Permafrost thawing could accelerate global warming, research says

Apr 07, 2014
Permafrost peatbog border. Storflaket, Abisko, Sweden. Credit: Dentren/Wikipedia

A team of researchers lead by Florida State University have found new evidence that permafrost thawing is releasing large quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere via plants, which could accelerate warming trends.

The research is featured in the newest edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

"We've known for a while now that permafrost is thawing," said Suzanne Hodgkins, the lead author on the paper and a doctoral student in chemical oceanography at Florida State. "But what we've found is that the associated changes in in the could lead to way more carbon being released into the atmosphere as ."

Permafrost is soil that is frozen year round and is typically located in polar regions. As the world has gotten slightly warmer, that permafrost is thawing and decomposing, which is producing increased amounts of methane.

Relative to , methane has a disproportionately large global warming potential. Methane is 33 times more effective at warming the Earth on a mass basis and a century time scale relative to carbon dioxide.

As the plants break down, they are releasing carbon into the atmosphere. And if the permafrost melts entirely, there would be five times the amount of carbon in the atmosphere than there is now, said Jeff Chanton, the John Widmer Winchester Professor of Oceanography at Florida State.

"The world is getting warmer, and the additional release of gas would only add to our problems," he said.

Chanton and Hodgkins' work, "Changes in peat chemistry associated with permafrost thaw increase greenhouse gas production," was funded by a three-year, $400,000 Department of Energy grant. They traveled to Sweden multiple times to collect soil samples for the study.

The research is a multicontinent effort with researchers from North America, Europe and Australia all contributing to the work.

Explore further: Methane-producing microbe blooms in permafrost thaw

More information: Changes in peat chemistry associated with permafrost thaw increase greenhouse gas production, PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1314641111

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Methane-producing microbe blooms in permafrost thaw

Mar 10, 2014

In time with the climate warming up, parts of the permafrost in northern Sweden and elsewhere in the world are thawing. An international study published in Nature Communications describes a newly discovered microb ...

Permafrost thaw exacerbates climate change

Mar 21, 2014

The climate is warming in the arctic at twice the rate of the rest of the globe creating a longer growing season and increased plant growth, which captures atmospheric carbon, and thawing permafrost, which ...

Experiment is first to simulate warming of Arctic permafrost

Dec 05, 2013

Although vegetation growth in the Arctic is boosted by global warming, it's not enough to offset the carbon released by the thawing of the permafrost beneath the surface, University of Florida researchers have found in the ...

New knowledge about permafrost improving climate models

Jul 28, 2013

New research findings from the Centre for Permafrost (CENPERM) at the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, document that permafrost during thawing may result in a substantial ...

Recommended for you

Tropical Storm Genevieve forms in Eastern Pacific

2 hours ago

The seventh tropical depression of the Eastern Pacific Ocean formed and quickly ramped up to a tropical storm named "Genevieve." NOAA's GOES-West satellite captured an infrared image of the newborn storm ...

NASA maps Typhoon Matmo's Taiwan deluge

4 hours ago

When Typhoon Matmo crossed over the island nation of Taiwan it left tremendous amounts of rainfall in its wake. NASA used data from the TRMM satellite to calculate just how much rain fell over the nation.

User comments : 80

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Scottingham
5 / 5 (6) Apr 07, 2014
Perhaps we could plant trees in these new defrosted regions to offset the carbon release? Then harvest those trees for books and furniture ie carbon sequestration with value!
baudrunner
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 07, 2014
The area could be turned into some kind of wetland. It's a challenge to do something viable to offset the climate change impact somewhat and create a new self-sustaining habitat at the same time.
aksdad
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 07, 2014
Why did permafrost thaw during the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD) not result in dramatic global warming? It was followed by the Little Ice Age (1350-1850 AD).

Seems like there's a lot of contextual information missing here. Natural negative feedback mechanisms as yet undiscovered that limit methane uptake in the atmosphere? Or is methane such a minuscule portion of the atmosphere that its warming potential is negligible?

For reference, CO2, which is considered by many alarmists to be the main driver of 20th century warming, makes up 0.0397% of the atmosphere. Methane makes up 0.000179%, or 220 times less than CO2. Even if substantial methane is released by permafrost, back-of-the-napkin math indicates its net warming potential is much less than CO2.
TegiriNenashi
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 07, 2014
You think repeating old myth makes it true? "Methane bomb" is widely known being defused:
http://wattsupwit...me-bomb/
Actually methane levels in the atmosphere
http://en.wikiped..._methane
seems to be decelerating! Go back check your homework.
rockwolf1000
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2014
Perhaps we could plant trees in these new defrosted regions to offset the carbon release? Then harvest those trees for books and furniture ie carbon sequestration with value!


While not entirely a bad idea, I'll suggest you'd get more return per acre planting trees in temperate and tropical zones given the short arctic/sub arctic growing seasons' reduced productivity. Recently thawed permafrost is notoriously wet and mucky thus unsuitable for machinery type planting in my estimation, not to mention the ramