floor. This stuff forms EXACTLY where the temperature is cold enough (or colder) - so when the oceans warm even a tiny bit this stuff will thaw.
That will be a mixed blessing: as it will slow down ocean warming (energy used for thawing does not go to warming the oceans) but will release methane in the atmosphere (another powerful greenhouse gas)...and that will just lead to a VERY nasty situation once this buffer system runs low.

So deducing that from some cherry-picked datasets warming isn't happening as fast as predicted is just very naive.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2014
This is something some people will never understand. Buffer systems.

Why didn't the folks writing the computer model incorporate buffer systems?
If they did, according to anti, then the models should be dead-nuts on.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2014
ryggesogn2 yet again^6 PROVES he has lied claiming he has achieved a university degree in Physics with this naive, redneck & simplistic understanding of combinatorial complexity
Why didn't the folks writing the computer model incorporate buffer systems?
If they did, according to anti, then the models should be dead-nuts on.
No.
You interpret a singular aspect of physics can be easily applied across the globe with a simple approach, obvious to educated people this cannot be done with determinism, this is why its probabilistic & asymptotic - why didn't you learn that ?

What makes you guess properties of water have not been included & at an inter-convened level of complexity far beyond idea of your claimed success in achieving a physics degree ?

Why don't you have passable powers of cognition ?

Why don't you be honest with your education level ?

Why don't you stop barking naive, stupid inanities ?

Why don't you think first before posting ?

Why don't you stop wasting time ?
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2014
jyro indicated
After 4 billion years of climate change on Earth, it's proven natural.
Damn right its been 'natural' for so long but, now we have to deal with un-natural accelerated consumption of ~200million years worth of stored energy & GHGs, released quickly.

Again jyro is correct with
Adjust to it or die, That's our choice.
Callous thing to say as you lump those that cannot escape with those that can neither of which are necessarily causal.

So jyro, you jumped in, what should we do with this rapid release of energy & green house gases which come to ~ 230,000 Litres/sec ?

Rather than state obvious issues on a technical site where you have the opportunity to advance, then why the heck don't you ?

Lets have some good thought and suggestions from those, especially the uneducated climate deniers like ryggesogn2, Shootist, ubavontuba etc &all those who can't understand properties of water at its simplest.

How to address

- Good Education (Physics, Maths)
&
- Action ?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2014
Why didn't the folks writing the computer model incorporate buffer systems?

Ocean warming is such a buffer system. Artic ice melting is such a buffer system. These are incorporated in the models. The people writing the programs can only incorporate the systems that they
a) know of
b) know the effect (magnitude) of

But in the end a buffer system (any) is just a finite system. At some point it is used up - and then all hell breaks loose.

After 4 billion years of climate change on Earth, it's proven natural. Adjust to it or die, That's our choice.

But you are aware that for most of that time we had a climate under which humans could not have survived, right? And that 'adjusting' takes time - which we don't get with a fast climate change...or which will be of no use in any case with a runaway climate change.

Our choice is to make sure we GET the time to adjust and not artificially shorten it by stupidity. That may be the difference between extinction and survival.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2014
The people writing the programs can only incorporate the systems that they
a) know of
b) know the effect (magnitude) of


What?
Climate modelers don't KNOW everything about the climate and/or don't know how to model what they think they know?
And that 'adjusting' takes time

Humans have adjusted quite well to rapidly changing climate.
That may be the difference between extinction and survival.

The real difference will be will the AGWites destroy the capability to innovate or will AGWites be ignored and individuals will not be constrained by limited energy supplies and be allowed to innovate?
Germany has seen the light and realized that choking off its economy with high cost energy limits their ability to innovate.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2014
ryggesogn2 STILL doesnt understand
Climate modelers don't KNOW everything about the climate and/or don't know how to model what they think they know?
Get it into your thick cranium ryggesogn2, modelling climate system is probabilistic, many aspects lead to varying assessments of asymptotic 'completeness'. We have enough information from principles of physics & hosts of measurements to know the basic physics re water, GHG's etc is NOT negated by observations.
Humans have adjusted quite well to rapidly changing climate.
Only marginally, you are guessing.

ryggesogn2
AGWites destroy the capability to innovate
You would be hard pressed to find this, the opposite true, Eg. many new approaches to non-GHG energy technologies !

ryggesogn2
Germany ... realized that choking off its economy with high cost energy limits their ability to innovate.
Dumb claim, The economic/science source please ?

Why is ryggesogn2 wasting time ?

ryggesogn2 needs wider understanding/education.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2014
Climate modelers don't KNOW everything about the climate and/or don't know how to model what they think they know?

Do not confuse "don't know everything" with "know nothing". For example we can make very good mechanical or chemical simulations without knowing everything about quantum mechanics (which underlies all mechanics/chemistry). That a simulation may not account for some minor effects does not invalidate it.

Humans have adjusted quite well to rapidly changing climate.

If you feel like paying the cost of inundated coastal cities (which are the majority of cities)...
And don't forget that we are VERY dependent on plants and animals also surviving. Being able to don appropriate clothing means nothing if we run out of food.

The real difference will be will the AGWites destroy the capability to innovate

How does the call to action DESTROY the ability to innovate? If anything it CALLS for it.
savroD
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2014
The ability to innovate is spurred on by looking for new ways to do things. Period, End-of-story! Only a stooge for the fossil fuels industry and/or a someone with an ideological, non-scientific agenda would say such an ignorant thing.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2014
That a simulation may not account for some minor effects does not invalidate it.

Run the simulation for 100 years.
How does the call to action DESTROY the ability to innovate?

Energy is needed to innovate.
Artificially raise the cost of energy, which AGWites have done, lower the capacity to innovate.
The ability to innovate is spurred on by looking for new ways to do things.

One needs tools and energy to use those tools. Artificially raise the cost of energy, reduce the innovation.
Rockefeller innovated and reduced the cost of kerosene for lighting enabling millions to be able to afford to better read at night.
Edison innovated and eliminated the use of kerosene for lighting.
All this innovation was motivated by profit not some govt mandated socialist's command.
Profit motive, free markets (not cronies like Solyndra that suck up govt grants or profit off of a protected market) WILL achieve cleaner, cheaper energy AND a more prosperity.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2014
"Germany — once a global leader in the race for reliance on "alternative" forms of energy — has discovered that no amount of environmentalist ideology can alter the fundamental laws of economics. Although wind and solar "farms" have been the recipients of lavish government subsidies throughout the European Union, the German government is now being forced to concede it cannot continue supporting solar power at the levels that had quickly become customary, and is dramatically reducing its solar energy subsidy."
"In short, the German government was inclined to fund a "feel good" environmental project when indulging global-warming hysteria did not threaten the overall economy. Now, when the European Union is in a financial "meltdown," the German government knows that some measure of budgetary restraint will be necessary in the days to come if the country is going to avoid the fate of nations such as Greece."
http://www.thenew...sidies-t
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2014
Energy is needed to innovate.

You are aware that the solutions proposed will only decrease in cost while sticking with the current infrastructure will only get ever more expensive? Not just because the fuel costs will explode but also the incurred additional costs (because someone has to pay for moving entire cities - which doesn't come cheap)

You're proposing NOT to innovate but to invest everything into damage control (until damage control will be so costly that we can't stem the cost anymore). That's really sounds like a viable solution to you?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2014
For whatever anyone thinks about atmospheric temperatures for the past 120 years:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

Produced by a well respected government agency. In spite of increased CO2 ppm for the past 15 years, just look at the tail of that graph & try to convince the average high school graduate in the USA that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming atmospheric temperatures. Swindell should look at it as well, rather than continuing the swindle of his phony modeling using grade-school arithmetic, I doubt he ever saw a differential equation he could solve.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2014
You are aware that the solutions proposed will only decrease in cost while sticking with the current infrastructure will only get ever more expensive?


Solutions IMPOSED will never decrease in cost because their is no incentive to reduce costs.
someone has to pay for moving entire cities

Why?
Who paid to move Detroit?
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2014
Benni offered this
For whatever anyone thinks about atmospheric temperatures for the past 120 years:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/
Produced by a well respected government agency. In spite of increased CO2 ppm for the past 15 years, just look at the tail of that graph & try to convince the average high school graduate in the USA that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming atmospheric temperatures...
Yeah fascinating, shows interesting data only for the US - which happens to have its own local minima/maxima and a heck of a lot of flights over it - reducing temps.

Press other button though, see a warming trend buried - LOL !

Recall how areas warmed quickly immediately after 9/11 when flights were cancelled - get it ?

How does this relate to mathematics of INTEGRATION & global issues and especially so where jets don't criss cross large areas and can't cool by con trails & other high altitude shielding effects connected with so many flights as US ?
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2014
ryggesogn2 continues his failure to understand
Solutions IMPOSED will never decrease in cost because their is no incentive to reduce costs.
Who says existing level of private innovation is IMPOSED - it ain't. Its more efficiency & produces less GHG.

Claimed university physics graduates shouldn't use immature words like 'never' and especially so in any technical context where prices for many tech items are lower than ever !

Mandated advances offer many chances to innovate, Eg. this has REDUCED fuel usage,
though many car companies inefficiently swallowed government grants to keep their illusion alive they were private...!
Is that your version of capitalism ryggesogn2 ?

ryggesogn2 needs education again with
Who paid to move Detroit?
Are you saying its a coastal city not far from equator where most sea level rises have and are continuing to occur ?

Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2014
ryggesogn2 the lazy thinker
Run the simulation for 100 years.
Maybe you will then understand probability & asymptotic progress ?
Energy is needed
Laptop 20W, a lot less than you imagine.
One needs tools and energy to use..
New tools cheap Eg 3D printing, factor in solar power cheaper now than ever !
Rockefeller innovated and reduced the cost of kerosene for lighting enabling millions to be able to afford to better read at night.
Details ? How is this related to global warming & technical innovation ?
Edison innovated and eliminated the use of kerosene..
Not entirely but, how related ?
All this innovation was motivated by profit..
Profit motive...
Is alive & well, many private energy efficiency advances, new sources. Don't begrudge some trying it on for govt grants ! Private ppl out there !

Real energy cheaper NOW, if it had not diverged from classic inflation at 5 % pa over each decade then oil would be over $280/barrel.

You didn't do economics either ?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2014
Don't begrudge some trying it on for govt grants

You mean having the govt plunder wealth for you instead of persuading investors?
Buy enough members of Congress and there is no need to make a profit in the real world. Just live off of the plundered wealth, for a while, until Other People's Money runs out.
freeiam
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2014

Do not confuse "don't know everything" with "know nothing". For example we can make very good mechanical or chemical simulations without knowing everything about quantum mechanics (which underlies all mechanics/chemistry). That a simulation may not account for some minor effects does not invalidate it.

I wouldn't call not knowing the rising temperature a minor effect, especially since it is the primary objective of the model(s).
Good luck denying that the predictions were way off and significantly wrong in every interpretation you can think of as is stated (again) in this article.
Instead of denying and throwing in all kinds of buffers that magically didn't have an effect earlier, find an explanation why buffering works now and proof it.
Or did we (and I exclude myself) miss some key aspects of the system?
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2014
Why do the articles on climate change refuse to address the extremely accurate correlation between stratospheric temperatures and sunspot numbers?

Climate scientists certainly don't ignore it. See, e.g., Sfica & Voiculescu, 2014; Claud, Cagnazzo & Keckhut, 2008; Hampson, et al., 2005; Keckhut, et al., 2005.

http://adsabs.har...09....7S
http://adsabs.har...70.2031C
http://adsabs.har...67..948H
http://adsabs.har...67..940K
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2014
This correlation suggests that the climate is driven by the Sun

No, it suggests a solar cycle component in driving stratospheric temperature changes. It also suggests that there may be a solar cycle component in driving climate change, and you will find that included in climate models, e.g., Lefebvre, et al, 2010; Marchand, et al., 2012

http://adsabs.har...64..350L
http://adsabs.har...75..147M

Most climate scientists don't think that the stratosphere-troposphere (and climate) connection is strong, but Joan Feynman & Alexander Ruzmaikin at JPL have argued that it is more significant than previously thought.

http://adsabs.har......2392F
http://adsabs.har......1281R
http://adsabs.har...07.4209R
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2014
One should keep in mind that the energy involved in atmospheric temperature change is about 1% of the total global warming energy, the vast bulk of which is deposited in Earth's oceans. While surface temperatures may have "leveled off" over the last decade or so, ocean energy content has not, suggesting a change in partition of energy between ocean & atmosphere.

I will also point out that while surface temperature rose significantly from about 1900 to 1940 and 1980-2005, the data are fairly flat over the range 1940-1980. So even if temperatures are not rising significantly now (a debatable point), one cannot make definitive predictions based thereon, in light of the previous 40 year "flat" period, followed by sudden & rapid rising temperatures.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2014
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2014
They might consider studying electric joule heating, for starters

Heat energy deposited by Joule heating is proportional to the product of the current and the resistivity. Since you are allegedly an expert in such things, why don't you figure out the Joule heating yourself? What current and what resistivity? The measured energy imbalance 2005-2010 is 0.58 Watts per square meter globally averaged, so now you know how much energy your current needs to supply. Go for it.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2014
On a lighter note
http://www.accuwe...24223272

IMHO - this is happening because of this:

http://qz.com/163...n-worse/
Since the difference in temperature between the Arctic and the mid-latitudes helps drive the jet stream (which, in turn, drives most US weather patterns), if that temperature difference decreases, it stands to reason that the jet stream's winds will slow down. Why does this matter?

Well, atmospheric theory predicts that a slower jet stream will produce wavier and more sluggish weather patterns, in turn leading to more frequent extreme weather.

has an interesting video supporting the conclusions which can ALSO be found here
http://thinkprogr...9079262#

hope that helps explain it
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2014
ryggesogn2 again sidesteps and mumbles like tired old men sharing exaggerated stories over a coffee or beer lamenting what life might have been like if they had actually done anything with passion
You mean having the govt plunder wealth for you instead of persuading investors?
Buy enough members of Congress and there is no need to make a profit in the real world. Just live off of the plundered wealth, for a while, until Other People's Money runs out.
You should know ryggesogn2, from basic economics any such approach does not last & is easy for intelligent people to see through.

But, you should also have learned large infrastructure projects such as road & rail require policy not often advanced well over long periods by short term thinking 'investors'. Was the US intercontinental highway network provided by investors, were they short or long term, have you checked any history to validate your common narrow claims uttered here far too often ?

Education ryggesogn2, got it yet ?
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2014
freeiam betrayed a very sad narrow view of how Oceans & Climate are perturbed by the Sun & Tidal forces
Instead of denying and throwing in all kinds of buffers that magically didn't have an effect earlier, find an explanation why buffering works now and proof it.
Or did we (and I exclude myself) miss some key aspects of the system?
freeiam,

You are unaware that Ocean currents can change over periods longer than human lifetime.

You are unaware of properties of water that are not deterministic re exposure to heat differentials.

You are unaware of the physics and chaos potential within systems that take decades to appear.

Thats a start.

You should be aware the issue of climate change is a very technical area covering more than one discipline, it demands a good understanding of physics, preferably at university level AND keen understanding of probability regarding chaotic interactions.

It is very complex, these models are asymptotic and will always be to degrees.
savroD
3.8 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2014
"One needs tools and energy to use those tools. Artificially raise the cost of energy, reduce the innovation."

Bull...your don't understand economics; all you have to do is look at the illegally disposed of radioactive socks used in all the drilling and fracking in North Dakota to know you are being lied to about the economics of how cheap oil is. You wonder why your taxes are high; it's because crooks have convinced you to socialize their losses and leave them with their profits. But don't take my word, wait until you and your children of have cancer before you change your mind. That is usually how fools are dragged kicking and screaming into the present century!
savroD
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2014
"Solutions IMPOSED will never decrease in cost because their is no incentive to reduce costs."

Yeah... we know that imposition of a few trips to the moon was a big waste of money. What a dumb thing to say!
savroD
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2014
"You mean having the govt plunder wealth for you instead of persuading investors?
Buy enough members of Congress and there is no need to make a profit in the real world. Just live off of the plundered wealth, for a while, until Other People's Money runs out."

More ignorant garbage talk because we all know the goal of government is take away everyone's money. Grow up fool! No I take that back, crawl back into your cave and scrawl your nonsense on the cave walls. maybe someone will find it someday and get a good laugh!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2014
You should be aware the issue of climate change is a very technical area covering more than one discipline,


Really?

"In the US, the reward for solving a problem is to have your funding withdrawn . . . There is an intrinsic pressure to make sure your problem never disappears."

Second: He explained the small number of properly qualified experts in the climate science field: "Were the brightest people in college studying meteorology and oceanography?"

Yeo: (incredulously): Are you suggesting that people who had gone into this field of work were academically or intellectually inferior to those who'd chosen other fields of work?

Lindzen: (enthusiastically) Oh yes! I don't think there's any question that when we were in college that the brightest minds went into physics and math, then chemistry, then other areas . . ."
http://order-orde...-change/
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2014
More ignorant garbage talk because we all know the goal of government is take away everyone's money.


Thanks for agreeing with me.
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2014
Do you actually get that "lesser increase than expected" is not the same thing as "decrease"? Because that's what this article is saying.


Not that I'm agreeing with the premise, but my guess is the EXACT same way that liberals in congress get "spending cut" out of a decreased rate in the overall increase of spending....
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2014
But, you should also have learned large infrastructure projects such as road & rail require policy not often advanced well over long periods by short term thinking 'investors'. Was the US intercontinental highway network provided by investors, were they short or long term, have you checked any history to validate your common narrow claims uttered here far too often ?


Actually yes it was. The government certainly didn't create the wealth to provide it...did it. The government mandated it, it didn't build it. Moreover there is no "US intercontinental highway network"...there is a US INTERSTATE network of highways. But YOU should have learned the difference between States and continents in high school.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2014
Was the US intercontinental highway network provided by investors,

Likely , yes.
Bonds are commonly issued to fund road projects and are supposed to be repaid with the fuel, tires, truckers taxes, etc.
Early turnpikes in the US were funded by lotteries.Tolls were charged to use the turnpikes.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2014

"Some try to sugar-coat their anti-growth arguments by focusing their attention on the rich world. But with most of the world's expected growth to occur in the poor parts of the world, such arguments are simply mathematical non sequiturs. The reality is that to be anti-growth today is actually to be anti-growth with respect to poor countries. "
http://thebreakth...oor-poor
One should put the disciples of Paul Ehrlich in with the eugenicist Sanger.
Mike_Massen
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2014
Modernmystic seems to unaware of
Moreover there is no "US intercontinental highway network"...there is a US INTERSTATE network of highways. But YOU should have learned the difference between States and continents in high school.
the collaboration extended with Canada, sure its a country but its not a state of USA now is it, within the narrow confines of the USA the highway is interstate sure, do we call the agreement with Canada intercountry, you tell me.

As often, I extend the paradigm not narrow it, this raises the ire of pendants and others primed to jump on the bandwagon, find a schiszm and try to pull as much complaint as possible who find easy means to criticize but, without actually advancing - all have feet of clay, yours just got deeper into the mire trying to point at mine.

Next time Modernmystic, try a bit of advancement not idle criticism without extrapolation and which stops dead, probably where it belongs...
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2014
the collaboration extended with Canada, sure its a country but its not a state of USA now is it,


First of all Canada is in North America the last time I checked, which isn't INTERCONTINENTAL. It might be called an INTRAcontinental system, but it wouldn't be called the US intracontinental system because it would belong to more than one country now wouldn't it? Try extending that paradigm a little harder along with your rationalization of making a mistake. Or you could just admit you screwed up.
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2014
Wow ModernMystic you must be very happy
Try extending that paradigm a little harder along with your rationalization of making a mistake. Or you could just admit you screwed up.
You can complain all you like, pedant-ism slows me down with complainers like you over minutiae, you did get the point you must have otherwise you are forming a pattern of discontent at the slightest trigger, my comment stands

As often, I extend the paradigm not narrow it, this raises the ire of pendants and others primed to jump on the bandwagon, find a schiszm and try to pull as much complaint as possible who find easy means to criticize but, without actually advancing - all have feet of clay, yours just got deeper into the mire trying to point at mine.


You are wasting time & bandwidth, advance please, picky isnt your only narrow skill now is it (rhetorical question)...

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2014
When one is caught lying and obfuscating, one begins to argue over the definition of 'is'.
Modernmystic
1.4 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2014
You can complain all you like, pedant-ism slows me down with complainers like you over minutiae, you did get the point you must have otherwise you are forming a pattern of discontent at the slightest trigger, my comment stands


No it doesn't on any level. There is no intercontinental highway system...period. It's a fact, like the Earth isn't flat. So your comment doesn't stand. You're entitled to opinions, not your own facts.

Secondly the government didn't provide the resources to build the highway system. It collected the resources from private agencies and gave them to other private agencies to build the road. That's a fact too, your opinions and misconceptions aside. Investors also thing over very long periods of time with contracts that extend beyond a human life span so you really aren't correct on ANY level of what you said. I'm sorry if it upsets you and you have difficulty admitting it or minimize it by calling it minutia...them's the brakes....
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2014
Skepticus_Rex mumbled a one liner barb showing clearly he has no idea of combinatorial complexity with this reflection of the level of his appreciation of systems interactions.


The new report was deserving of no more than a one-line barb. The NASA "ice-free Arctic by 2013" prediction also came as a result of model-monkeying. Now, I am not going to tell you where there are problems with the model used and the data input into the model. Since you proclaim you are so very good at Calculus yourself you should be able to find the issues for yourself. There are serious issues with the model and there are contradictions with observable data. So, look through the data and find them for yourself. Far be it from me with my "meager understanding" of the issues to tell you where to look and what was left out of the modeling parameters. :-)
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2014
ModernMystic
I am sorry I may have made a slip.

I am more sorry however, some people find reason to attack, to jump on the bandwagon, drawing in the negative patterns of others as reason to amplify & extend prejudice, and especially so ryggesogn2 who seems to forget he has been caught out LYING about having achieved a university degree in Physics, all his posts betray lack of training, lack of depth, inability to follow any of the paradigms of the discipline in studying physics.

When someone lies about their qualification they should be banned.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2014
Skepticus_Rex misrepresenting & obfuscating & on the low denominator of an attack bandwagon
Since you proclaim you are so very good at Calculus yourself you should be able to find the issues for yourself.
You are a LIAR, I never proclaimed I am 'very good'. I said & I'll make it Simple for you. I indicated Calculus is essential to understand Physics at university level. I never "proclaimed" I am 'very good', please don't outright LIE.

Skepticus_Rex also doesn't understand modelling
There are serious issues with the model and there are contradictions with observable data.
There are many models with multitude parameters no one as you imply, they are and must by necessity be probabilistic and thus asymptotic.

To criticize modelling & those that research Eg. Ocean currents when understanding is developing re new complexity of Eg. bounding/equilibria AT THE TIME & thus misses a small temp change over short period makes the criticizer completely ignorant & stupid !

Asymptotic !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2014
Mikey, who are you?
What is your address?
Post your CV with references.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2014
""The situation is clear: power plants that can no longer operate economically and that are not needed to maintain system stability will be withdrawn," EON SE's Chief Executive Officer Johannes Teyssen told reporters in Dusseldorf, Germany, on March 12. "If this trend continues unabated, we will very soon see serious capacity shortages. And in that case absolute security of supply would no longer be axiomatic." "
http://www.bloomb...rgy.html
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2014
"The Environmental Protection Agency's rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants is tainted by secretiveness and collusion with environmental groups, according to a conservative environmental lawyer.

Read more: http://dailycalle...vzmYrBzi

"Senators Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and David Vitter (R-La.) want answers about what they call "pay-to-play" meetings in which pharmaceutical manufacturers allegedly shelled out thousands of dollars to meet with FDA officials who oversee safety regulations on painkillers. The senators suggest these meetings might have helped Zohydro get approved by the FDA despite an advisory committee voting against it."

Read more: http://www.busine...vznOwMLP

In the Regulatory State AGWites Trust.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2014
@R2:
Mikey, who are you?
What is your address?
Post your CV with references.

You first @R2. Who are you? What is your address? Do you even have a CV? Those are some pretty invasive question you ask, Your doing that questionare just to be a POS? Right?

You deniers just don't understand the breath of human knowledge. The debate in this case stems from:
[qThe estimates for transient climate response range from near 2.52 F (1.4 C) offered by recent research, to the IPCC's estimate of 1.8 F (1.0 C). Shindell's study estimates a transient climate response of 3.06 F (1.7 C), and determined it is unlikely values will be below 2.34 F (1.3 C).

In other words; will temperature rise 1.4C, 1.0C, 1.7C or 1.3C? 1.7C is correct, and that is the low estimate. So AGW and Al Gore strike 100 out of 100 as speakers of the truth, while republicans (and the whole crap party they are) lives with false science, lies and blinders on.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2014
I dunno... I think many of you under estimate how efficient our Earth is at taking care of itself...
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2014
I dunno... I think many of you under estimate how efficient our Earth is at taking care of itself...

'Earth taking care of itself'?
The earth is not a living thing and does not 'take care of itself'.
Define 'efficient'?
Aren't all physical process 'efficient' in the sense they all seek the path of least resistance using the least amount of energy and greatest entropy?
Whydening Gyre
2.8 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2014
Earth taking care of itself'?
The earth is not a living thing and does not 'take care of itself'.

It is a complex system, however. Think - Internal response to external stimuli...
Define 'efficient'?
Aren't all physical process 'efficient' in the sense they all seek the path of least resistance using the least amount of energy and greatest entropy?

You just did, more or less. Eco-systems will do what it needs to maintain it's status quo. One word - adapt.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2014
Eco-systems will do what it needs to maintain it's status quo

No it doesn't.
Inorganic matter can do nothing. External forces act and the inorganic matter reacts. A rock does nothing to keep itself intact due to the effects of weather, water, wind, etc.
Living matter tries to survive and grow, not maintain any status quo.
barakn
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2014
Living matter tries to survive and grow, not maintain any status quo.

Homeostasis. Look it up, bird-brain.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2014
Living matter tries to survive and grow, not maintain any status quo.

Homeostasis. Look it up, bird-brain.

How does this apply?
RobPaulG
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2014
Nobody believes this nonsense any more.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (14) Mar 15, 2014
Nobody believes this nonsense any more.
The nonsense that is denialism? Yea true, only fools and idiots pretend global warming isn't scientifically proven now a days.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2014
"Atmospheric homeostasis by and for the biosphere: the Gaia hypothesis"
http://www.jamesl...e34.html

""The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said."
""The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added."
http://worldnews....e-change
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2014
"As "an independent and a loner," he said he did not mind saying "All right, I made a mistake." He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."
http://worldnews....e-change

Eddy Courant
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2014
Still going on about warming? Wish it would hurry up then I'm freezing!
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2014
Predicting what the climate will do in the future is a dodgy enterprise at best, with plenty of uncertainty, and a significant amount of non-science bias. However, we do know what the climate has done in the past, both recent & not so recent, and we can make conservative & reasonable qualitative predictions simply by assuming that consistent trends from the past continue unchanged into the future. If we do that, the future looks unpleasant to say the least.

We know the radiative properties of CO2, we know the increasing atmospheric CO2 is of anthropogenic origin, and we know therefore that global warming is a strictly non-natural, anthropogenic event. Maybe some of you are comfortable with uncontrolled experimentation on the only environment for life that is available to you. I am not.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2014
Photosynthesis favors carbon-12 over carbon-13. If the increasing atmospheric CO2 is of natural origin, the isotopic abundance ratio of carbon-13 should remain constant, within the bounds of experimental uncertainty. If the increasing atmospheric CO2 is of anthropogenic origin, derived from the burning of (photosynthetic) fossil fuels, the isotopic abundance ratio of carbon-13 should decrease consistently. Observation shows the ratio is decreasing, which is consistent with non-natural, anthropogenic CO2.

http://scrippsco2...tio.html
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2014
Long-term warming likely to be significant despite recent slowdown
"Sowdown?" Who do they think they're kidding? For the last dozen years, there's been a cooling trend!

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
Don't mind showing up ryggesogn2 for what he is, because he is pushing confrontation, not mature dialectic:-

A Liar, A time waster, A propagandist, A sad bad thinker without focus !

ryggesogn2
Mikey, who are you?
My name is not 'Mikey'. I don't hide behind nicks, some for convenience, you ryggesogn2 obviously need to.

ryggesogn2 asked personal details be published on the internet
What is your address?
This request makes you look really stupid ryggesogn2 but, for intelligent questioners only, we will see if you can do anything intelligent for a change ?

http://niche.ii.net/physorg

But, no problem, I will do it for others and show you up for the Liar & now a propagandist starting to betray the behaviour of a bully.

ryggesogn2 has lost ALL credibility by focusing on the person not the Science.

When faced with the incontrovertible Science, ryggesogn2 either ignores or counters with propaganda, opinion sites or irrelevancies.

Do unto others ryggesogn2, your details now ?
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2014
Burning a fossil fuel amounts to this: C + O2 = CO2. If the increasing atmospheric CO2 is of anthropogenic origin, via the burning of fossil fuels, then we should see a consistent decrease in atmospheric O2 simultaneous with the observed increase in atmospheric CO2. Observation shows that to be the case, consistent with removing O2 from the atmosphere, combining it with C and putting out the final product CO2.

Follow the "data" link for the Atmospheric Oxygen Research Group, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, U.C. San Diego (Ralph Keeling, Principle Investigator).
http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2014
Burning a fossil fuel amounts to this: C + O2 = CO2.
You obviously know next to nothing about fossil fuels and combustion products.

Try again, hotshot.

Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2014
ubavontuba at it again, un-intelligently cherry picking with ONE set of data - sheer narrow BIAS
"Sowdown?" Who do they think they're kidding? For the last dozen years, there's been a cooling trend!
ubavontuba STILL doesn't understand this is only *ONE* data set, you MUST know caveats apply, go to the site admin to interpret properly as the mature researcher with integrity you don't appear to disclose.

Read Notes by site admin/authors for FULL understanding of their site & data.
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

And Factor in the "properties of water", local bounded chaotic aspects affecting disparate temperature measurements & you will find where the heat load is (temporarily) distributed.

You cannot escape the FACT we continue to burn 230,000 L of petrol/sec which MUST increase GHG's & Heat - basic Logic !

Basic question: - Why does only this ONE set of surface temps not show this distribution ?

Location of probes, local weather anomalies ?

Also "Latent heat of Fusion" !
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2014
ubavontuba blundered yet again not appreciating others can accomodate ubavontuba's narrow focus
Burning a fossil fuel amounts to this: C + O2 = CO2.
You obviously know next to nothing about fossil fuels and combustion products. Obviously Tim Thompson was only focused on one aspect to make it Simple for you ubavontuba, because you do come across as extremely Simple, sad I know, without education of:-

http://en.wikiped...of_water

http://en.wikiped...f_fusion

http://en.wikiped...echanics

http://en.wikiped...iki/Heat

Inability to consider the straightforward aspects represented in the links above ubavontuba, suggests you lack intelligence, not entirely your fault, probably born that way & havent had the chance to shine. But, it can change, education is so very important.

In USA, I understand you have community colleges, if at least, to bridge the gap between a missed high school education & university study.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2014
ubavontuba at it again, un-intelligently cherry picking with ONE set of data - sheer narrow BIAS
"Slowdown?" Who do they think they're kidding? For the last dozen years, there's been a cooling trend!
ubavontuba STILL doesn't understand this is only *ONE* data set, you MUST know caveats apply, go to the site admin to interpret properly as the mature researcher with integrity you don't appear to disclose.
LOL. Sure, here's some more data sets:

The AGWite favored HadCRUT4 also shows the global temperature cooling trend:

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

As does the RSS MSU:

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

And so does the NOAA:

http://www.ncdc.n...ear=2013

So maybe you ought to stuff it before you go around crapping all over your keyboard.

Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2014
Lets clarify just what ubavontuba has Tried but failed to do with only ONE set of data & claiming
..there's been a cooling trend!
http://www.woodfo...14/trend
When the site admins warn by offering this:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

BUT, ubavontuba, when we use YOUR link & ADD the trend option we get a clear warming trend:-

http://www.woodfo.../mean:12

Since you are a Simple "interpretarian" with Narrow focus& Bias, ignoring other data sets, how do you Explain this Simple warming trend on the site of YOUR selection shows there is NO cooling effect AT ALL.

Take your time ubavontuba, I can appreciate such illusory complexity might be overwhelming for you, so do take a few minutes to digest & Explain,

Awaiting your earliest considered response ubavontuba ?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2014
Lets clarify just what ubavontuba has Tried but failed to do with only ONE set of data & claiming
..there's been a cooling trend!
http://www.woodfo...14/trend
When the site admins warn by offering this:- http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

BUT, ubavontuba, when we use YOUR link & ADD the trend option we get a clear warming trend:-

http://www.woodfo.../mean:12

Since you are a Simple "interpretarian" with Narrow focus& Bias, ignoring other data sets, how do you Explain this Simple warming trend on the site of YOUR selection shows there is NO cooling effect AT ALL.

Take your time ubavontuba, I can appreciate such illusory complexity might be overwhelming for you, so do take a few minutes to digest & Explain,

Awaiting your earliest considered response ubavontuba ?
Are you an idiot? Your linear trend is only from one data set, and from outside the parameters of my statement that there's been a cooling trend for the last dozen years.

Why is it AGWites have to resort to fallacies to support their claims (rhetorical)? I'll tell you why. That's because the only way to support a lie is with more lies!

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2014
Mikey, if you CV not fake, I have no way to verify, what do you know of physics?
EEs in the US are required to take 9 semesters of basic physics.
Engineering physics requires those 9 hours plus 3 hours of classical theoretical physics, 3 hours of modern theoretical physics, statistical mechanics, E&M, nuclear physics, optics, 6 hours of solid state physics. Add a few EE courses in for fun.
So if academic creds seems so important, to you, you don't seem to respect those of Lindzen or Currey or Spencer.
Therefore, you are must be lying about your concerns about your perceptions of my background to obfuscate instead of discussing the gaps in the AGW 'science'.
yggesogn2 has lost ALL credibility by focusing on the person not the Science

Projecting?
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2014
There are many simulations. Those simulations are constantly adjusted. The predictions of the simulations continue to fail to match what actually happens. There is a good reason for this failure. Global warming (anthropogenic) has been used for years as a political justification for the redistribution of global resources -- that is, socialism (communism, progressivism, etc.).

The real purpose of the IPCC is to fund a global effort to redistribute resources. As a predictor of global climate, it has failed miserably. As an effort to redistribute resources, it has done remarkably well.

When results do not validate the stated goals, look to the results to discover the real goals. The real goal of AGW is redistribution of resources and wealth.
Eddy Courant
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2014
Mikey Massen is one scary dude lol. Models predict a heart attack sooner than later!
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2014
"Sowdown?" Who do they think they're kidding? For the last dozen years, there's been a cooling trend!

@Uba
you are skipping known scientific data for your conclusions again. That is cherry-picking. Try looking at a few of these links:
http://news.disco...0411.htm
http://science.nb...say?lite
http://www.livesc...ing.html
http://centerforo...warming/
http://biology.du...ge3.html
You obviously know next to nothing about fossil fuels and combustion products

Mr. Thompson may not be a climate scientists, but given his profession as a physicist at JPL, I am going to consider his argument more legitimate than yours given your propensity for ignoring relevant data and cherry picking for the sake of pushing your agenda (not even a link uba?)
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2014
Why is it AGWites have to resort to fallacies to support their claims (rhetorical)? I'll tell you why. That's because the only way to support a lie is with more lies!

@Uba
this is grandstanding & based upon a fallacy
1- I have never lied to you & I have used links/references (sometimes even your own links/references) to support my argument
2- given your inclination to link cherry-picked data to support your position (like above with the no warming issue) then it appears that the only way to support YOUR claims is with lies & selective ignorance of relevant data
as for
global temperature cooling trend

this claim is blatantly false
http://www.skepti...ped.html
http://www.accuwe...21199576

nice attempt at obfuscation, Uba
but I would consider your post to be proof of a blatant disregard for relevant data
IOW - a lie
wrap your foil hat tighter and hope for the best
Tim Thompson
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2014
Try again, hotshot.

No, you try again. We all know what burning is, it is the chemical bonding of a fuel (usually carbon) & oxygen with the consequent release of energy, a simple fact learned by small children. Methane combustion is basically CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O, while coal & fuel oil combustion are both based on the reaction C + O2 = CO2. If you think those facts are not facts, then tell us the real facts. Anybody can make snide remarks and insults, but that only proves you are too ignorant to compete in an intelligent conversation and can therefore be safely ignored.
Mr. Thompson may not be a climate scientists

My professional experience is spilt between astrophysics and atmospheric chemistry & physics. I was part of the atmospheric science team for the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer. I am not a climate scientist, but I do claim to be a bona-fide atmospheric physicist.
Tim Thompson
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2014
there's been a cooling trend for the last dozen years

It is not obvious that this is true, but even if it is, you cannot make definitive predictions based thereon. Just look at the long term dataset. Over the period roughly 1940-1980, global averaged temperature remained flat on average, albeit with much fluctuation. Then from the period about 1980-2000 the increase in surface temperature is rapid & significant. If this pattern repeats, then we can expect years or even decades of relatively unchanging temperature on average, followed by a significant increase.

There is nothing intrinsic to the dataset to support any kind of prediction for future trends by anyone. It is necessary to appeal to our knowledge of physics applied to the entire climate system (not just the atmosphere) to make reasonable predictions. Making allegedly definitive predictions based solely on the dataset and its intrinsic properties is a fool's errand no matter who the fool is.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2014
My professional experience is spilt between astrophysics and atmospheric chemistry & physics. I was part of the atmospheric science team for the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer. I am not a climate scientist, but I do claim to be a bona-fide atmospheric physicist.

@Tim Thompson
I apologize for the misrepresentation. I forgot and should have looked back at your web-site to remind myself.
My mistake.
Making allegedly definitive predictions based solely on the dataset and its intrinsic properties is a fool's errand no matter who the fool is.

Uba has a tendency to ignore any data that does not reflect her position or argument, even if it is relevant
I've been down this rabbit hole with her before
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2014
Eddy Courant seems puzzled by offering this observation
Mikey Massen is one scary dude lol. Models predict a heart attack sooner than later!
My name is 'Mike' can u be respectfully accurate please ?

Having understood food chemistry & microbiology with an appreciation of combinatorial complexity in respect of amelioration factors in respect of arterial vessel structural factors I can attest to the value of prophylactic strategy reducing substantially the risk of heart attack;

- Exercise
particular types of anaerobic & aerobic breathless states
- Diet
rich in minerals in conjunction with bioactive compounds Eg Anthocyanins
Those keenly interested in addressing one factor (of many re minerals) should take
a good hard look at:- http://en.wikiped...n_health
Especially homeostasis levels some 40 times higher on average than actual ingestion !
- Meditation
Eg. Visualization, before, during & after sleep, particularly during lucid dream states
- Other
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2014
ryggesogn2 refused to go one on one with his resume
Mikey, if you CV not fake, I have no way to verify, what do you know of physics?
Clearly university level, check with Curtin, you have my student number.
So if academic creds seems so important, to you..
I have shown you LIE, your comments are inconsistent with any formal training in physics at university level.

Therefore, you are must be lying about your concerns about your perceptions of my background to obfuscate instead of discussing the gaps in the AGW 'science'.
This is twisted logic.

You see ryggesogn2, you are doing it again, obfuscating, where is your resume, your address, who are you ? You ask me to respond, NOW you own up or shut up and stop wasting time.

Address fundamentals of physics in relation to primary gases & fluids as part of climate science:-

http://en.wikiped...of_water

http://en.wikiped...f_fusion

Key issue more heat doesn't mean higher temp !
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2014
Ah, my apologies ubavontuba
..outside the parameters of my statement that there's been a cooling trend for the last dozen years.
I naturally assumed you'd understand some minimal complexity by first covering the whole range of source data on the site You nominated. Hence the full data set - albeit with one trend line.

You act as if you cannot handle much complexity & have difficulty in knowing where to start a position commensurate with mature dialectic.

So, for you ubavontuba, lets "..keep it simple" & pin down your driving proposition & see how symmetrical your logic is because, if its not it will point to a definitive proof of Bias.

You claim there has been no warming, indeed cooling for the last dozen years.

If your logic is consistent, then, from the site YOU nominate the data leading from the oldest date to the point a dozen years ago MUST logically be accepted by you as a period of warming.

ubavontuba is that your inferred proposition Yes ?

But, if not then Why not ?
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2014
Long-term warming likely to be significant despite recent slowdown
"Sowdown?" Who do they think they're kidding? For the last dozen years, there's been a cooling trend!

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
Really Uba, more whack-a-mole cherry picking?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2014
It is necessary to appeal to our knowledge of physics applied to the entire climate system (not just the atmosphere) to make reasonable predictions. Making allegedly definitive predictions based solely on the dataset and its intrinsic properties is a fool's errand no matter who the fool is.
Part of the problem, I think, is that there are many who chose to deny the facts of a warming climate specifically because they think that scientists in general, and climate scientists in particular, are making definitive prediction solely based on one data set. It is a laughable position to take, to be sure, yet we see the same type of argument consistently on this site (and others that dare allow discussions).

It is simple cherry picking. Pick out a data set that confirms your pre-determined position n the matter, then hold to it in the face of any evidence submitted to the contrary. You've run into the same mind-set in the EU crowd; if anything, it is stronger and more pervasive here.
Porgie
1.6 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2014
Global warming is BS its a left wing motivator for stifling business and growth. Jobs and progress are not killing the planet. The left wants to run your life and giving you the dignity of a job and control of your own life hurts their ambitions. They need to tell you what to believe. This is killing them. They are looking like fools.
Tim Thompson
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2014
Has global warming actually stopped or stalled over the last 15 or so years? The evidence indicates that it probably has not. Remember what I said, "It is necessary to appeal to our knowledge of physics applied to the entire climate system". See "An apparent hiatus in global warming?" by Trenberth & Fasullo, in Earth's Future (an AGU open access journal), 5 December 2013. The authors present an exhaustive analysis demonstrating that the difference between warming manifested by air temperature increase and deep ocean temperature increase depends on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. While surface temperature changes appear to flatten out, deep ocean energy increases. Their conclusion: "Global warming has not stopped; it is merely manifested in different ways."

http://www.accuwe...21199576
http://onlinelibr...165/full
Tim Thompson
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2014
Global warming is BS ...

Don't just say it, prove it.
Porgie
1.7 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2014
California wildfires put more CO2 in the atmosphere than all the coal plants in America for the next 5 years. Attack them for failing for a change. The left coast is killing the planet by your definition.
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2014
Tim Thompson,



Global warming is BS ...


Don't just say it, prove it.


You understand that the burden of proof resides with the person/persons who are making the claim?

Chicken Little must prove the sky is falling.

The rest of us who look up and see a sky in good condition do not have to prove the sky is not falling.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2014
California wildfires put more CO2 in the atmosphere than all the coal plants in America for the next 5 years. Attack them for failing for a change. The left coast is killing the planet by your definition.
California you say? Of course, you have something to evidence your statement?

The left coast is killing the planet????
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2014
You understand that the burden of proof resides with the person/persons who are making the claim?

Chicken Little must prove the sky is falling.

The rest of us who look up and see a sky in good condition do not have to prove the sky is not falling.
Wrong bucko, the burden of proof lies with those disputing the scientific consensus supporting the premise that co2 loading of the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm.

Typical denialist tactic, the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. Of course, judging from the typical comment you make, you don't have a clue how that even works, do you?
dogbert
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2014
Maggnus,
Typical denialist tactic, the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.


Not shifting it at all. The burden of proof is with anyone who makes the claim. The AGW claim requires that those making the claim prove their claim. The status quo requires no proof.

Wrong bucko, the burden of proof lies with those disputing the scientific consensus...


Science is not based on consensus opinion.

When Copernicus developed the heliocentric theory, the consensus opinion was the geocentric Ptolemaic system. The consensus opinion was, of course, wrong and Copernicus was right.

Politics, however, is often based on consensus opinion. The politics of AGW seeks a consensus for the political agenda of redistribution of wealth.

The scientific method demands much more than consensus opinion.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2014
Porgie:
California wildfires put more CO2 in the atmosphere than all the coal plants in America for the next 5 years.

Factually false statement. From the National Science Foundation, 31 October 2007:
Their paper, "Estimates of CO2 from fires in the United States: implications for carbon management," is being published online today in the journal Carbon Balance and Management. NCAR's portion of the research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NCAR's principal sponsor.

Overall, the study estimates that U.S. fires release about 290 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year, the equivalent of 4 to 6 percent of the nation's carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning.


http://www.nsf.go...d=110580
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2014
Porgie:
California wildfires put more CO2 in the atmosphere than all the coal plants in America for the next 5 years.

Factually false statement. From the EPA Draft Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Sinks: 1990-2012 (February 2014). See Executive Summary table ES-2 and table 7-12. Total U.S. CO2 emissions for 2011 & 2012 (in tera-grams or million metric ton units) were 5588.4 & 5376.9, respectively. CO2 emission total for all wildfires in Alaska and the lower 48 states for 2011 & 2012 was 221.8 & 242.7, respectively, in the same units. That puts U.S. wildfire emission at 3.97% and 4.51% of the national total CO2 emission for 2011 & 2012, respectively. An inspection of table 7-12 and table ES-1 shows that the percentage per year is lower than this for the other years in the range 1990-2012.

http://www.epa.go...ort.html
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2014
You understand that the burden of proof resides with the person/persons who are making the claim?

All I have to do is point towards an extensive body of books & papers illustrating the point that the relevant science communities are in near universal agreement that (a) Earth is warming and (b) the cause of the warming is anthropogenic. It's your job to show where & how an entire international community of scientists have all made some obvious mistake that only non-scientists can spot.

Find the basic science here and show why it is wrong: "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing", Sir John Houghton, Cambridge University Press 2004 (3rd edition).
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 16, 2014
"Man made global warming explained - closing the blinds"; Sloan & Wolfendale, 12 March 2010
http://adsabs.har...01.4988S

From the abstract:
The simple model of only the direct heating from the absorption of infrared radiation, illustrates the main principles of the science involved. The predicted temperature increase due to the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the last century describes reasonably well at least most of the observed temperature increase.


A simple application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the known radiative properties of greenhouse gases. Once again, simple physics to the rescue.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2014
"Sowdown?" Who do they think they're kidding? For the last dozen years, there's been a cooling trend!
@Uba
you are skipping known scientific data for your conclusions again. That is cherry-picking. Try looking at a few of these links:
http://news.disco...0411.htm
http://science.nb...say?lite
http://www.livesc...ing.html
http://centerforo...warming/
http://biology.du...ge3.html
LOL More of "The ocean ate my global warming." nonsense. What a riot.

And still not a single logical explanation among them as to how the supposed excess IR heat from CO2 in the atmosphere magically skips all the way down into the deep blue. What a hoot!

You obviously know next to nothing about fossil fuels and combustion products
Mr. Thompson may not be a climate scientists, but given his profession as a physicist at JPL, I am going to consider his argument more legitimate than yours given your propensity for ignoring relevant data and cherry picking for the sake of pushing your agenda (not even a link uba?)
Pushing whose agenda? What, according to you, is my "agenda?"

It certainly isn't to lie an obfuscate away the facts.

The facts: Global cooling for more than a dozen years!

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2014
Why is it AGWites have to resort to fallacies to support their claims (rhetorical)? I'll tell you why. That's because the only way to support a lie is with more lies!
@Uba
this is grandstanding & based upon a fallacy
1- I have never lied to you & I have used links/references (sometimes even your own links/references) to support my argument
And THAT, in ITSELF, is yet another lie!

2- given your inclination to link cherry-picked data to support your position (like above with the no warming issue) then it appears that the only way to support YOUR claims is with lies & selective ignorance of relevant data
as for
global temperature cooling trend

this claim is blatantly false
http://www.skepti...ped.html
http://www.accuwe...21199576
And again, you prove my statement is correct, as you have to go OUTSIDE the parameters of my statement in an attempt to prove the supposed warming. My B.S. meter is practically buzzing!

nice attempt at obfuscation, Uba
but I would consider your post to be proof of a blatant disregard for relevant data
IOW - a lie
wrap your foil hat tighter and hope for the best
Why can't you show data relevant only to the period in question? It's easy enough to do. Here, let me show you again how it is done:

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 16, 2014
My apologies Porgie you didn't have the chance to complete your high school education or go on to university
Global warming is BS its a left wing motivator for stifling business and growth. Jobs and progress are not killing the planet. The left wants to run your life and giving you the dignity of a job and control of your own life hurts their ambitions. They need to tell you what to believe. This is killing them. They are looking like fools.
Sadly when you complain others are fools, do you do this from a standpoint of a good education or as a knee jerk reaction because you cannot understand the Science, especially the properties of water, Please see this link, education is so very important:-

http://en.wikiped...of_water

It is reported 25% of Americans believe the Sun goes around the Earth because they see that every day but, obviously what they see is not interpreted with benefit of an education.

Seeing differences in temperature is the same paradigm.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
Not shifting it at all. The burden of proof is with anyone who makes the claim. The AGW claim requires that those making the claim prove their claim. The status quo requires no proof.
And again, you are wrong bucko! YOU have come to this article to DISPUTE it's findings. That puts the burden on you!

Science is not based on consensus opinion.
No, it's based on an accumulation of observations. I observe you are just another denialist. Seems to work.

When Copernicus developed the heliocentric theory, the consensus opinion was the geocentric Ptolemaic system. The consensus opinion was, of course, wrong and Copernicus was right.
No, and this comment just displays your ignorance. Copernicus was not the first to recognize the helio-centered system, and the "consensus" was among lay-people.

That you have no idea what you are talking about does not surprise anyone.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
Try again, hotshot.
No, you try again. We all know what burning is, it is the chemical bonding of a fuel (usually carbon) & oxygen with the consequent release of energy, a simple fact learned by small children. Methane combustion is basically CH4 + 2O2 = CO2 + 2H2O, while coal & fuel oil combustion are both based on the reaction C + O2 = CO2. If you think those facts are not facts, then tell us the real facts. Anybody can make snide remarks and insults, but that only proves you are too ignorant to compete in an intelligent conversation and can therefore be safely ignored.
Nice try, hotshot, but not good enough.

First, your original statement was generalized to "fossil fuel," not just "coal & fuel oil," proving your intent to obfuscate and fabricate.

And secondly, your followup is an extreme oversimplification, which again serves to prove your own ignorance.

Mr. Thompson may not be a climate scientists
My professional experience is spilt between astrophysics and atmospheric chemistry & physics. I was part of the atmospheric science team for the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer. I am not a climate scientist, but I do claim to be a bona-fide atmospheric physicist.
And I'm the King of Siam (meaning I call B.S.)!

No way would a hotshot working for the space program so casually overgeneralize the science. If this is an example of how science works at JPL and JAXA, then God help our international space cooperative!

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
there's been a cooling trend for the last dozen years
It is not obvious that this is true, but even if it is, you cannot make definitive predictions based thereon. Just look at the long term dataset. Over the period roughly 1940-1980, global averaged temperature remained flat on average, albeit with much fluctuation. Then from the period about 1980-2000 the increase in surface temperature is rapid & significant. If this pattern repeats, then we can expect years or even decades of relatively unchanging temperature on average, followed by a significant increase.
One time, does not a pattern make.

And I've often stated temperatures may resume warming, or not. What is important is the current trend wasn't predicted, and belies the supposed direct link to atmospheric CO2 content.

There is nothing intrinsic to the dataset to support any kind of prediction for future trends by anyone. It is necessary to appeal to our knowledge of physics applied to the entire climate system (not just the atmosphere) to make reasonable predictions. Making allegedly definitive predictions based solely on the dataset and its intrinsic properties is a fool's errand no matter who the fool is.
Who's making predictions based on the dataset?

And isn't it the IPCC making predictions based solely on the atmosphere (CO2 content)?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
Ah, my apologies ubavontuba
..outside the parameters of my statement that there's been a cooling trend for the last dozen years.
I naturally assumed you'd understand some minimal complexity by first covering the whole range of source data on the site You nominated. Hence the full data set - albeit with one trend line.
Are you a moron? That wasn't the "whole range" of the available data.

You act as if you cannot handle much complexity & have difficulty in knowing where to start a position commensurate with mature dialectic.
These word salads only serve to make you appear pedantic. So obviously, you're the one having the trouble with mature discussion.

So, for you ubavontuba, lets "..keep it simple" & pin down your driving proposition & see how symmetrical your logic is because, if its not it will point to a definitive proof of Bias.
And likely expose your own.

You claim there has been no warming, indeed cooling for the last dozen years.

If your logic is consistent, then, from the site YOU nominate the data leading from the oldest date to the point a dozen years ago MUST logically be accepted by you as a period of warming.
Taken as a whole, sure, but it's a broad generalization.

ubavontuba is that your inferred proposition Yes ?
I have often stated warming was evident before the current pause. How have you missed this?

But, if not then Why not ?
Irrelevant. Unlike AGWites, I don't hide from, or obfuscate data.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
Long-term warming likely to be significant despite recent slowdown
"Slowdown?" Who do they think they're kidding? For the last dozen years, there's been a cooling trend!

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
Really Uba, more whack-a-mole cherry picking?
Really Maggnus, more childish non-arguments?

Or should I call this a childish agreement, as your lack of an argument infers agreement ...in that you exhibit an inabiliy to find fault with my statement.

Yeah, I like the latter better. Ergo Maggnus agrees, for the last dozen years there's been a cooling trend.

Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
First, your original statement was generalized to "fossil fuel," not just "coal & fuel oil," proving your intent to obfuscate and fabricate.

Coal and fuel oil are fossil fuels, and the most common aside from natural gas (methane), which I also included. I didn't obfuscate anything.
No way would a hotshot working for the space program so casually overgeneralize the science.

If you think I "overgeneralize", then say something specific. A few facts would be nice, or are insults all you are capable of?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
First, your original statement was generalized to "fossil fuel," not just "coal & fuel oil," proving your intent to obfuscate and fabricate.
Coal and fuel oil are fossil fuels, and the most common aside from natural gas (methane), which I also included. I didn't obfuscate anything.
This is a lie. You're trying to coverup your original mistake in applying the overly simplified "C + O2 = CO2" to the broad category, "fossil fuel."

No way would a hotshot working for the space program so casually overgeneralize the science.
If you think I "overgeneralize", then say something specific. A few facts would be nice, or are insults all you are capable of?
I'm still waiting to see if you're more than just another AGWite chatterbot. You're the one claiming to be an expert, so expert up ..or shut up.

dogbert
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
Maggnus,

Thank you for establishing your position:

1) The models do not predict but you have consensus opinion.
2) History is malleable.

Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
And I've often stated temperatures may resume warming, or not. What is important is the current trend wasn't predicted, and belies the supposed direct link to atmospheric CO2 content.
You've said no such thing Uba, you have consistently and repeatedly displayed a graph of cherry-picked data covering a supposed slowdown in global surface warming and misrepresented it as showing that somehow all of the extra energy being accumulated by the Earth's systems (see the s? That means "more than one"!) has magically disappeared.

That the current SLOWDOWN in SURFACE temperatures wasn't predicted is a red herring; the Earth's systems (see the s again?) continue to accumulate heat at a rate unprecedented in at least some 50 million years. That you OBFUSCATE by repeatedly showing your graph of cherry-picked data doesn't change the physics behind co2 absorption of heat.

And you call others "moron"!
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
And isn't it the IPCC making predictions based solely on the atmosphere (CO2 content)?
And yet another moronic statement. No, the IPCC predictions are based on a broad range of data sets across a broad range of disciplines.

That you think this statement is based on anything beyond a wildly misrepresented presentation of the science considered by the IPCC explains why you can be so dogmatically denialist in the face of the overwhelming evidence supporting the premise that human caused co2 loading of the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm.

And you insult others!
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
Yeah, I like the latter better. Ergo Maggnus agrees, for the last dozen years there's been a cooling trend.
Yea you would like the latter, given your propensity to misrepresent the position of anyone who dares point out the log in your eye!

You really like my use of ergo; I guess I should be flattered - not just because you used it, but you even managed to use it correctly! I guess you are learning, albeit at a child's rate. Better than nothing.

Your misrepresented graph of cherry-picked data has been shown repeatedly to be a misrepresented graph of cherry-picked data. You play a game of whack-a-mole relying on zombie arguments to maintain a spurious, denialist stance. You fool no one moron.

Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
Maggnus,

Thank you for establishing your position:

1) The models do not predict but you have consensus opinion.
2) History is malleable.

And thank you for establishing your position; you have no argument or scientific fact to back your ill-considered position, and so resort to simplistic echoing of other's opinions as if they were your own.

My observations continue to accurately reflect the reality of your mindset.
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
And thank you for establishing your position; you have no argument or scientific fact to back your ill-considered position


I do have an argument and position and I have presented it several times. I'll repeat it since your memory seems deficient:

AGW is used to promote a political agenda. That agenda is the redistribution of wealth and resources. This is a socialist (communist, progressive, etc.) agenda. World climate is not the agenda and never has been.

you have no argument or scientific fact


Of course I do. Here is one. Carbon taxes do nothing to reduce the production of CO2, but carbon taxes do redistribute wealth. Such schemes are an integral part of the AGW scam.

When someone says one thing but does something else, always believe the action over the words. The AGW scam is a tool to redistribute wealth and resources, nothing more.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
AGW is used to promote a political agenda. That agenda is the redistribution of wealth and resources. This is a socialist (communist, progressive, etc.) agenda. World climate is not the agenda and never has been.
A cartoonish political statement from a conspiracist parroting the paranoid meandering ramblings of a blog writer. Yep, that's some argument you got going there!
Of course I do. Here is one. Carbon taxes do nothing to reduce the production of CO2, but carbon taxes do redistribute wealth. Such schemes are an integral part of the AGW scam.
How is it that denialist conspiracists always confuse "scientific fact" with "paranoid delusions of persecution"? Is it a lack of intelligence? Poor schooling?
dogbert
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
How is it that denialist conspiracists always confuse "scientific fact" with "paranoid delusions of persecution"?


How is it that you confuse "scientific fact" with "consensus opinion" and fail to understand that a fact is a fact even when a scientist does not assert it?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
How is it that you confuse "scientific fact" with "consensus opinion" and fail to understand that a fact is a fact even when a scientist does not assert it?
I don't. I also don't state that Copernicus was the first to assert that the solar system is heliocentric, nor that a "consensus" existed in opposition to that premise.

Do you know what a "fact" is? You should read the definition, might help you to not look so foolish.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
Pushing whose agenda? What, according to you, is my "agenda?"

@uba
your agenda is to obfuscate the science, deny the reality and cause confusion as well as spread known lies and stupidity which is directly refuted with known scientific fact
It certainly isn't to lie an obfuscate away the facts.

given that you CALIM global cooling, you have proven yoruself a liar in your own post
The facts: Global cooling for more than a dozen years!

see above: Tim Thompson arguments
And THAT, in ITSELF, is yet another lie!

factually incorrect. PROVE IT
And again, you prove my statement is correct, as you have to go OUTSIDE the parameters of my statement in an attempt to prove the supposed warming

1- cherry picking data is now "your parameters"?
2- I included proof that you are factually incorrect
3- see Tim Thompson arguments above
My B.S. meter is practically buzzing!

if you move away from it, it will stop
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
LOL More of "The ocean ate my global warming." nonsense. What a riot.

@uba
feel free to directly refute the evidence with your own
I provided PROOF that you are making unsubstantiated claims
it is upon you to refute it and provide scientific data specifically showing where they are wrong... or as Mr. Thompson says
It's your job to show where & how an entire international community of scientists have all made some obvious mistake that only non-scientists can spot.

feel free to dazzle us with your brilliance
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
I'm still waiting to see if you're more than just another AGWite chatterbot. You're the one claiming to be an expert, so expert up ..or shut up.

@uba
I can verify he is exactly who he says he is (likely Maggnus can as well, as he has interacted with Mr. Thompson in the past)
http://www.tim-thompson.com/
I was one person who invited him to address the disparaging remarks that cantdrive was making directly against him in another thread
http://phys.org/n...ggs.html

nice to see that you haven't changed, though you have been awfully quiet lately. Having issues finding supporting data to refute logic and science?
There is no shortage of data for us to use against your claims... you still havent addressed the links I posted...
feel free any time you wish.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
AGW is used to promote a political agenda

@dogbert
this does not establish that the science is bad, only that politicians are opportunistic
That agenda is the redistribution of wealth and resources. This is a socialist (communist, progressive, etc.) agenda

conjecture
please provide empirical data to support this claim
World climate is not the agenda and never has been

when it comes to the SCIENCE and my argument (and others here), it is!
regardless of how others might portray it
Carbon taxes do nothing to reduce the production of CO2, but carbon taxes do redistribute wealth. Such schemes are an integral part of the AGW scam

claims without empirical data for support are conjecture at best
you still have not provided empirical data supporting your claims

your political opinions cannot be used to validate your claims
without empirical data for support, your claims have all the same validity as "oil is unicorn urine mixed with fairy poo"
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
AGW is used to promote a political agenda.

That may indeed be true; there is no shortage of political agendas in the world. However, it is also independent from the scientific issues: Is Earth warming? Yes it is. Is the warming due to anthropogenic causes? Yes it is. There you are, two clear statements of a position that can be verified or falsified, in principle or in practice, using facts & data & scientific methodology. The argument for the affirmative is already on record in the published literature, some of which I have already referenced directly here. Where is the argument for the negative?
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 17, 2014
Where is the argument for the negative?


The simulations consistently fail to predict. The predicted warming has not happened despite rising CO2 levels.

Despite this failure, the political agenda continues to be in the forefront.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2014
Eco-systems will do what it needs to maintain it's status quo

No it doesn't.
Inorganic matter can do nothing. External forces act and the inorganic matter reacts. A rock does nothing to keep itself intact due to the effects of weather, water, wind, etc.
Living matter tries to survive and grow, not maintain any status quo.

Apologies - COMPLEX systems...
growth is to insure survival - ergo, maintain a status quo...
Earth spins once a day, 365 times a year in an attempt to not fall into the Sun. ergo...
Howhot
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2014
Where is the argument for the negative?


The simulations consistently fail to predict. The predicted warming has not happened despite rising CO2 levels.

Despite this failure, the political agenda continues to be in the forefront.


More BS from one of them deniers.

TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
"...shows Earth's climate likely will continue to warm during this century on track with previous estimates, despite the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming..."

In other words: "we trust our models no matter what evidence is". If this in not denial, I don't know what is.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 17, 2014
Is the warming due to anthropogenic causes? Yes it is.

Based upon .....correlation, poor climate models, wishing it were so, what?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 17, 2014
"...shows Earth's climate likely will continue to warm during this century on track with previous estimates, despite the recent slowdown in the rate of global warming..."

In other words: "we trust our models no matter what evidence is". If this in not denial, I don't know what is.
That's true, you don't. What you engage in, is denialism. You pretend objectivism while seeking the minutia of doubt in support of a position you have already decided, and damn any evidence to the contrary.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2014
The predicted warming has not happened despite rising CO2 levels.

We know that it is physically impossible to inject CO2 into the system and not as a result increase the internal energy of the system. But knowing how that energy is distributed amongst the various elements of the system requires more knowledge than we currently have. It is also necessary to realize that the energy involved in warming the atmosphere alone is only about 1% of the energy that goes into the system. So, even though atmospheric temperature is the favored topic of discussion, it is only a minor player in global warming.

With that in mind, you are wrong. Yes, the predicted "warming" has happened. However, instead of manifesting as atmospheric warming, it has manifested as oceanic warming; it is just as "warming" and just as "global". It will be some time before we know enough to predict the minor effect of atmospheric warming in short-term detail.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 20, 2014
We know that it is physically impossible to inject CO2 into the system and not as a result increase the internal energy of the system.


Who is 'we'?
How does CO2 increase internal energy?
CO2 molecules absorb and emit IR photons but does not create energy.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 20, 2014
Short story: CO2 molecule absorbs IR photon, gaining energy. CO2 molecule then collides with an O2 or N2 molecule elastically, transferring kinetic energy to the other molecule. In this way the radiant energy of the photon is changed into kinetic energy in the atmosphere, and the average temperature of any gas is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the gas particles. Hence, adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases its internal energy. The atmosphere transfers energy to the oceans via IR of mechanical processes at the air/water interface. The specific heat capacity of seawater is 3.85 times that of dry air, and the ocean mass is about 270 times the atmosphere mass, so the heat capacity of the oceans will be about 900-1000 times that of the atmosphere. That's why the energy in warming the atmosphere is only about 1% of the system total energy. That's how it works in the troposphere, but in the stratosphere the process reverses and CO2 is a coolant.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2014
"The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its position on "climate change" by appointing three notorious climate skeptics to its panel on public affairs (POPA).

They are:

Professor Richard Lindzen, ...John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville....Judith Curry, Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech..."
" the American Physical Society's change of heart is significant but we've a long way to go before that oil tanker turns round. Or, as Churchill might have said: "Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.""
http://www.breitb...onsensus
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2014
CO2 molecule absorbs IR photon, gaining energy.

It also emits photons radiating that energy.
A water molecule is more complex and has many more absorption bands than CO2, a simpler molecule with only one significant IR absorption band at 15 um.
barakn
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2014
It always amazes me that people think that mentioning water is a way to win any argument against global warming. Unlike CO2, in our atmosphere water exists in all three of the normal phases (gas, liquid, solid), and in liquid or solid form it can be remarkably reflective in the visible spectrum. That is, it can reflect sunlight back into outer space, leading to cooling rather than warming. So the next time someone tries to sell you on the idea that CO2 is insignificant in its global warming capability compared to water vapor, remember they are trying to sell you a fictitious model of the Earth that HAS NO CLOUDS.
Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2014
ryggesogn2 can't understand Tim Thompson, either proving he never studied university Physics as he claimed or is suffering a disability with
It also emits photons radiating that energy.
A water molecule is more complex and has many more absorption bands than CO2, a simpler molecule with only one significant IR absorption band at 15 um.
ryggesogn2, learn integration, you have a differential before & after addition of CO2 & you are forgetting or ignoring AGAIN & AGAIN that water has an easy path back to earth - it is limited by 100% humidity, no such limitation with CO2.

Did you not notice ryggesogn2 CO2 levels continue to rise linearly, no discontinuous decreases !

ryggesogn2, needs to understand collisions, re-radiation including CO2 radiating to other CO2 etc etc & the whole mix - this is WHY calculus is so important ryggesogn2, you get that from University study when you do Physics - you CANNOT ryggesogn2, and you are the proof, appreciate it without MATHEMATICS.

Education !
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2014
ryggesogn2 is being oh so simple AGAIN & AGAIN with
How does CO2 increase internal energy?
CO2 molecules absorb and emit IR photons but does not create energy.
Have you forgotten AGAIN, the vast bulk of CO2 released by our civilization is HOT, power station exhaust, car exhausts, petrochemical plant exhaust - really ryggesogn2 get a grip !

Did you forget AGAIN, humans are burning ie its HOT ryggesogn2, some 230,000 Litres Petrol/sec

Are you so nutty to claim there is no extra heat, heck even human's discharge CO2 thats warmer on average than the O2 breathed in..!

ryggesogn2 how naive can you get, your claimed university education in Physics tut tut, what a liar, heck maybe you are just 15 years old - LOL !

Worked out how to INTEGRATE ryggesogn2, its part of Calculus. Go back to politics ryggesogn2 but, somewhere else, clearly physics (and MATH) is not your area of expertise & obviously not your area of interest either - you never fully learned or appreciated its value !
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2014
A water molecule is more complex and has many more absorption bands than CO2

You made the same mistake here:

http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Here is the post I made on that page, which you evidently failed to read before answering:

"The point of water feedback is this: The atmosphere is on average saturated. So if all you do is add water vapor, you get more rain, not more temperature. But if you add something like CO2 first, that will raise the temperature. The warmer air can hold more water, and gets even warmer because water is an even stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. But it saturates again quickly, and the warming stops. But if you keep adding CO2, then the process does not stop, and you get what we now call "global warming". As long as you keep adding CO2 (or something with the same IR radiative transfer properties), you keep warming."

You can't warm the atmosphere with water alone, you need a trigger, like CO2.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2014
Timmy, how much more heat is added to dry deserts or the Antarctica due to CO2?

Why is this little bit of heat 'trapped' by CO2 is so significant, while all the heat trapped by water vapor is not? This heat is easily observed in any humid environment in the daily high/low temperatures.
The region around the Red Sea and Persian Gulf are quite humid and it seldom rains. Inland in the Arabia, the dry daily high/lows can be as great as 40F. On the coast in Jeddah, the daily delta is not that great due to the water vapor. But this heat does not matter or is it that it is too difficult to model?
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2014
ryggesogn2 is being oh so simple AGAIN & AGAIN with
How does CO2 increase internal energy?
CO2 molecules absorb and emit IR photons but does not create energy.
Have you forgotten AGAIN, the vast bulk of CO2 released by our civilization is HOT, power station exhaust, car exhausts, petrochemical plant exhaust - really ryggesogn2 get a grip !

Did you forget AGAIN, humans are burning ie its HOT ryggesogn2, some 230,000 Litres Petrol/sec

Are you so nutty to claim there is no extra heat, heck even human's discharge CO2 thats warmer on average than the O2 breathed in..!

ryggesogn2 how naive can you get, your claimed university education in Physics tut tut, what a liar, heck maybe you are just 15 years old - LOL !


Uh no, it's warmer because CO2 is transparent to most of the spectrum the sun gives off and opaque to infrared heat re-radiated from the Earth. It's solar heating via trapped infrared heat. It has NOTHING to do with how "hot" the exhaust of your car is....
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 21, 2014
opaque to infrared heat re-radiated from the Earth

No, CO2 absorbs at a few IR bands around ~15 um.
The earth radiates a very broad IR spectrum with a peak ~10 um.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
opaque to infrared heat re-radiated from the Earth

No, CO2 absorbs at a few IR bands around ~15 um.
The earth radiates a very broad IR spectrum with a peak ~10 um.


No, the Earth has no "peak" infrared radiation frequency. It does just what you said, it radiates across a broad spectrum.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2014
Black body curves have a peak defined by Wein's Law.
http://mintaka.sd..._law.pdf
300K peaks at 9.67um
280K peaks at 10.4 um
193K (-80 C) peaks at 15 um
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2014
Nobody thinks the heat due to water vapor is not significant. It is well known that about 1/2 of the global warming energy increase is caused by water vapor; the process is called "water feedback", and it's the point of the other page: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

Water vapor forcing is about 2.2 Watts/square meter, while CO2 gives about 1.66, CH4 about 0.48 and N2O about 0.16 (the latter 3 add up to 2.30, a bit more than the effect of water).

I already explained this twice and I don't see what is so hard to understand:
The atmosphere is on average saturated. So if all you do is add water vapor, you get more rain, not more temperature. But if you add something like CO2 first, that will raise the temperature. The warmer air can hold more water, and gets even warmer because water is an even stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.


Without the trigger of CO2, water alone will not generate global warming in Earth's atmosphere.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2014
Timmy

Why can't you behave like a civilized person? Do you see me trying to personally insult you?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2014
Without the trigger of CO2, water alone will not generate global warming in Earth's atmosphere.

Why not?
What caused previous global warming cycles?
What caused the glaciers to begin melting 12000 years ago?

BTW, how are 'forcings' measured? First principles?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2014
he atmosphere is on average saturated

Saturated is 100% humidity.
How do you get an average of 100% when the largest value is 100%?

Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 21, 2014
ryggesogn2 doesnt understand
Timmy, how much more heat is added to dry deserts or the Antarctica due to CO2?
That CO2 is fairly well distributed, asymptotically homogeneously & Moves.

ryggesogn2 still can't appreciate
Why is this little bit of heat 'trapped' by CO2 is so significant, while all the heat trapped by water vapor is not?[
Water returns continuously whilst it also continuously evaporates - its called "Equilibria", from your claimed Uni physics degree you CAN factor in heat movement - properties of water - remember ?

ryggesogn2 implies a Static
The region around the Red Sea and Persian Gulf are quite humid and it seldom rains.
You Are completely Unaware weather/climate system is a dynamic, surely you are forgetting AGAIN - atmosphere rotates to east, think Man !

Education ryggesogn2.

You asked me re my details, now be FAIR ryggesogn2 - where are yours, your university, your student id, your postal address.

OR do we call you biased one-sided ryggesogn2 ?
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2014
ryggesogn2 is at it AGAIN, picking disparate narrow items and NOT able to combine them for a fuller under,
Black body curves have a peak defined by Wein's Law.
http://mintaka.sd..._law.pdf
300K peaks at 9.67um, 280K peaks at 10.4 um, 193K (-80 C) peaks at 15 um
ryggesogn2 seriously HAS NOT seen how this relates to the other components, collisions, atmospheric movements or any of the issues that need education & ability to think with depth.

You ryggesogn2, need to get that claimed University education back up to speed, wasting time with scattered tech isn't helpful to you. You really need to widen your education & appreciation of combinatorial complexity, here is a simple start:-

http://eesc.colum...fer.html
http://en.wikiboo..._Balance

And of course this is in conjunction with your Claim you completed University Physics ?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2014
Mikey, with you claimed EE degree, how can any average be 100%?
If the atmosphere, is on average, saturated with water vapor, then relative humidity around the world, at all times is 100%.
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2014
The average amount of water vapor in the air is far greater than the amount of CO2 and it has a far greater effect on warming. The increases in CO2 are insignificant compared to the far greater effect of water vapor.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2014
Water vapor is too difficult to model so it is disregarded.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2014
Another reason water vapor is ignored, there is nothing AGWites can do to try and control water vapor.
dogbert
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
The real reason is that AGW is simply a tool to use by socialists to transfer wealth and power. It really has nothing to do with global mean temperature.

If the concern were really with global mean temperature, they would never ignore a prime greenhouse gas like water vapor.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
And I've often stated temperatures may resume warming, or not. What is important is the current trend wasn't predicted, and belies the supposed direct link to atmospheric CO2 content.
You've said no such thing Uba, you have consistently and repeatedly displayed a graph of cherry-picked data covering a supposed slowdown in global surface warming and misrepresented it as showing that somehow all of the extra energy being accumulated by the Earth's systems (see the s? That means "more than one"!) has magically disappeared.
This is a lie. I have often stated temperatures may resume warming, or not. How have you missed it? Perhaps it's because you're a chatterbot and have no sense of continuity?

That the current SLOWDOWN in SURFACE temperatures wasn't predicted is a red herring;
No it is not a red herring. The very definition of global warming is in regards to this:

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

the Earth's systems (see the s again?) continue to accumulate heat at a rate unprecedented in at least some 50 million years.
This is pure B.S.. These claims only came about in a desperate attempt to shore up the global warming hysteria when the climate, as described in the very definition of "global warming," refused to cooperate.

That you OBFUSCATE by repeatedly showing your graph of cherry-picked data doesn't change the physics behind co2 absorption of heat.
So showing real scientifically collected empirical data is "obfuscating" now?

And you call others "moron"!
Just mindless AGWite "believers," like you.

Here's the truth: Since 2002 the climate has apparently entered a cooling phase:

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
And isn't it the IPCC making predictions based solely on the atmosphere (CO2 content)?
And yet another moronic statement. No, the IPCC predictions are based on a broad range of data sets across a broad range of disciplines. That you think this statement is based on anything beyond a wildly misrepresented presentation of the science considered by the IPCC explains why you can be so dogmatically denialist in the face of the overwhelming evidence supporting the premise that human caused co2 loading of the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm.
LOL. First you claim the IPCC claim is not just about the CO2 content, then you end by claiming the IPCC claim IS just about the CO2 content!

Can you say: "Circular logic."

And you insult others!
I insult your arguments. Can I help it, your arguments are so weak as to so easily be dismissed?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
Yeah, I like the latter better. Ergo Maggnus agrees, for the last dozen years there's been a cooling trend.
Yea you would like the latter, given your propensity to misrepresent the position of anyone who dares point out the log in your eye!

You really like my use of ergo; I guess I should be flattered - not just because you used it, but you even managed to use it correctly!
I've been on this site a lot longer than you, and I have used "ergo" from the beginning. Ergo, you are mistaken in your presumption. Perhaps it is you who liked my use of the word.

I guess you are learning, albeit at a child's rate. Better than nothing.
Even this would outpace you.

Your misrepresented graph of cherry-picked data has been shown repeatedly to be a misrepresented graph of cherry-picked data. You play a game of whack-a-mole relying on zombie arguments to maintain a spurious, denialist stance.
You're the one denying the science. Even mainstream climatologists (read: AGWite hacks) are now agreeing to the pause.

You fool no one moron.
I'm glad I don't fool even one moron, as it's not my intent to fool anyone. Can you, in all honesty, say the same?

Here's the science:

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Cooling for more than a dozen years!

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
Pushing whose agenda? What, according to you, is my "agenda?"
@uba
your agenda is to obfuscate the science, deny the reality and cause confusion as well as spread known lies and stupidity which is directly refuted with known scientific fact
So showing real, scientifically collected empirical data is "obfuscating" now? Since when?

It certainly isn't to lie and obfuscate away the facts.
given that you CALIM global cooling, you have proven yoruself a liar in your own post
I claim nothing. I simply make statements of fact.

LOL More of "The ocean ate my global warming." nonsense. What a riot.
@uba
feel free to directly refute the evidence with your own
I provided PROOF that you are making unsubstantiated claims
it is upon you to refute it and provide scientific data specifically showing where they are wrong... or as Mr. Thompson says
It's your job to show where & how an entire international community of scientists have all made some obvious mistake that only non-scientists can spot.

feel free to dazzle us with your brilliance
I don't need to prove anything. You're making the claim, so prove it with empirical evidence.

Oh! I'm sorry. There isn't any empirical evidence. Aw shucks, nothing but a silly model. And no explanation as to how the CO2 content of the atmosphere somehow delivers heat into the deep oceans, whose waters don't even receive any light!

Like I suggested, it is a laughable concept.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2014
I'm still waiting to see if you're more than just another AGWite chatterbot. You're the one claiming to be an expert, so expert up ..or shut up.
@uba
I can verify he is exactly who he says he is (likely Maggnus can as well, as he has interacted with Mr. Thompson in the past)
http://www.tim-thompson.com/
LOL. You've got to be kidding me.

nice to see that you haven't changed, though you have been awfully quiet lately.
LOL. I have a life outside phys.org.

Having issues finding supporting data to refute logic and science?
This is your shtick.

There is no shortage of data for us to use against your claims...
Then why haven't you used any?

Oh, that's right, you can only refute my "claims" by using irrelevant data to obfuscate my data. Therefore, you lie.

you still havent addressed the links I posted...
feel free any time you wish.
Didn't you see the LOL's and the implied guffaws?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
The predicted warming has not happened despite rising CO2 levels.

We know that it is physically impossible to inject CO2 into the system and not as a result increase the internal energy of the system. But knowing how that energy is distributed amongst the various elements of the system requires more knowledge than we currently have. It is also necessary to realize that the energy involved in warming the atmosphere alone is only about 1% of the energy that goes into the system. So, even though atmospheric temperature is the favored topic of discussion, it is only a minor player in global warming.

With that in mind, you are wrong. Yes, the predicted "warming" has happened. However, instead of manifesting as atmospheric warming, it has manifested as oceanic warming; it is just as "warming" and just as "global". It will be some time before we know enough to predict the minor effect of atmospheric warming in short-term detail.
You are incorrect. The oceans have been cooling even faster than than the atmosphere.

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2014
You are incorrect. The oceans have been cooling even faster than than the atmosphere.

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
The moron doesn't even know what "global sea surface temp anom" means.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2014
You are incorrect. The oceans have been cooling even faster than than the atmosphere.
http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Same data set, plotted 2006-2014 instead of 2002-2014, shows the sea surface temperature significantly increasing. I am not incorrect.
http://www.woodfo.../to:2014
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 22, 2014
Water vapor is too difficult to model so it is disregarded.


Rgg2: Would you please give a reliable reference to this?

The reason I ask is that models of weather and climate both have to take into account the transfer of water vapor (in fact, most output moisture maps). So, ignoring water vapor would mean that they are not taking into account one of the major drivers (that they all seem to recognize).

That you are stating this is an amazing realization that you must not understand how weather and climate work. Please just give a reference or retract this nonsense.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
You are incorrect. The oceans have been cooling even faster than than the atmosphere.
http://www.woodfo...14/trend
Same data set, plotted 2006-2014 instead of 2002-2014, shows the sea surface temperature significantly increasing. I am not incorrect.
http://www.woodfo.../to:2014
All you've done is show it was warming before the current trend, not that it is continuing to warm. Therefore you are incorrect.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
You are incorrect. The oceans have been cooling even faster than than the atmosphere.

http://www.woodfo...14/trend
The moron doesn't even know what "global sea surface temp anom" means.
LOL. Obviously you don't.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
"the processes controlling the conversion of water vapor into precipitation in clouds are complex and remain rather mysterious. And it is the balance between these two processes — evaporation and precipitation — that determines atmospheric humidity. "
"The modelers tune the models to approximate the average relative humidity of the atmosphere, but we still do not understand from 'first principles' why the average humidity has its observed value. We would have to thoroughly understand all of the precipitation processes, which we don't."
http://www.drroys...ls-work/
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
"climate modelers simply assume that there are no natural long-term changes in clouds, water vapor, etc. But they do not realize that in the process they will necessarily come to the conclusion that the climate system is very sensitive (feedbacks are positive). As a result, they program climate models so that they are sensitive enough to produce the warming in the last 50 years with increasing carbon dioxide concentrations. They then point to this as 'proof' that the CO2 caused the warming, but this is simply reasoning in a circle."
http://www.drroys...ls-work/
Dyson:
""The models are extremely oversimplified," he said. "They don't represent the clouds in detail at all. They simply use a fudge factor to represent the clouds."
http://blog.nj.co...ein.html
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
"The problem, said Dyson, is that the consensus is based on those computer models. Computers are great for analyzing what happened in the past, he said, but not so good at figuring out what will happen in the future. But a lot of scientists have built their careers on them. Hence the hatred for dissenters.

"It was similar in the Soviet Union," he said. "Who could doubt Marxist economics was the future? Everything else was in the dustbin.""
"his quote from the great H.L. Mencken captures perfectly the religious nature of those in the climate cult:

"The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable." "
http://blog.nj.co...ein.html
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
So showing real, scientifically collected empirical data is "obfuscating" now
@uba
it is when you cherry pick the data to represent a known fallacy
I simply make statements of fact
then provide empirical data for support
I don't need to prove anything. You're making the claim, so prove it with empirical evidence
I did with the links, but you made the claim that ocean warming is nonsense, therefore I asked for empirical data to prove that it is nonsense and does not affect the climate (which is what you are inferring by your attempt to distract from the discussion as for the initial comment)
"The ocean ate my global warming." nonsense
I am not arguing any model, the OCEAN HAS WARMED, and that is empirical as proven above, therefore please provide evidence of nonsense as I can SHOW where it has warmed
http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/
http://www.noaane...ean.html
http://www.noaane...ing.html
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
somehow delivers heat into the deep oceans, whose waters don't even receive any light
@uba continued
I claimed that there was warming in the deep, and it is likely due to atmospheric warming... any assumption on your part of any other reason other than what I state is stupidity
now... if there is no deep ocean warming where there is no light, then why are we measuring it?
http://www.nature...132.html
http://eponline.c...ing.aspx
http://www.livesc...ing.html
http://www.oceans...ngs.html
Oh, that's right, you can only refute my "claims" by using irrelevant data to obfuscate my data. Therefore, you lie
prove I lied
I used your own data to prove that YOU lied, though
The oceans have been cooling even faster than than the atmosphere

please explain the warming in the links then
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2014
So showing real, scientifically collected empirical data is "obfuscating" now
@uba
it is when you cherry pick the data to represent a known fallacy
Do you even know what it means to cherry-pick? If you did, you would understand this is exactly what you do when you deliberately ignore the data I present.

"Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias."

http://en.wikiped...fallacy)

I simply make statements of fact
then provide empirical data for support
Okay. Here's empirical data showing global cooling for the last 12 years.

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

I don't need to prove anything. You're making the claim, so prove it with empirical evidence
I did with the links,
Your links do not provide empirical evidence. Do you even know what empirical evidence is?

but you made the claim that ocean warming is nonsense, therefore I asked for empirical data to prove that it is nonsense
Which I clearly provided. But sadly, chatterbots are unable to interpret linked data.

and does not affect the climate (which is what you are inferring by your attempt to distract from the discussion as for the initial comment)
"The ocean ate my global warming." nonsense
I am not arguing any model, the OCEAN HAS WARMED,
Sure, as I have readily admitted, it HAS warmed (past tense). Currently though, it is cooling.

and that is empirical as proven above, therefore please provide evidence of nonsense as I can SHOW where it has warmed
http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/
http://www.noaane...ean.html
http://www.noaane...ing.html
Are you having trouble interpreting your own references? Describe what it is you think each one adds to the argument.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 22, 2014
somehow delivers heat into the deep oceans, whose waters don't even receive any light
@uba continued
I claimed that there was warming in the deep, and it is likely due to atmospheric warming... any assumption on your part of any other reason other than what I state is stupidity
now... if there is no deep ocean warming where there is no light, then why are we measuring it?
http://www.nature...132.html
http://eponline.c...ing.aspx
http://www.livesc...ing.html
http://www.oceans...ngs.html
Do you even know what any of your links are saying? Can you briefly interpret them so that I may know what it is you think they add to the discussion?

Oh, that's right, you can only refute my "claims" by using irrelevant data to obfuscate my data. Therefore, you lie
prove I lied
Are you having trouble with the context?

I used your own data to prove that YOU lied, though
How so? How can you prove the data from the last 12 years isn't the data from the last twelve years?

The data is what it is, whether you like it - or not.

The oceans have been cooling even faster than than the atmosphere

please explain the warming in the links then
What warming. Please describe this supposed warming and the link to CO2.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2014
"A question the American Physical Society panel will address is one we ask repeatedly: Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC, part of the United Nations?

The APS announcement lists among its questions to be answered: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models?"

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.inves...wmgE9QjJ
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2014
Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC


That is a good question. Another would be "Why are the predictions of calamity getting worse and worse despite failure of the simulations?"
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2014
Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC


That is a good question. Another would be "Why are the predictions of calamity getting worse and worse despite failure of the simulations?"


"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State."
https://www.jewis...lie.html
Vietvet
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2014
"A question the American Physical Society panel will address is one we ask repeatedly: Why wasn't the current global temperature stasis, with no discernible change in the past 15 years, not predicted by any of the climate models used by the IPCC, part of the United Nations?

The APS announcement lists among its questions to be answered: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models?"

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.inves...wmgE9QjJ
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

The APS review they are doing is their standard practice, statements are reviewed every five years. Reading their current statement I'd be surprised if the next one is changed in any major way.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 23, 2014
The APS review they are doing is their standard practice

Maybe, but the statement that caused so much controversy was done "behind closed doors" and made a statement that many members objected to leading to a very public resignation of a longtime member.
Nothing to see here, move along?
Spin it all you want, but now there will be balance on the committee and why isn't every related professional organization trying to understand the failure of GCMs?
Vietvet
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2014
The APS review they are doing is their standard practice

Maybe, but the statement that caused so much controversy was done "behind closed doors" and made a statement that many members objected to leading to a very public resignation of a longtime member.
Nothing to see here, move along?
Spin it all you want, but now there will be balance on the committee and why isn't every related professional organization trying to understand the failure of GCMs?

http://judithcurr...atement/
Vietvet
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 23, 2014
@ryggeson2
Skeptic Judith Curry doesn't happen to agree with you assessment.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 23, 2014
"The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. "
http://blogs.tele...ng-life/
Modernmystic
5 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2014
Black body curves have a peak defined by Wein's Law.
http://mintaka.sd..._law.pdf
300K peaks at 9.67um
280K peaks at 10.4 um
193K (-80 C) peaks at 15 um


The problem is that the Earth is not a perfect black body. It radiates infrared heat across a broad spectrum because it's made of a LOT of things that absorb and re-radiate heat differently.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (9) Mar 24, 2014
Yes, but the modelers treat the earth as a grey body which is how they derive the 'forcings'.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2014
How do you get an average of 100% when the largest value is 100%?

Well, actually no, 100% is not the maximum. In practice, supersaturated air in Earth's atmosphere rarely show a relative humidity above 102%. But under carefully controlled laboratory conditions, the theoretical maximum of 800% is achieved. The humidity you are talking about is relative humidity, and is the ratio of vapor pressure over saturation vapor pressure, which will always be over 100% in the case of supersaturation.

Granted that "saturation" is an awkward word for this, but the effect is the same. Earth's atmosphere is carrying all the water vapor it can carry, which certainly does not require 100% relative humidity everywhere, or really anywhere for that matter. I will explain shortly, but have patience, I only get 1000 characters per post and have to wait 3 minutes between posts (writing the next one will take longer than that anyway).
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2014
You can plow through textbooks on atmospheric physics & chemistry and figure it all out for yourself "the old fashioned way", or you can read this: "Water in the Atmosphere" by Bjorn Stevens (Director, Max Planck Institute for meteorology, Hamburg, Germany) & Sandrine Bony (CNRS senior scientist, Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Paris, France); Physics Today 66(6): 29-34, 2013 June. The temperature structure of Earth's atmosphere determines the humidity structure through the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the Clapeyron equation) and the usually adiabatic lapse rate. As the authors note (page 33), "Because water is so closely coupled to temperature, it cannot drive climate change". The primary cause of the coupling is the fact that water exists in the atmosphere as vapor, liquid & solid, and the phase changes are temperature dependent. Water cannot drive the temperature structure, it is the temperature structure that drives the water abundance & distribution.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2014
Right, the sun drives the climate as the only significant source of energy on earth.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2014
If you want to plow through a book, try "Principles of Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry" by Richard Goody (currently Mallinckrodt Professor of Planetary Physics, Emeritus, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Physics), Oxford University Press 1995; see section 5.3.3, "water vapor feedback" and appendix E, "water". You can't drive global warming or climate change with water. The role of CO2 is to trigger a change in the temperature structure, since CO2 has no phase changes in the atmosphere. Once the temperature structure is changed, then the atmosphere has the capacity for a higher absolute humidity. At least half of the global warming temperature change is directly attributable to water vapor feedback.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2014
Right, the sun drives the climate as the only significant source of energy on earth.

It does, but it does not drive global warming or climate change because there is no long-term secular variation in solar total irradiance to do the job.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2014
Right, the sun drives the climate as the only significant source of energy on earth.

It does, but it does not drive global warming or climate change because there is no long-term secular variation in solar total irradiance to do the job.

How do you know without NIST traceable satellites like CLARREO or TRUTHS?
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2014
Yes, but the modelers treat the earth as a grey body which is how they derive the 'forcings'.
Earth is a grey body, so what's wrong with treating it like one?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2014
Yes, but the modelers treat the earth as a grey body which is how they derive the 'forcings'.
Earth is a grey body, so what's wrong with treating it like one?

What parts are gray?
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 25, 2014
"grey body" does not mean "grey". It's jargon for blackbody times emissivity, which is always true for all real bodies. Blackbody is only an approximation, and requires the emissivity to always equal exactly 1.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2014
Traceable Radiometry Underpinning Terrestrial - and Helio- Studies (TRUTHS). This is a mission proposed to ESA. The executive summary claims the mission could launch in less than 5 years once approved.
http://www.npl.co.uk/TRUTHS

The Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory (CLARREO) is a NASA mission tentatively scheduled for launch in 2018.
http://clarreo.larc.nasa.gov/

Both missions will simultaneously observe Earth & the sun, which has not been done before on a single platform. TRUTHS will carry its own on-board calibrator, while CLARREO will rely on intercomparison with other instruments on other platforms.

How do you know without NIST traceable satellites like CLARREO or TRUTHS?


We already have the necessary precision for that purpose. See the TRUTHS webpage, the normalized data in figure 3. The uncertainty here is about 0.8%, easily enough to show that solar variability cannot be a major factor driving global warming.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2014
Me:
Same data set, plotted 2006-2014 instead of 2002-2014, shows the sea surface temperature significantly increasing. I am not incorrect.

Uba:
All you've done is show it was warming before the current trend, not that it is continuing to warm. Therefore you are incorrect.

how is it that "now" (e.g., 2014) is "before the current trend". My plot is more current than yours, and it clearly shows a clear increase over the time range 2006-2014. Your plot, starting in 2002 is the one "before the current trend". I plotted 2011-2014, 2012-2014, 2013-2014 and got a sharp rise in temperatures. When I plot 2009-2014 or 2010-2014 I get a decreasing line. But when I plot 2006-2014, 2007-2014 & 2008-2014 I get rising temperatures again. The trend line for 2005-2014 is nearly flat. All of those trends are real, all of them are in the data. You can't pick one and pretend the others don't exist. You have to understand & interpret the data. To be continued ...
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2014
About that sea surface temperature data, I said "You have to understand & interpret the data". Plot 1999-2014 and you get a clear warming trend, nearly a half degree. But plot 1998-2014 and the trend line is flat, no change. Understand the data: 1998 Starts with a high temperature peak which biases the trend line to eliminate the rise. Push back a year to 1997-2014 and you get a shallow rise. Push back to 1996-2014 and once again we have a clear half degree warming trend. Plotting the trend over any period of time that is short compared to the broad peaks in the data will produce a result that is actually in the data, but biased by variability in the window of time you choose to plot. You have to smooth the data, perhaps with a 5 year running mean, before you can try drawing realistic conclusions from plots like this. And even then you still have to guard against bias in the plot. But there is one more serious problem. To be continued ...
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2014
About that sea surface temperature data, I said "But there is one more serious problem."
Uba:
The oceans have been cooling even faster than the atmosphere

The problem is that the data set you chose to present is not relevant to your conclusion because it is sea surface temperature. All that tells you is the skin temperature of the ocean, where air & water meet. It is not relevant to deep ocean temperatures. See "Warming of global abyssal and deep southern ocean waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to global heat and sea level rise budgets." by Purkey & Johnson, Journal of Climate 23(4): 6336-6351 (2010). Here the authors probe the deep water to recover temperature (details in the online paper). They show the deep ocean is warming significantly. if you are going to draw conclusions, make sure the data you use actually have something to do with the subject at hand. Not to be continued (not yet anyway).
http://www.pmel.n...24.shtml
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2014
ryggesogn2 stated circa 24 Mar
Yes, but the modelers treat the earth as a grey body which is how they derive the 'forcings'.
And then a few posts later circa 26 Mar asked himself a question
What parts are gray?
Perhaps ryggesogn2 is now confused between "grey" versus "gray" & chose both spellings, at some point ryggesogn2 might educate us by answering his own question arising from his own statement & clear up which spelling is appropriate ?

Earlier ryggesogn2 showed his confusion AGAIN
Mikey, with you claimed EE degree, how can any average be 100%?
I never made a statement re average or 100% or any claim like it.

ryggesogn2, don't LIE again, you have my student number ID card with Curtin University, you can check details about me Direct from the University - capisce ?

I responded when asked my qualifications & address :-)

Where are yours ryggesogn2, your claimed Physics Degree, the University, Year, postal address etc

One sided Liar ryggesogn2 at it Again !
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2014
I don't buy your assertion that the atm is 100% saturated with water vapor.
Saturated vapor pressure is limited by temperature and pressure and has a limit.
When dew point is less than the temperature, vapor pressure is less than saturated.
http://www.srh.no...pressure
We already have the necessary precision for that purpose.

Really?
BTW, in addition to the photons the sun radiates, it also spews real charged particles that interact with the atm and magnetic field of earth.
And water, has physical properties that interact with photons wither absorbing or reflecting that affect the energy that radiates from the earth or is reflected from the earth. So the form of water does have an impact upon climate.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2014
"grey body" does not mean "grey". It's jargon for blackbody times emissivity, which is always true for all real bodies. Blackbody is only an approximation, and requires the emissivity to always equal exactly 1.

Didn't answer the question, which parts are gray?
I know what 'gray' means for a black body what I what you to note is that the earth is NOT a gray body and the sun is NOT a black body at 5600K.
They are convenient approximations when one can't integrate over the entire spectrum as the spectral emissivities are not known.
Are ice and clouds 'gray'?
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2014
Didn't answer the question, which parts are gray?

Of course I did, right here:
It's jargon for blackbody times emissivity, which is always true for all real bodies.

Always & all. The entire Earth is "grey", all of it everywhere, and so are clouds & ice. Nothing that exists in nature has an emissivity of exactly 1 at all wavelengths, so everything that exists in nature is "grey".
and the sun is NOT a black body at 5600K

We all know that.
the spectral emissivities are not known.

Oh yes they are, and quite well known too. I worked on that issue myself from 1994-2001 on the Atmospheric Corrections Team for the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission & Reflection Radiometer (ASTER). We did a lot of work on spectral emissivity of the Earth, and the spectral radiance of the Sun is extremely well known.

Our work is old now. Here is an example from 2010 on surface emissivity:
http://cimss.ssec...zhou.pdf
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2014
I don't buy your assertion that the atm is 100% saturated with water vapor.

But I did not make that assertion. I made this one:
Earth's atmosphere is carrying all the water vapor it can carry, which certainly does not require 100% relative humidity everywhere, or really anywhere for that matter.

And I gave you references to read:
"Water in the Atmosphere" by Bjorn Stevens (Director, Max Planck Institute for meteorology, Hamburg, Germany) & Sandrine Bony (CNRS senior scientist, Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Paris, France); Physics Today 66(6): 29-34, 2013 June.

"Principles of Atmospheric Physics and Chemistry" by Richard Goody (currently Mallinckrodt Professor of Planetary Physics, Emeritus, Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Physics), Oxford University Press 1995; see section 5.3.3, "water vapor feedback" and appendix E, "water".

Read them, don't read them, your choice.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2014
so everything that exists in nature is "grey".

No, everything in nature is not gray. Gray bodies have an emissivity that is not a function of wavelength. Most everything in nature has emissivities that are a function of wavelength of the radiation, the surface temperature, surface finish (polished, oxidized, clean, dirty, new, weathered, etc..) and angle of emission.
http://www.sensia...15〈=en
I did not make that assertion.

""The point of water feedback is this: The atmosphere is on average saturated." TT
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2014
"The mighty water molecule, with its voracious appetite for infrared radiation, is responsible for much of what we know about climate and climate change, and even more of what we don't know. "
About the Speaker:

Bjorn B. Stevens, Ph.D.

https://www.simon...rator-2/
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2014
"The mighty water molecule, with its voracious appetite for infrared radiation, is responsible for much of what we know about climate and climate change, and even more of what we don't know. "
About the Speaker:

Bjorn B. Stevens, Ph.D.
Out of context quote mining.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2014
"The point of water feedback is this: The atmosphere is on average saturated." TT

But you fail to acknowledge that I subsequently changed my wording thusly:
Granted that "saturation" is an awkward word for this, but the effect is the same. Earth's atmosphere is carrying all the water vapor it can carry, which certainly does not require 100% relative humidity everywhere, or really anywhere for that matter.

That is the point you should be criticizing.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2014
"The mighty water molecule, with its voracious appetite for infrared radiation, is responsible for much of what we know about climate and climate change, and even more of what we don't know."

That point has never been in dispute. However, I wonder if you noticed this, from me on 25 March:
"Water in the Atmosphere" by Bjorn Stevens (Director, Max Planck Institute for meteorology, Hamburg, Germany) & Sandrine Bony (CNRS senior scientist, Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, Paris, France); Physics Today 66(6): 29-34, 2013 June. … As the authors note (page 33), "Because water is so closely coupled to temperature, it cannot drive climate change".

The video you posted was made by the same Bjorn Stevens, shortly before the paper was published. The conclusion in the video is the same, water vapor cannot drive global warming because it is too closely tied to the temperature structure of the atmosphere.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2014
Water: Climate's Great Orchestrator, posted by ryggesogn2
https://www.simon...rator-2/

Selected (cherry-picked?) quotes rom the talk (if you don't like it, then watch the video yourself, it's very good):

"This is the theoretical prediction, and it tells you of course is that the atmosphere is very close to saturation on average"
"So this is an enormous constraint on how water is distributed in the atmosphere. This is fascinating, right, because we have a system where water is controlling temperature through the radiative effect, but thermodynamically temperature is controlling water."


Like the same Bjorn Stevens said in the paper I cited: "Because water is so closely coupled to temperature, it cannot drive climate change"

Most of the global warming we see is due to water vapor, but only as a positive feedback in a process started by a non temperature dependent greenhouse gas, like CO2.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2014
Most everything in nature has emissivities that are a function of wavelength of the radiation, the surface temperature, surface finish (polished, oxidized, clean, dirty, new, weathered, etc..) and angle of emission.

So what? You said, "The spectral emissivities are not known", and I said "Oh yes they are", and you have yet to demonstrate that I am wrong. It matters not how the emissivity is derived, as long as we know what it is.
Gray bodies have an emissivity that is not a function of wavelength.

As stated that is doubly & trivially wrong. Anything that is single-valued in y for each x is a function by definition, so the emissivity certainly is a mathematical function of wavelength. Furthermore, a grey body is *defined* as a mathematical function of wavelength, where the emissivity is not exactly 1 at all wavelengths. How that emissivity is derived does not affect the fundamental definition. So, yes, Earth is a grey body.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2014
We already have the necessary precision for that purpose.

Really?

Yes, really.
BTW, in addition to the photons the sun radiates, it also spews real charged particles that interact with the atm and magnetic field of earth.

That's not breaking news, you know. There are claims that the higher energy particles affect cloud formation; that remains a topic of research, but the evidence is slim. If it turns out to be a solid conclusion, and since clouds are an obvious feedback in global warming, then those particles will be known to play an important role. However, most of the solar wind is low-energy and does not penetrate lower than the ionosphere; they are inconsequential in global warming.
So the form of water does have an impact upon climate.

That's not breaking news either; all of that is included in global warming calculations, and has been for a long time.

If you are trying to make a point, what is it, exactly?
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2014
Tim Thompson asked of ryggesogn2
If you are trying to make a point, what is it, exactly?
This is one of ryggesogn2's patterns wasting time !

ryggesogn2 spouts a sentence, often a half truth, rarely an actual fact,so far I have never seen him connect those utterings with any sort of hypothesis & never with any sort of math.

Yet ryggesogn2 claims he has a university degree in Physics which must include Calculus, yet any posting where maths would articulate a position is side-stepped therefore, conclusion ryggesogn2 Lied & has no physics or maths training.

ryggesogn2's most common pattern is tangential propaganda where he might find something scientific but, its off the mark & without hypothesis.

ryggesogn2 is clearly a denier for the sake of it & has an emotional attachment to the idea humans have no role in atmospheric change of enough import to affect heat.

The only rare value of ryggesogn2's comment is to stimulate people like you to offer excellent rebuttals :-)

ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2014
all of that is included in global warming calculations, and has been for a long time.

Not according to your reference:
"and even more of what we don't know. "
About the Speaker:

Bjorn B. Stevens, Ph.D. "

BTW, GW 'calculations' seem to not be meeting expectations which many are acknowledging.
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2014
ryggesogn2 STILL doesnt understand & should have learned in his claimed Physics degree, complex models such as climate are Probabilistic & Asymptotic with this unintelligent polarized statement
..GW 'calculations' seem to not be meeting expectations...
SURELY ryggesogn2, it must be obvious to you we don't yet have the means to observe the dynamics of all the Ocean's currents and their chaotic interactions, there isn't enough information as yet and YOU should know the process is Asymptotic - understand ryggesogn2 ?

We KNOW the properties of water & we DO see greater melt & we KNOW melting ice absorbs a MASSIVE amount of heat as well as the existing ice can still absorb heat. Evidence is plain yet ryggesogn2 cannot connect those simple dots as a Scientist who obviously has LIED about ever having achieved a university education in Physics.

INTEGRATION ryggesogn2, local chaotic ocean currents are still of WATER, its capacity to absorb heat is PROVEN, its properties haven't changed !
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2014
Ryg:
So the form of water does have an impact upon climate.

Me
… all of that is included in global warming calculations, and has been for a long time.

Ryg:
Not according to your reference:

Wrong again. I wonder, did you watch the video before you posted the link? I don't think so, because the radiative & thermodynamic properties of liquid water in the atmosphere are a critical theme in the video. Water ice in the atmosphere does get some attention, but it's only serious role is the simple one of reflecting sunlight from high altitude clouds.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2014
Ryg:
So the form of water does have an impact upon climate.

… all of that is included in global warming calculations, and has been for a long time.

"An Introduction to Three-Dimensional Climate Modeling"; Washington & Parkinson, University Science Books, 1986 (reprint 1992)
"Global Physical Climatology"; Dennis Hartmann, Academic Press, 1994
"Fundamentals of Atmospheric Modeling"; Mark Jacobson, Cambridge University Press, 1999

All 3 of these books specifically include the phases of water in the atmosphere, especially clouds. As you might guess, the more recent books do an even better job of it because we know more now than we did then. Your claim stands falsified.
Tim Thompson
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 27, 2014
BTW, GW 'calculations' seem to not be meeting expectations which many are acknowledging.

What expectations? Who are the "many"? Last fall the IPCC released the the report from working group I on the physical science basis of global warming. One of the things they did was to test the validity of model projections. In the Summary for Policymakers they concluded thusly: "Models reproduce observed continental scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid 20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence)." I see no reason to question the fundamental premise of anthropogenic global warming.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2014
Earth's atmosphere is carrying all the water vapor it can carry,
LOL. So this is why standing water never evaporates, hotshot? ...oh wait, it does!

Water cannot drive the temperature structure, it is the temperature structure that drives the water abundance & distribution.
Brilliant. This must be why it is always coldest at night under cloud cover... except it isn't! No, my bad, those clouds must simply be just a coincidence.

At least half of the global warming temperature change is directly attributable to water vapor feedback.
LOL. Funny thing, more clouds help to keep things warm at night, but work the reverse in the daylight!

but it (the sun) does not drive global warming or climate change because there is no long-term secular variation in solar total irradiance to do the job.
Really hotshot? And you call yourself a former NASA scientist? Funny then that NASA doesn't exactly agree with you.

"Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots."

http://science.na...climate/

And from your own reference:

"Solar radiation is the driving force of the Earth's climate and small changes in the total output of the Sun can have significant effects on the Earth's surface. It is believed that a 0.3% change in Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) was responsible for the mini-ice-age of the 17th century,"

http://www.npl.co.uk/TRUTHS

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2014
Me:
Same data set, plotted 2006-2014 instead of 2002-2014, shows the sea surface temperature significantly increasing. I am not incorrect.
Uba:
All you've done is show it was warming before the current trend, not that it is continuing to warm. Therefore you are incorrect.
how is it that "now" (e.g., 2014) is "before the current trend". My plot is more current than yours, and it clearly shows a clear increase over the time range 2006-2014. Your plot, starting in 2002 is the one "before the current trend". I plotted 2011-2014, 2012-2014, 2013-2014 and got a sharp rise in temperatures. When I plot 2009-2014 or 2010-2014 I get a decreasing line. But when I plot 2006-2014, 2007-2014 & 2008-2014 I get rising temperatures again. The trend line for 2005-2014 is nearly flat. All of those trends are real, all of them are in the data. You can't pick one and pretend the others don't exist. You have to understand & interpret the data.
It appears I mistakenly presumed you played the same trick most of the other AGWites play, without bothering to make a proper examination. I apologize.

However, this is still a trick, designed to hide the decline since the peak. Here is a plot to show how you've hidden the trend, since the peak:

http://www.woodfo...14/trend

Plot 1999-2014 and you get a clear warming trend, nearly a half degree. But plot 1998-2014 and the trend line is flat, no change. Understand the data: 1998 Starts with a high temperature peak which biases the trend line to eliminate the rise. Push back a year to 1997-2014 and you get a shallow rise. Push back to 1996-2014 and once again we have a clear half degree warming trend. Plotting the trend over any period of time that is short compared to the broad peaks in the data will produce a result that is actually in the data, but biased by variability in the window of time you choose to plot.
Which is my point.

You have to smooth the data, perhaps with a 5 year running mean, before you can try drawing realistic conclusions from plots like this. And even then you still have to guard against bias in the plot. But there is one more serious problem.

Uba:
The oceans have been cooling even faster than the atmosphere
The problem is that the data set you chose to present is not relevant to your conclusion because it is sea surface temperature. All that tells you is the skin temperature of the ocean, where air & water meet. It is not relevant to deep ocean temperatures.
Which is not relevant to anthropogenically induced atmospheric CO2.

See "Warming of global abyssal and deep southern ocean waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to global heat and sea level rise budgets." by Purkey & Johnson, Journal of Climate 23(4): 6336-6351 (2010). Here the authors probe the deep water to recover temperature (details in the online paper). They show the deep ocean is warming significantly. if you are going to draw conclusions, make sure the data you use actually have something to do with the subject at hand. Not to be continued (not yet anyway).


This very premise is ridiculous.

As I stated above: "LOL More of "The ocean ate my global warming." nonsense. What a riot.

And still not a single logical explanation ...as to how the supposed excess IR heat from CO2 in the atmosphere magically skips all the way down into the deep blue. What a hoot!"

Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2014
Me:
Earth's atmosphere is carrying all the water vapor it can carry

Uba:
LOL. So this is why standing water never evaporates, hotshot? ...oh wait, it does!

I guess you never heard of the hydrological cycle? Water evaporates into the atmosphere and then rains out again in a cycle. Everything that goes up comes back down. Here is a quote from the video you never bothered to watch either: "Every 3000 years or so a water molecule gets to make a little sojourn into the atmosphere, where it spends a week, before meeting its colleagues and coming back to Earth in a downpour".

https://www.simon...rator-2/
http://en.wikiped...er_cycle
http://www.nwrfc....logy.cgi
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2014
Me:
Water cannot drive the temperature structure, it is the temperature structure that drives the water abundance & distribution.

Uba:
Brilliant. This must be why it is always coldest at night under cloud cover... except it isn't! No, my bad, those clouds must simply be just a coincidence.

I am talking about the global average temperature structure of the atmosphere. The effect you describe is strictly local and in fact does not alter the global temperature structure, which is very near saturation. This is actually described in detail in the video you are afraid to watch.

https://www.simon...rator-2/
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2014
Me:
but it does not drive global warming or climate change because there is no long-term secular variation in solar total irradiance to do the job.

Uba:
Really hotshot? And you call yourself a former NASA scientist? Funny then that NASA doesn't exactly agree with you.

Actually, NASA does agree with me, you just haven't figured out what I actually said yet. I never said that changes in solar irradiance cannot affect climate on Earth, I said that it is not responsible for the current episode of global warming. We know that because we know what the variations are in total solar irradiance over this time frame and we know the radiative imbalance and we know that the observed changes in solar irradiance are much smaller. But of course, if solar irradiance changes by a radical amount, there will be serious climatological consequences.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2014
Uba:
However, this is still a trick, designed to hide the decline since the peak. Here is a plot to show how you've hidden the trend, since the peak:

And here's a plot to show how you are wrong to fit the data from 2002 to 2014 with a single line. I have plotted exactly the same data you plotted, but split it right down the middle with one line from 2002-2008 (6 years) and another from 2008 to 2014 (6 years, albeit we are actually early in 2014 so it's really only 5 years and a few months). Temperatures went down first, and now they are on the rise. You are trying to hide the rise, but you can't get away with that trick around me.

Besides, I already explained why what we are doing is just silly anyway:

The problem is that the data set you chose to present is not relevant to your conclusion because it is sea surface temperature. All that tells you is the skin temperature of the ocean, where air & water meet. It is not relevant to deep ocean temperatures.
Tim Thompson
5 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2014
Me:
See "Warming of global abyssal and deep southern ocean waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to global heat and sea level rise budgets." by Purkey & Johnson, Journal of Climate 23(4): 6336-6351 (2010). Here the authors probe the deep water to recover temperature (details in the online paper). They show the deep ocean is warming significantly.
http://www.pmel.n...24.shtml

Uba:
As I stated above: "LOL More of "The ocean ate my global warming." nonsense. What a riot. And still not a single logical explanation ...as to how the supposed excess IR heat from CO2 in the atmosphere magically skips all the way down into the deep blue. What a hoot!"

I guess you have never heard of ocean currents? Heat conduction? Radiative transfer? You are a ghost pointing an empty sleeve; ridicule & insult, but no serious content.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2014
So this is why standing water never evaporates, hotshot? ...oh wait, it does!

Not just standing water.
Ice sublimates which the IPCC screwed up on when crying about the 'melting' of glaciers in Africa.
How much ice sublimates in Antarctica, the driest place on earth.
Warm(er) water is blamed for accelerating the melting of Antarctica.
There glacier rivers that flow to the sea and they are lubricated by a thin layer of water. Now It has been asserted that a warming climate melted that thin layer of water thousands of meters below the ice.
But Antarctica has volcanoes and ice is a great insulator. The water couldn't be the result of heat rising from the crust and the pressure could it. Not if one wants to blame it on AGW.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 29, 2014
It's asserted the 'deep' oceans are warming. What are the 'deep' oceans?
The average depth of the ocean is 4.2 km suggesting that half the water is below 4.2 km.
What is the historical temperature record of the oceans around the world below 4.2 km to show that the bottom half of the ocean is warming?
Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2014
Ryg:
The APS announcement lists among its questions to be answered: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models?"

Actually, the full statement reads: "How long must the stasis persist before there would be a firm declaration of a problem with the models? If that occurs, would the fix entail: A retuning of model parameters? A modification of ocean conditions? A re-examination of fundamental assumptions?"

This is found in the 14-page "American Physical Society Climate Change Statement Review Workshop Framing Document", Climate Change Statement Review Subcommittee, December 20, 2013, found in PDF format here: http://www.aps.or...ming.pdf
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2014
"Models reproduce observed continental scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades, including the more rapid warming since the mid 20th century and the cooling immediately following large volcanic eruptions (very high confidence).


The American Physical Society does not agree.
"The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2\% confidence level. "
http://meetings.a...t/210790
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 29, 2014
The American Physical Society does not agree.
"The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2\% confidence level. "


Misrepresentation. The paper is written by Judith Curry and represents her view, not the APS's.

The actual position of the APS is here: http://www.aps.or...07_1.cfm and reads, in part:

"Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring."

Your use of misdirection to misrepresent the position of the APS is another symptom schizoaffective disorder. Are they out to get you too?
Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2014
And here's a plot to show how you are wrong to fit the data from 2002 to 2014 with a single line. I have plotted exactly the same data you plotted, but split it right down the middle with one line from 2002-2008 (6 years) and another from 2008 to 2014 (6 years, albeit we are actually early in 2014 so it's really only 5 years and a few months). Temperatures went down first, and now they are on the rise. You are trying to hide the rise, but you can't get away with that trick around me.

I must have forgotten the URL. Thought sure I had it. Anyway, plot here:
http://www.woodfo...14/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2014
Me:
Earth's atmosphere is carrying all the water vapor it can carry

Uba:
LOL. So this is why standing water never evaporates, hotshot? ...oh wait, it does!

I guess you never heard of the hydrological cycle? Water evaporates into the atmosphere and then rains out again in a cycle. Everything that goes up comes back down. Here is a quote from the video you never bothered to watch either: "Every 3000 years or so a water molecule gets to make a little sojourn into the atmosphere, where it spends a week, before meeting its colleagues and coming back to Earth in a downpour".
This is just you equivocating from your original statement and tacitly admitting the atmosphere isn't carrying all the water vapor it can carry.

Essentially: Why doesn't the atmosphere carry all the water vapor it can carry? Because it wrings itself out, periodically.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2014
Me:
Water cannot drive the temperature structure, it is the temperature structure that drives the water abundance & distribution.
Uba:
Brilliant. This must be why it is always coldest at night under cloud cover... except it isn't! No, my bad, those clouds must simply be just a coincidence.
I am talking about the global average temperature structure of the atmosphere. The effect you describe is strictly local and in fact does not alter the global temperature structure, which is very near saturation.
I hinted at this by stating: "Funny thing, more clouds help to keep things warm at night, but work the reverse in the daylight!"

Water vapor essentially acts as a temperature modulator. But to presume the heat absorption of water in its various states is not affecting the global temperature at all, is an extreme oversimplification.

This is actually described in detail in the video you are afraid to watch.
I've watched the video. It's pretty good, but Dr. Bjorn B. Stevens appears to presume uniform solar irradiance.

Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2014
This is just you equivocating from your original statement and tacitly admitting the atmosphere isn't carrying all the water vapor it can carry.
He quoted himself and restated exactly what he said the first time. Amazing really, the way you consistently misrepresent what other people say. Amazing you still think it's ok., but not surprising given the denialism that permeates every comment you make.

Essentially: Why doesn't the atmosphere carry all the water vapor it can carry? Because it wrings itself out, periodically.
And tah dah, he doesn't understand the hydrologic cycle either! Again, not surprising, but certainly sad.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 30, 2014
Water vapor essentially acts as a temperature modulator. But to presume the heat absorption of water in its various states is not affecting the global temperature at all, is an extreme oversimplification.
This is another misrepresentation. That is not at all what he said, and your misquoting him to score some point is typical of your denialist agenda! He said:
Nobody thinks the heat due to water vapor is not significant. It is well known that about 1/2 of the global warming energy increase is caused by water vapor; the process is called "water feedback", and it's the point of the other page: http://phys.org/n...ate.html


As usual, uba gets caught.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2014
Me:
but it does not drive global warming or climate change because there is no long-term secular variation in solar total irradiance to do the job.
Uba:
Really hotshot? And you call yourself a former NASA scientist? Funny then that NASA doesn't exactly agree with you.
Actually, NASA does agree with me, you just haven't figured out what I actually said yet. I never said that changes in solar irradiance cannot affect climate on Earth, I said that it is not responsible for the current episode of global warming. We know that because we know what the variations are in total solar irradiance over this time frame and we know the radiative imbalance and we know that the observed changes in solar irradiance are much smaller. But of course, if solar irradiance changes by a radical amount, there will be serious climatological consequences.
You're equivocating (lying) again. Your statement, "...it (the sun) does not drive global warming or climate change because there is no long-term secular variation in solar total irradiance to do the job." is a broad statement, which clearly is not specific to the latest episode of warming.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2014
Uba:
However, this is still a trick, designed to hide the decline since the peak. Here is a plot to show how you've hidden the trend, since the peak:
And here's a plot to show how you are wrong to fit the data from 2002 to 2014 with a single line. I have plotted exactly the same data you plotted, but split it right down the middle with one line from 2002-2008 (6 years) and another from 2008 to 2014 (6 years, albeit we are actually early in 2014 so it's really only 5 years and a few months). Temperatures went down first, and now they are on the rise. You are trying to hide the rise, but you can't get away with that trick around me.
Another trick. To state the climate has only been warming since 2008, after significant cooling from 2002 - 2008, is contrary to the AGWite and IPCC convention that the globe has been warming all along.

So which argument do you want to make?

Besides, I already explained why what we are doing is just silly anyway:
The problem is that the data set you chose to present is not relevant to your conclusion because it is sea surface temperature. All that tells you is the skin temperature of the ocean, where air & water meet. It is not relevant to deep ocean temperatures.
Again, your very premise is ridiculous. And it is your "deep ocean heating" which is irrelevant as the data set I chose to present is relevant to the surface climate, which is the climate we're discussing when we consider global warming.

"global warming
n.
An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere, especially a sustained increase sufficient to cause climatic change."

Stop playing games. The whole, "The ocean ate my global warming," is a scam designed to draw people's attention away from the simple fact that the climate is not warming as previously predicted.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2014
Me:
See "Warming of global abyssal and deep southern ocean waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to global heat and sea level rise budgets." by Purkey & Johnson, Journal of Climate 23(4): 6336-6351 (2010). Here the authors probe the deep water to recover temperature (details in the online paper). They show the deep ocean is warming significantly.
http://www.pmel.n...24.shtml
Uba:
As I stated above: "LOL More of "The ocean ate my global warming." nonsense. What a riot. And still not a single logical explanation ...as to how the supposed excess IR heat from CO2 in the atmosphere magically skips all the way down into the deep blue. What a hoot!"
I guess you have never heard of ocean currents? Heat conduction? Radiative transfer? You are a ghost pointing an empty sleeve; ridicule & insult, but no serious content.
Where's your content? Explain the process. How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures, and only suddenly since the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?

How does it bypass the atmosphere and the sea surface?

Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?

Go ahead, try to make a plausible argument for this. I dare you.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2014
This is just you equivocating from your original statement and tacitly admitting the atmosphere isn't carrying all the water vapor it can carry.
He quoted himself and restated exactly what he said the first time.
Obviously, he did not.

Amazing really, the way you consistently misrepresent what other people say. Amazing you still think it's ok., but not surprising given the denialism that permeates every comment you make.


Essentially: Why doesn't the atmosphere carry all the water vapor it can carry? Because it wrings itself out, periodically.
And tah dah, he doesn't understand the hydrologic cycle either! Again, not surprising, but certainly sad.
I feel I paraphrased his equivocation accurately. If he has an issue with this, let him raise it.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 30, 2014
Water vapor essentially acts as a temperature modulator. But to presume the heat absorption of water in its various states is not affecting the global temperature at all, is an extreme oversimplification.
This is another misrepresentation. That is not at all what he said, and your misquoting him to score some point is typical of your denialist agenda! He said:
Nobody thinks the heat due to water vapor is not significant. It is well known that about 1/2 of the global warming energy increase is caused by water vapor; the process is called "water feedback", and it's the point of the other page: http://phys.org/n...ate.html
As usual, uba gets caught.
LOL. Maggnus, you have lost the context.

The argument I had with Tim Thompson was in regards to these statements: "Water cannot drive the temperature structure, it is the temperature structure that drives the water abundance & distribution."

And: "I am talking about the global average temperature structure of the atmosphere. The effect you describe is strictly local and in fact does not alter the global temperature structure, which is very near saturation."

The thing you quoted was in response to another poster.

Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2014
The thermal conductivity & specific heat capacity of sea water at surface conditions are 0.596 Watts/(meter Kelvin) {W/(m K)} and 3,993 Joules/(kg Kelvin) {J/(kg K)} respectively. And for dry air at surface conditions they are 0.0257 W/(m K) and 1,005 J/(kg K) respectively. Heat energy deposited directly by the sun into the ocean will flow down faster than up, except in the skin layer where the 2nd law of thermodynamics and a thermal gradient may push heat energy up from warmer water to cooler air. Heat energy will obviously propagate downwards into the deepest water by thermal conduction alone, at a time scale set by the thermal gradient. No fancy models required. However … (to be continued)
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2014
See "South Atlantic Meridional Fluxes'; Garzoli et al., January 2013:
http://adsabs.har...71...21G
They find a maximum overturning transport at a depth of 1250 meters, with a mean value of 18.1 Sverdups (1 Sverdup = 1 Sv = 1,000,000 cubic meters per second, a non-SI unit used in oceanography), pulling down about 0.54 x 10^15 watts (10^15 watts = 1 petawatt). The flow remains unchanged on average between 2002-2011. This is just one of several global overturning currents which will obviously transport significant energy faster than conduction will.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 04, 2014
How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures, and only suddenly since the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?

All wrong. The surface & deep ocean temperatures have done exactly as one would expect under the circumstances: Atmospheric warming slows, and shallow ocean warming slows, while heat energy moves into the deeper water. But the details of the system are as yet impossible to predict with that level of precision because we don't know enough yet about how the elements of the system interact (and indeed, how the interactions affect other interactions). One would not & should not expect this to be predictable, but it makes sense once you see it.
Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2014
Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?

Full overturning cycle is about 100 years. But as you can see from the Garzoli at al paper, that's still good for an overturning heat flux on the order of a thousand trillion watts in just one current. But that's not the only way to get heat into the deep sea. There are internal waves, sheer instabilities and diffusion (including double diffusion processes that arise from differences in salinity). See "Ocean Vertical Mixing: A Review and a Model with a Nonlocal Boundary Layer Parameterization"; Large, McWilliams & Doney, Reviews of Geophysics 32(4): 363-403 (November 1994).
http://adsabs.har...32..363L
Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2014
How does it bypass the atmosphere and the sea surface?

Nothing bypasses the sea surface, but you are wrong to use the sea surface temperature as an indicator of the energy content or temperature of anything below the mixing layer, which is no more than 100 meters thick. The surface temperature is certainly critical for sea/air interactions, like storms or other weather systems, but is much less relevant, if relevant at all, for water below about 100 meters. You need to know the temperature profile down to the thermocline, which sits about 700-1000 meters down (generally speaking, on average, water temperature drops rapidly from the surface to 1000 meters, but is nearly constant the rest of the way down). The point is that heat energy deposited in the top layers by sunlight or atmospheric infrared will move down more rapidly than it moves up, once you get below the mixing layer.
Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2014
See "Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty"; Loeb, et al., Nature Geoscience 5(2): 110-113 (February 2012).
http://adsabs.har....5..110L

This study shows that the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which represents energy held in the system and not radiated back into space, is the same as the heat energy gained by the upper ocean (from 2001 to 2010).

At least 90% of the excess energy is stored in the oceans, while only about 1% of the energy is expressed in what we usually call "global warming", which is the global average surface temperature. So the allegedly critical "hiatus", where surface temperatures don't rise significantly, over the last 10-15 years, represents no more than 1% of the global warming energy and gets far more press than it deserves. The dominant role of oceans in global warming needs to be better & more widely understood.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2014
See "Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty"; Loeb, et al., Nature Geoscience 5(2): 110-113 (February 2012).
http://adsabs.har....5..110L

...

At least 90% of the excess energy is stored in the oceans, while only about 1% of the energy is expressed in what we usually call "global warming", which is the global average surface temperature. So the allegedly critical "hiatus", where surface temperatures don't rise significantly, over the last 10-15 years, represents no more than 1% of the global warming energy and gets far more press than it deserves. The dominant role of oceans in global warming needs to be better & more widely understood.


Tim: Very good job of both explaining the effects and referencing the sources. Unfortunately, the deniers will probably not understand it, but it was a great job of showing how to develop an explanation of a phenomena.
Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 04, 2014
See "Warming of global abyssal and deep southern ocean waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to global heat and sea level rise budgets" (Journal of Climate, 2010)
http://www.pmel.n...24.shtml
http://adsabs.har...23.6336P

See "Recent Bottom Water Warming in the Pacific Ocean" (Journal of Climate, 2007)
http://adsabs.har...20.5365J

I have already referenced the first, and unavontuba ignored it, replying simply "where's your content?". Both papers show deep ocean temperature data, and the latter paper also discusses heat transfer mechanisms. It's not enough to respond with simple incredulity, and this is not a forum for presenting the science in detail. I have provided serious science. Read it or don't read it, but the fact remains a fact nonetheless: The deep ocean, even to the abyssal plain, is warming.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
The thermal conductivity & specific heat capacity of sea water at surface conditions are 0.596 Watts/(meter Kelvin) {W/(m K)} and 3,993 Joules/(kg Kelvin) {J/(kg K)} respectively. And for dry air at surface conditions they are 0.0257 W/(m K) and 1,005 J/(kg K) respectively. Heat energy deposited directly by the sun into the ocean will flow down faster than up, except in the skin layer where the 2nd law of thermodynamics and a thermal gradient may push heat energy up from warmer water to cooler air. Heat energy will obviously propagate downwards into the deepest water by thermal conduction alone, at a time scale set by the thermal gradient. No fancy models required. However … (to be continued)
Pedantic nonsense which does not address my questions...

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
See "South Atlantic Meridional Fluxes'; Garzoli et al., January 2013:
http://adsabs.har...71...21G
They find a maximum overturning transport at a depth of 1250 meters, with a mean value of 18.1 Sverdups (1 Sverdup = 1 Sv = 1,000,000 cubic meters per second, a non-SI unit used in oceanography), pulling down about 0.54 x 10^15 watts (10^15 watts = 1 petawatt). The flow remains unchanged on average between 2002-2011. This is just one of several global overturning currents which will obviously transport significant energy faster than conduction will.
More pedantic nonsense...

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures, and only suddenly since the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?
All wrong. The surface & deep ocean temperatures have done exactly as one would expect under the circumstances: Atmospheric warming slows, and shallow ocean warming slows, while heat energy moves into the deeper water.
Funny then none of the models predicted this, isn't it?

But the details of the system are as yet impossible to predict with that level of precision because we don't know enough yet about how the elements of the system interact (and indeed, how the interactions affect other interactions). One would not & should not expect this to be predictable, but it makes sense once you see it.
Here you're just admitting you don't have a clue how it might work, but insist on believing in it anyway.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?
Full overturning cycle is about 100 years. But as you can see from the Garzoli at al paper, that's still good for an overturning heat flux on the order of a thousand trillion watts in just one current. But that's not the only way to get heat into the deep sea. There are internal waves, sheer instabilities and diffusion (including double diffusion processes that arise from differences in salinity). See "Ocean Vertical Mixing: A Review and a Model with a Nonlocal Boundary Layer Parameterization"; Large, McWilliams & Doney, Reviews of Geophysics 32(4): 363-403 (November 1994).
http://adsabs.har...32..363L
So this solar heating of the deep ocean (where soar radiation doesn't even penetrate) just happens by various, guessed at methods?

And I think you might be mistaken about that 100 year thing. Maybe you should do a little more research.

Even so, you do realize they're claiming this is where the heat is going only since the pause of the last 17 years, right?

So what mechanism suddenly switched this on? Why wasn't it active before?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
How does it bypass the atmosphere and the sea surface?
Nothing bypasses the sea surface, but you are wrong to use the sea surface temperature as an indicator of the energy content or temperature of anything below the mixing layer, which is no more than 100 meters thick. The surface temperature is certainly critical for sea/air interactions, like storms or other weather systems, but is much less relevant, if relevant at all, for water below about 100 meters. You need to know the temperature profile down to the thermocline, which sits about 700-1000 meters down (generally speaking, on average, water temperature drops rapidly from the surface to 1000 meters, but is nearly constant the rest of the way down). The point is that heat energy deposited in the top layers by sunlight or atmospheric infrared will move down more rapidly than it moves up, once you get below the mixing layer.
So you believe the sun can heat deep water (where solar radiation doesn't even penetrate) without affecting the atmosphere or upper ocean (where the solar radiation does penetrate)? Really? Is it a Climate Cult miracle then?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
See "Observed changes in top-of-the-atmosphere radiation and upper-ocean heating consistent within uncertainty"; Loeb, et al., Nature Geoscience 5(2): 110-113 (February 2012).
http://adsabs.har....5..110L

This study shows that the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, which represents energy held in the system and not radiated back into space, is the same as the heat energy gained by the upper ocean (from 2001 to 2010).

At least 90% of the excess energy is stored in the oceans, while only about 1% of the energy is expressed in what we usually call "global warming", which is the global average surface temperature. So the allegedly critical "hiatus", where surface temperatures don't rise significantly, over the last 10-15 years, represents no more than 1% of the global warming energy and gets far more press than it deserves. The dominant role of oceans in global warming needs to be better & more widely understood.
So now you're saying it's not understood, but you believe it anyway?

And still, I haven't seen you describe the role of anthropogenic induced CO2 content in any of this.

Is it true for you just because an AGW authority says it's true?

You claim to be smart. Use your head. How can I get only the bottom of a pot of water to heat using only a solar lamp held over the pot?

It's physically impossible.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
Tim: Very good job of both explaining the effects and referencing the sources. Unfortunately, the deniers will probably not understand it, but it was a great job of showing how to develop an explanation of a phenomena.
LOL. He certainly bamboozled you.

He explained nothing. Insisting it is true because he believes it it true, is not an explanation.

But then, in consideration of your history, I'm not surprised he so easily bamboozled you.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
See "Warming of global abyssal and deep southern ocean waters between the 1990s and 2000s: Contributions to global heat and sea level rise budgets" (Journal of Climate, 2010)
http://www.pmel.n...24.shtml
http://adsabs.har...23.6336P

See "Recent Bottom Water Warming in the Pacific Ocean" (Journal of Climate, 2007)
http://adsabs.har...20.5365J

I have already referenced the first, and unavontuba ignored it, replying simply "where's your content?".
Posting links without context is meaningless. Can you briefly (and simply) interpret them so that I may know what it is you think they add to the discussion?

Both papers show deep ocean temperature data, and the latter paper also discusses heat transfer mechanisms. It's not enough to respond with simple incredulity, and this is not a forum for presenting the science in detail. I have provided serious science. Read it or don't read it, but the fact remains a fact nonetheless: The deep ocean, even to the abyssal plain, is warming.
Of course. You do know the oceans are still recovering from the last ice age, don't you?

So again: Explain the process. How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures, and only suddenly since the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?

How does it bypass (not affect) the atmosphere and the sea surface?

In the context of the last 17 years, do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?

Go ahead, try (again) to make a plausible argument for this. But this time, really make an effort. Make your own plausible argument for this, rather than just posting random, associated links. I dare you.

Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2014
LOL. He certainly bamboozled you....I'm not surprised he so easily bamboozled you.
@thermodynamics
@Tim Thompson
don't you find this particular mindset fascinating? stunning in its ability to ignore facts and make such incredibly stupid proclamations!
It seems to be common with the deniers on this site (and elsewhere)
just because she cannot understand it, or failed to read the links, she thinks that WE didn't read them or that WE cannot understand it!
That's like closing your eyes at high noon and saying its nighttime, then calling everyone else stupid because we don't have flashlights!
notice that she also thinks it hurts our feelings when TROLLS like her down-vote our comments, or seek out comments of ours on other threads and down-vote them as well
its like a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum!
Can you briefly (and simply) interpret them
she's not even READING them!
I wonder if she is illiterate?

ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2014
How many black smokers are on the ocean floor and how much heat do they pump into the deep oceans?
How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures,

It's been asserted the atmospheric heat from AGW has some traveled thousands of feet through the Antarctic glaciers to melt a mm layer of water lubricating the glacier rivers.
It must work the same way.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2014
don't you find this particular mindset fascinating? stunning in its ability to ignore facts and make such incredibly stupid proclamations!
Yep! The ubamoron is a classical example of someone who is here only to obfuscate and deny, and he has abandoned even the pretext of wanting to discuss science; he wants only to argue for the sake of arguing, and deny what is obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence.

It's a good thing most people and pretty well all scientists look beyond the politics, contrarianism and shrill cries of conspiracy. For those very few scientists left who perpetuate the denialism lies, if it can be shown they are funded by those whose sole purpose is self-enrichment, they should be charged and dragged before a court to answer for their lies.

Of course, that they are represented by the likes of Uba, Rygg, Shootist, Scooter and their ilk speaks to the caliber of the denialists. Most are too stupid to realize how stupid they sound.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2014
all scientists look beyond the politics,

How can they when their jobs depend upon govt funding?

charged and dragged before a court to answer for their lies.

Mann is doing just that and it will be very interesting to see what the defense uncovers during the discovery phase of the suit.
Mann can't hide anything this time.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
just because she cannot understand it, or failed to read the links, she thinks that WE didn't read them or that WE cannot understand it!
Okay, then you explain it.

How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures, and only suddenly since the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?

How does it bypass the atmosphere and the sea surface?

Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?

Go ahead, try to make a plausible argument for this. I dare you.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2014
How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures,
It's been asserted the atmospheric heat from AGW has some traveled thousands of feet through the Antarctic glaciers to melt a mm layer of water lubricating the glacier rivers.
It must work the same way.
LOL. Good one. Someone should call the Pope. Climate Cult miracles apparently abound!

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2014
Yep! The ubamoron
Maggnus, is childish bullying and name-calling really the best you can do? Does it make you feel proud of yourself?

...is a classical example of someone who is here only to obfuscate and deny, and he has abandoned even the pretext of wanting to discuss science;
This is a lie. I'm begging the AGWites to discuss the science, and they flatly refuse, except to state they believe in the science which supports their agenda, even when they don't understand it.

he wants only to argue for the sake of arguing, and deny what is obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence.
If the AGWite Nazis were really concerned about the warming, why is it none of them are happy the globe is cooling?

http://www.woodfo....1/trend

Obviously the AGWite Nazis don't really care about the environment. as they fight tooth and claw to hide this fact from the populace. Therefore it appears they're in it for the money and political control.

It's a good thing most people and pretty well all scientists look beyond the politics, contrarianism and shrill cries of conspiracy. For those very few scientists left who perpetuate the denialism lies, if it can be shown they are funded by those whose sole purpose is self-enrichment, they should be charged and dragged before a court to answer for their lies.

Of course, that they are represented by the likes of Uba, Rygg, Shootist, Scooter and their ilk speaks to the caliber of the denialists. Most are too stupid to realize how stupid they sound.
There's no real point in arguing with AGW Nazis, as they are demonstrably terrible human beings.

And, their arguments aren't even founded on logic and reason.

It appears the failure of their doomsday cult prophecies likely induces a defensive stress hysteria which subsequently traps them in a deviancy amplification spiral. That is, the more the facts line up against them, the worse they get as human beings!

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2014
Okay, then you explain it.
@Uba
If you cannot understand it with Tim Thompsons explanations above (which make sense and follow a logical path IMHO), what makes you think that I will be able to simplify it enough for you to understand it?
ESPECIALLY given your continued stance of denial: no matter HOW simplified or explanatory the person gets, you will ignore pertinent facts and make assumptions like
the AGWite Nazis don't really care about the environment
therefore, based upon your history (especially with me) and your posts above, I will decline, as you will simply ignore the evidence presented and continue to make unsubstantiated claims like
AGW Nazis, as they are demonstrably terrible human beings
You cannot even admit to facts, let alone comprehend logical empirical data presented in a clear, concise fashion, like Mr. Thompsons posts above...

why not actually read them and then bring valid points up for Mr. Thompson instead of the "no it doesnt" argument?
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2014
uba:
This is a lie. I'm begging the AGWites to discuss the science, and they flatly refuse

The lie is yours & no one else's. I did present copious science, but you dismissed it as "pedantic nonsense" and "links without context". Your inability to tell the difference between genuine science and pedantic nonsense is your own problem, as is your unwillingness to even click on a link with your mouse.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
uba:
If the AGWite Nazis were really concerned about the warming, why is it none of them are happy the globe is cooling?
http://www.woodfo....1/trend


By your own standards the globe is not cooling. Here is the exact same dataset, but this time instead of plotting one line, I plotted two lines, breaking the data in the middle:
http://www.woodfo....1/trend

The linear fit shows cooling from 2002 to 2008 and warming from 2008 to 2014. Why should we believe that your plot is correct and mine is wrong? Or should we believe that both are correct? Or should we believe neither plot?
Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 09, 2014
ryg:
How many black smokers are on the ocean floor and how much heat do they pump into the deep oceans?

I don't know how many there are, but Elderfield & Schultz (1996) estimate the total energy flux at roughly 9 x10^12 watts:
http://www.annual...24.1.191

Considering the heat capacity of water (3.85 J/(gm K)) it would take about 29,000 years for that energy flux to raise the temperature of the global oceans by 1 kelvin.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
ryg:
It's been asserted the atmospheric heat from AGW has some traveled thousands of feet through the Antarctic glaciers to melt a mm layer of water lubricating the glacier rivers.

You have the assertion wrong. The *observation* is that melt water at the top of the glacier pours down fissures at the surface to reach the base of the glacier. It has been asserted that this melt water will act as a lubricant and accelerate the flow of the glacier. But whether or not the assertion is valid remains uncertain. See Shannon, et al., 2012:
http://www.pnas.o...abstract
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
uba:
Here you're just admitting you don't have a clue how it might work, but insist on believing in it anyway.

Wrong. "Don't know everything" and "Don't know anything" are, contrary to your opinion, not synonymous phrases. All I did was point out that we don't know everything.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
uba:
And still, I haven't seen you describe the role of anthropogenic induced CO2 content in any of this.

1st: The heat capacity of CO2 is significantly lower than the heat capacity for H2, O2 or H2O. So adding CO2 to the atmosphere decreases its heat capacity, requiring the temperature to rise even if the energy remains unchanged. 2nd: CO2 converts radiant energy to kinetic energy in the troposphere, increasing the atmospheric internal energy. Both of these simple principles of physics make it impossible for the temperature not to go up.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2014
Tim Thompson beat me to it & completely demolished ubvontuba's narrow & biased view
By your own standards the globe is not cooling. Here is the exact same dataset, but this time instead of plotting one line, I plotted two lines, breaking the data in the middle:
http://www.woodfo....1/trend
Tim Thompson continued
The linear fit shows cooling from 2002 to 2008 and warming from 2008 to 2014. Why should we believe that your plot is correct and mine is wrong? Or should we believe that both are correct? Or should we believe neither plot?
So ubavontuba, the data YOU rely on shows TWO different things, this is why a good education in high school graphing techniques & introduction to data analysis is ESSENTIAL !

I am looking forward to ubavontuba & ryggesogn2 rebuttal that is 'on the money' ?

ubavontuba's bad blurt re CO2 that it's 'too diluted' needs quantification !
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2014
I am looking forward to ubavontuba & ryggesogn2 rebuttal that is 'on the money' ?


Notice the deafening silence?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2014
The *observation* is that melt water at the top of the glacier pours down fissures at the surface to reach the base of the glacier.


This is just as ridiculous as claiming the heat conducted through thousands of meters of ice melted the water.
AGWites will say anything to link an observation to their faith.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
just because she cannot understand it, or failed to read the links, she thinks that WE didn't read them or that WE cannot understand it!
Okay, then you explain it.

How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures, and only suddenly since the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?

How does it bypass the atmosphere and the sea surface?

Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?

Go ahead, try to make a plausible argument for this. I dare you.


ubybooby,

The process is known as "overturning"

And yes, the ocean did eat our global warming --but it's about to blow that lunch back at us:

http://www.slate....ter.html

Suck on that for a while.

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2014
The *observation* is that melt water at the top of the glacier pours down fissures at the surface to reach the base of the glacier
This is just as ridiculous as claiming the heat conducted through thousands of meters of ice melted the water.
AGWites will say anything to link an observation to their faith.
did you just stop reading at "glacier"? he also said
It has been asserted that this melt water will act as a lubricant and accelerate the flow of the glacier. But whether or not the assertion is valid remains uncertain. See Shannon, et al., 2012:
http://www.pnas.o...abstract
so far it appears that the deniers are the ones that
will say anything
especially when the facts in their faces show that they are wrong (see Uba's/Rygg's arguments and Mr. Thompsons rebuttals)
the question is: WHY? WHY deny empirical data and science?
are ya getting paid?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2014
The glaciers and rivers of ice I referred to were in Antarctica, not Greenland.
It was asserted that heat from the surface, conducted through thousands of meters of ice had melted a wee bit of water to lubricate the river of ice.
Why couldn't they think of something more plausible? Like heat rising from the continent (Antarctica has active volcanoes) and/or pressure?
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2014
ryggesogn2 yet AGAIN proves he LIED about a university degree in physics with this idiocy, incompetence & ignorance of the properties of materials in relation to heat.
This is just as ridiculous as claiming the heat conducted through thousands of meters of ice melted the water.
Not ridiculous - you stoopid !

It would be FAR MORE ridiculous ryggesogn2 to claim ice is a perfect insulator, which is what you are implying in above Blurt !

Did you study physics/heat flow through materials of different heat capacities & insulating properties ?

Are you claiming NO HEAT was passed through Antarctic ice - AT ALL ?

Are you claiming there was NO increase in temperature AT ALL from above & through fissures ?

ryggesogn2 went on AGAIN with PROOF he doesnt understand basic physics of HEAT
AGWites will say anything to link an observation to their faith.
Why don't you ryggesogn2:-

Prove ICE will NOT conduct heat AT ALL ??

Prove provenance of your claimed university degree in Physics ???
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2014
Whenever ryggesogn2 types he PROVES completely he has NO university degree in Physics AND cannot even think of differentials in respect of heat sources with this further incompetence
It was asserted that heat from the surface, conducted through thousands of meters of ice had melted a wee bit of water to lubricate the river of ice.
Why couldn't they think of something more plausible? Like heat rising from the continent (Antarctica has active volcanoes) and/or pressure?
ryggesogn2 wake up, answer these questions:-

- Why did you not think heat from below & from above the glacier cannot ADD ?
- Did you do any addition maths in early primary school ?
- What metric do you apply to your implication ice is a perfect insulator and WILL NOT EVER
pass any heat through to the the ice/rock interface below the glaciers ?

ryggesogn2, Why did you ever claim to have a university degree in Physics when all your statements prove you have ZERO understanding of heat flows, differentials etc ?

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2014
Thermal conductivity of ice at -40C is 2.63 W/mK.
Thermal conductivity of air at -50C is 0.0204 W/mK
TC of Al is 205 at 25C
Asbestos-cement: 2.07 W/mK

So ice has similar thermal conductivity to asbestos-cement and marble.
http://www.engine...429.html
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2014
Ah so ryggesogn2 is (finally) backtracking on his CLAIM heat transfer through ice is "ridiculous" with
Thermal conductivity of ice at -40C is 2.63 W/mK.
Thermal conductivity of air at -50C is 0.0204 W/mK
TC of Al is 205 at 25C
Asbestos-cement: 2.07 W/mK
So ice has similar thermal conductivity to asbestos-cement and marble.
http://www.engine...429.html
ryggesogn2, since you could & should have done this before, ie Look up a link, why did you Imply ice is a perfect insulator ?

So where ryggesogn2, is your study/reference re fissures then ?

Have you added the heat from above & below ?

You know ryggesogn2 - ADDITION ?

Effect on pressure dynamics ?

There is a vast mass of ice so obviously even a little change will reflect in transitional differential re melting ice at those pressures ?

Where is proof ryggesogn2 of your claim re a University degree in Physics then ?
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2014
ryg:
The glaciers and rivers of ice I referred to were in Antarctica, not Greenland. It was asserted that heat from the surface, conducted through thousands of meters of ice had melted a wee bit of water to lubricate the river of ice.

Asserted by whom? I have searched the literature and cannot find a single scientific paper making that claim. The correct claim, is that the advance of the ice is accelerated by increased melting at the grounding line of the glacier, caused by warmer ocean water, caused by anthropogenic global warming (see, e.g., Rignot & Jacobs, 2002; Joughin, Alley & Holland, 2012). As I already pointed out, the idea of water lubrication is not well supported. However, there has long been support for the idea of lubrication by several meters of unconsolidated sediment under the glacier (see Oppenheimer, 1998).
http://adsabs.har...96.2020R
http://adsabs.har...38.1172J
http://adsabs.har...93..325O
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2014
ryg:
Why couldn't they think of something more plausible? Like heat rising from the continent (Antarctica has active volcanoes) and/or pressure?

They have. I count 20 papers published between 1993 and 2013 studying sub-glacial volcanism under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. See, for instance, Vogel & Tulaczyk, 2006, which examines in detail the relationship between volcanism at the base of the ice shelf and the stability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
http://adsabs.har...3323502V
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2014
ryg:
Why couldn't they think of something more plausible? Like heat rising from the continent (Antarctica has active volcanoes) and/or pressure?

They have. Everybody knows that ice under pressure is a viscous fluid, not a brittle solid. Temperature & pressure are key physical elements in understanding glacial flow. You will find this examined in detail by Engelhardt in "Thermal regime and dynamics of the West Antarctic ice sheet", Seventh International Symposium on Antarctic Glaciology, Annals of Glaciology, vol. 39, p.85-92, June 2004
http://adsabs.har...39...85E
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2014
ryg:
The glaciers and rivers of ice I referred to were in Antarctica, not Greenland. It was asserted that heat from the surface, conducted through thousands of meters of ice had melted a wee bit of water to lubricate the river of ice.

Asserted by whom? I have searched the literature and cannot find a single scientific reference making that claim. See "The Physics of Glaciers", by Martin Lüthi (Glaciology Group, ETH Zurich). This is a book you can download by chapter in PDF format. See especially chapter 6, which details the physics of thermal transfer in a glacier. Only the top 15 meters or so is directly affected by the atmosphere. Internal processes are responsible for internal heat production in the glacier.
http://people.ee....ing.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2014
Asserted by whom?

By the documentary writers.
But wild assertions are par for the course in AGWism.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2014
Asserted by whom?

By the documentary writers.
But wild assertions are par for the course in AGWism.
Show one. Show one single documentarian who asserts that water at the ice/rock interface is the result of ice at the interface melting is due to heat from the surface.

It is you who makes wild and untruthful assertions!

When are you going to answer the questions about your physics degree?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2014
If I could find the documentary about rivers of ice in Antarctica I would reference it.
I remember the story so well because of the claim the ice river was flowing on water melted by surface heat from centuries of warming climate.
The AGWite way is to never let an opportunity to blame something on AGW go to waste.
There are so many ignorant govt 'educated' people to indoctrinate.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2014
If I could find the documentary about rivers of ice in Antarctica I would reference it.
I remember the story so well because of the claim the ice river was flowing on water melted by surface heat from centuries of warming climate.
IOW - you've got nothing but personal conjecture and even your google search engine cant help you, right? (which was Maggnus point, I think... you have NO EVIDENCE other than a possible hallucination or the BELIEF that you THINK you heard something)
The AGWite way is to never let an opportunity to blame something on AGW go to waste.There are so many ignorant govt 'educated' people to indoctrinate.
and what about the denier (and especially YOUR) propensity to take every opportunity to spread disinformation with NO EMPIRICAL DATA supporting your arguments?

given the capabilities of the modern search engine and the fact that most things can be found on the internet... either you are making it all up or you did not hear/understand what was said
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2014
take every opportunity to spread disinformation

That is a tactic of AGWites and the IPCC.
This is amusing.
The AGWites whine about the references I post. I post these references precisely because I know you won't believe anything I say.
Now when I can't find a reference, you are whining that I haven't posted a reference.
Al Gore didn't invent the modern internet until the mid-90's so not everything is on-line.
I will keep looking and when I find a reference, I will post it.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2014
That is a tactic of AGWites and the IPCC
]@Trolling Rygg comment
personal conjecture without evidence
This is amusing
personal feeling and irrelevant
The AGWites whine about the references I post.
no, we point out that they are (usually) irrelevant. you want to politicize it all while ignoring the empirical data which makes your comments TROLLING SPAM
I post these references precisely because I know you won't believe anything I say
I don't believe non-empirical data, which is the BULK of your posts. when you post empirical data and explain, you get logical discussion. I just don't see it from you
Now when I can't find a reference, you are whining that I haven't posted a reference
legitimate given your history of conjecture and irrelevant posting

try sticking to the science and you'll get further. you might even gain a smidgen of respect
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2014
Try sticking to science....good idea for the AGWites 30 years ago.
But, they chose the path of political power and now their 'science' is not to be trusted.
Maybe AGWites should make a prediction based upon their models and in 5 years evaluate that prediction to reality.
That would be a good first step down the path of trusting climate 'science'.
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2014
Try sticking to science....good idea for the AGWites 30 years ago.
But, they chose the path of political power and now their 'science' is not to be trusted.
Maybe AGWites should make a prediction based upon their models and in 5 years evaluate that prediction to reality.
That would be a good first step down the path of trusting climate 'science'.


STFU, already, you maundering fool.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 17, 2014
AGWites get are so emotional.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2014
The AGWites whine about the references I post. I post these references precisely because I know you won't believe anything I say.
Hilarious! Your out of context quote mining is a spectacular example of lying by misrepresentation. No one believes what you say because you are a anarchist fool.
Now when I can't find a reference, you are whining that I haven't posted a reference.
Al Gore didn't invent the modern internet until the mid-90's so not everything is on-line.
I will keep looking and when I find a reference, I will post it.
Can't wait.

What was your degree again?
rockwolf1000
4 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2014
AGWites get are so emotional.


I see you're back on the glue.
Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 17, 2014
AGWites get are so emotional.


I see you're back on the glue.

Sorry about the down vote. Meant to give you 5 stars but was laughing so hard I clicked at the wrong time.
Vietvet
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 17, 2014
AGWites get are so emotional.


I see you're back on the glue.

Sorry about the down vote. Meant to give you 5 stars but was laughing so hard I clicked at the wrong time.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
ryg;
Try sticking to science....good idea for the AGWites 30 years ago. But, they chose the path of political power and now their 'science' is not to be trusted.

No they did not. You are the one who has chosen political power over science, and your own willful ignorance has the potential to hurt other people. You are the one who cannot ever be trusted.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
ryg:
It was asserted that heat from the surface, conducted through thousands of meters of ice had melted a wee bit of water to lubricate the river of ice.

Me:
Asserted by whom? I have searched the literature and cannot find a single scientific reference making that claim.

ryg:
By the documentary writers.


Documentaries are not science. Can you point to one single authentic, published scientific reference which makes that claim? I don't doubt that documentaries are all propaganda at some level, but I am talking about legitimate global warming *science*. What legitimate science do you have to offer in your own support? Do you have any? I have yet to see any.
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
AGWites get are so emotional.


I see you're back on the glue.

Sorry about the down vote. Meant to give you 5 stars but was laughing so hard I clicked at the wrong time.


VietVet: Don't sweat it. Everyone else including me is going to give him 5s so yours will be averaged out. If I could give him a 10 I would have. I spewed coffee out of my nose myself.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
Me:
The *observation* is that melt water at the top of the glacier pours down fissures at the surface to reach the base of the glacier.

ryg:
This is just as ridiculous as claiming the heat conducted through thousands of meters of ice melted the water. AGWites will say anything to link an observation to their faith.

If you think I deliberately lied, then say so. Otherwise, which part of the poly-syllabic word "observation" is too hard for you to understand? How can it be "ridiculous" when it is actually observed to happen? The glaciers in Antarctica are no exception, and this process is observed there just as it is elsewhere. The only thing "ridiculous" about all this is your own ridiculous response. Try acting like the scientist you are supposed to be.
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
Me:
The *observation* is that melt water at the top of the glacier pours down fissures at the surface to reach the base of the glacier.

ryg:
This is just as ridiculous as claiming the heat conducted through thousands of meters of ice melted the water. AGWites will say anything to link an observation to their faith.

If you think I deliberately lied, then say so. Otherwise, which part of the poly-syllabic word "observation" is too hard for you to understand? How can it be "ridiculous" when it is actually observed to happen? The glaciers in Antarctica are no exception, and this process is observed there just as it is elsewhere. The only thing "ridiculous" about all this is your own ridiculous response. Try acting like the scientist you are supposed to be.

As an alpine climber, I can attest to the fact that surface melt water does in fact pour down thru fissures to the base of the glacier. I've seen it. I have pictures. I have almost fallen in them.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2014
Have you climb ice in Antarctica?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2014
Have you climb ice in Antarctica?
are you saying that it does not happen in Antarctica just because it does happen elsewhere?
this makes no sense.

care to justify that remark?
because it looks like you are saying that it does not happen in Antarctica because...why?
Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
There is a "dry snow" area in the deep interior of Antarctica & Greenland, where essentially no melting occurs because it is too cold. However, melting is common in the coastal regions in both cases, and a major factor in understanding the environment.

Glacial meltwater dynamics in coastal waters west of the Antarctic peninsula
http://www.pnas.o...790.full

Evidence for abundant subglacial meltwater beneath the paleo-ice sheet in Pine Island Bay, Antarctica
http://www.ingent...art00013

Evolution of cryoconite holes and their contribution to meltwater runoff from glaciers in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, Antarctica
http://www.ingent...art00004

Like I said, it is *observed*.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2014
Okay, then you explain it.
@Uba
If you cannot understand it with Tim Thompsons explanations above (which make sense and follow a logical path IMHO), what makes you think that I will be able to simplify it enough for you to understand it?
So you are just admitting then that you don't understand it?

ESPECIALLY given your continued stance of denial: no matter HOW simplified or explanatory the person gets, you will ignore pertinent facts and make assumptions like
the AGWite Nazis don't really care about the environment
therefore, based upon your history (especially with me) and your posts above, I will decline, as you will simply ignore the evidence presented and continue to make unsubstantiated claims like
AGW Nazis, as they are demonstrably terrible human beings
You cannot even admit to facts, let alone comprehend logical empirical data presented in a clear, concise fashion, like Mr. Thompsons posts above...
I'm not the one trying to hide data. Why won't you just admit the world has been cooling for more than 17years?

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

why not actually read them and then bring valid points up for Mr. Thompson instead of the "no it doesnt" argument?
Why did both you and Tim Thompson ignore my "valid points?"

How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures, and only suddenly since the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?

How does it bypass the atmosphere and the sea surface?

Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2014
uba:
This is a lie. I'm begging the AGWites to discuss the science, and they flatly refuse

The lie is yours & no one else's. I did present copious science, but you dismissed it as "pedantic nonsense" and "links without context". Your inability to tell the difference between genuine science and pedantic nonsense is your own problem, as is your unwillingness to even click on a link with your mouse.
In what way did any of your nonsense answer the questions I posed? Proof by verbosity and argument from repetition are not valid arguments.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2014
So you are just admitting then that you don't understand it?
try again uba. I said that if YOU CAN'T FOLLOW IT WITH A CLEAR CONCISE WELL THOUGHT OUT AND SUPPORTED ARGUMENT, then you are not likely to understand it any other time.
it's like eating crayons... it doesn't matter what color you get, they all taste the same... IOW- it doesn't matter how well I describe it to you, you will still ignore the relevant data LIKE YOU ALREADY HAVE DEMONSTRATED ABOVE
I'm not the one trying to hide data. blah blah blah cooling for more than 17years?
see what I mean?
Why did both you and Tim Thompson ignore my "valid points?"
1- Tim addressed them. you're ignoring it or willfully adopting a stand that promotes stupidity
2- the rest is drivel, because the meat of your argument is essentially "no its not" (or some version of that)
In what way did ...answer the questions I posed?
argument from stupidity. Either you cant read
cant understand
or you're being willfully disingenuous
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2014
uba:
If the AGWite Nazis were really concerned about the warming, why is it none of them are happy the globe is cooling?
http://www.woodfo....1/trend


By your own standards the globe is not cooling. Here is the exact same dataset, but this time instead of plotting one line, I plotted two lines, breaking the data in the middle: http://www.woodfo....1/trend

The linear fit shows cooling from 2002 to 2008 and warming from 2008 to 2014. Why should we believe that your plot is correct and mine is wrong? Or should we believe that both are correct? Or should we believe neither plot?
Both are correct (in their particular context). But your warming from 2008 has yet to exceed the the overall cooling since 2002 (or even since 1997, using RSS MSU).

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2014
uba:
Here you're just admitting you don't have a clue how it might work, but insist on believing in it anyway.
Wrong. "Don't know everything" and "Don't know anything" are, contrary to your opinion, not synonymous phrases. All I did was point out that we don't know everything.
Your statement:
"But the details of the system are as yet impossible to predict with that level of precision because we don't know enough yet about how the elements of the system interact (and indeed, how the interactions affect other interactions)."
...was a clear admission of ignorance on a profound level. Stating otherwise is clearly a lie.

uba:
And still, I haven't seen you describe the role of anthropogenic induced CO2 content in any of this.
1st: The heat capacity of CO2 is significantly lower than the heat capacity for H2, O2 or H2O. So adding CO2 to the atmosphere decreases its heat capacity, requiring the temperature to rise even if the energy remains unchanged. 2nd: CO2 converts radiant energy to kinetic energy in the troposphere, increasing the atmospheric internal energy. Both of these simple principles of physics make it impossible for the temperature not to go up.
So then, why isn't the atmospheric temperature rising?

And why (again) did you fail to describe a mechanism whereby this heat magically transmits to the abyssal depths, leaving the atmosphere and upper sea surface temperatures undisturbed?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2014
Tim Thompson beat me to it & completely demolished ubvontuba's narrow & biased view
By your own standards the globe is not cooling. Here is the exact same dataset, but this time instead of plotting one line, I plotted two lines, breaking the data in the middle:
http://www.woodfo....1/trend
Tim Thompson continued
The linear fit shows cooling from 2002 to 2008 and warming from 2008 to 2014. Why should we believe that your plot is correct and mine is wrong? Or should we believe that both are correct? Or should we believe neither plot?
So ubavontuba, the data YOU rely on shows TWO different things, this is why a good education in high school graphing techniques & introduction to data analysis is ESSENTIAL !

I am looking forward to ubavontuba & ryggesogn2 rebuttal that is 'on the money' ?

ubavontuba's bad blurt re CO2 that it's 'too diluted' needs quantification !
Hasty generalizations and arguing a fallacy of accident, are not valid in the context of overall cooling since 2002 (by the HADcrut3 data set), and since 1997 (by the RSS MSU dataset).

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
just because she cannot understand it, or failed to read the links, she thinks that WE didn't read them or that WE cannot understand it!
Okay, then you explain it.

How is atmospheric CO2 affecting only the deep ocean temperatures, and only suddenly since the atmosphere and sea surface temperatures failed to perform as predicted?

How does it bypass the atmosphere and the sea surface?

Do you even know how long it takes deep sea waters to circulate vertically?

Go ahead, try to make a plausible argument for this. I dare you.
ubybooby,

The process is known as "overturning"

And yes, the ocean did eat our global warming --but it's about to blow that lunch back at us:

http://www.slate....ter.html

Suck on that for a while.
So you think El Niños are something new?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2014
So you are just admitting then that you don't understand it?
try again uba. I said that if YOU CAN'T FOLLOW IT WITH A CLEAR CONCISE WELL THOUGHT OUT AND SUPPORTED ARGUMENT, then you are not likely to understand it any other time.
Well, I'd certainly like to see a "clear, concise, well thought out, and supported argument."

it's like eating crayons... it doesn't matter what color you get, they all taste the same... IOW- it doesn't matter how well I describe it to you, you will still ignore the relevant data LIKE YOU ALREADY HAVE DEMONSTRATED ABOVE
So again, you are admitting you do not understand it well enough to just simply describe the process?

I'm not the one trying to hide data. blah blah blah cooling for more than 17years?
see what I mean?
No, what do you mean?

Why did both you and Tim Thompson ignore my "valid points?"
1- Tim addressed them. you're ignoring it or willfully adopting a stand that promotes stupidity
No, he clearly did not address them. He only provided an irrelevant argument of verbosity.

2- the rest is drivel, because the meat of your argument is essentially "no its not" (or some version of that)
I've made no such argument. I have merely posed questions. Why won't you answer them?

In what way did ...answer the questions I posed?
argument from stupidity. Either you cant read
cant understand
or you're being willfully disingenuous
So now you resort to personal attacks instead of simply answering my questions? Is this because you can't answer my questions?

Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2014
uba:
And why (again) did you fail to describe a mechanism whereby this heat magically transmits to the abyssal depths, leaving the atmosphere and upper sea surface temperatures undisturbed?

I did:
Me:
See "South Atlantic Meridional Fluxes'; Garzoli et al., January 2013:
http://adsabs.har...71...21G
They find a maximum overturning transport at a depth of 1250 meters, with a mean value of 18.1 Sverdups (1 Sverdup = 1 Sv = 1,000,000 cubic meters per second, a non-SI unit used in oceanography), pulling down about 0.54 x 10^15 watts (10^15 watts = 1 petawatt). The flow remains unchanged on average between 2002-2011. This is just one of several global overturning currents which will obviously transport significant energy faster than conduction will.

But you dismissed it without a glance …
uba:
More pedantic nonsense

Obviously you are either too dishonest or too stupid to understand, but this precisely answers the question.
Tim Thompson
4.3 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2014
Me:
The linear fit shows cooling from 2002 to 2008 and warming from 2008 to 2014. Why should we believe that your plot is correct and mine is wrong? Or should we believe that both are correct? Or should we believe neither plot?

uba:
Both are correct (in their particular context).

They are both technically correct linear fits. The trouble is they are meaningless. Neither fit can be considered a representation of a physically real trend, because both plots are too strongly influenced by large excursions dominated by real processes. Your assumption that the plots are meaningful is a fallacy. Your fallacy is the same one described by Richard Muller (Prof. of Physics, UC Berkeley & Senior Scientist at LBNL) in this Berkeley Earth memo:
http://static.ber...pped.pdf
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2014
uba:
And why (again) did you fail to describe a mechanism whereby this heat magically transmits to the abyssal depths, leaving the atmosphere and upper sea surface temperatures undisturbed?
I did:
Me:
See "South Atlantic Meridional Fluxes'; Garzoli et al., January 2013:
http://adsabs.har...71...21G
They find a maximum overturning transport at a depth of 1250 meters, with a mean value of 18.1 Sverdups (1 Sverdup = 1 Sv = 1,000,000 cubic meters per second, a non-SI unit used in oceanography), pulling down about 0.54 x 10^15 watts (10^15 watts = 1 petawatt). The flow remains unchanged on average between 2002-2011. This is just one of several global overturning currents which will obviously transport significant energy faster than conduction will.
So are you trying to suggest these currents haven't existed all along?

Seriously?

But you dismissed it without a glance …
Because your claim for it is nonsense.

uba:
More pedantic nonsense

Obviously you are either too dishonest or too stupid to understand, but this precisely answers the question.
No, it sounds like it sort of might be relevant when you don't understand it, but only when you don't understand it.

Basically, it's a study of some currents (heat transport) for a very short period of time, for the purpose of building better climate models. It says nothing about all global warming being hidden in the ocean depths. This is a misinterpretation.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2014
Me:
The linear fit shows cooling from 2002 to 2008 and warming from 2008 to 2014. Why should we believe that your plot is correct and mine is wrong? Or should we believe that both are correct? Or should we believe neither plot?

uba:
Both are correct (in their particular context).

They are both technically correct linear fits. The trouble is they are meaningless. Neither fit can be considered a representation of a physically real trend, because both plots are too strongly influenced by large excursions dominated by real processes. Your assumption that the plots are meaningful is a fallacy. Your fallacy is the same one described by Richard Muller (Prof. of Physics, UC Berkeley & Senior Scientist at LBNL) in this Berkeley Earth memo:
http://static.ber...pped.pdf
Can you say, "Biased B.S.."

This is basically a reverse Monte Carlo Fallacy. He assumes past performance is an indicator of future performance. That is, he assumes continued warming after previous brief periods of cooling, means warming will probably continue.

And, he uses only one incomplete (land only) dataset to arrive at this faulty conclusion, in which he only shows cooling since 2005. RSS MSU LT (land only) shows cooling since 1997.

http://www.woodfo....2/trend

But even with these shortcomings, he at least admits at the end, global cooling may indeed be at hand. He just insists it isn't statistically significant yet (a result of the dataset he used).

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.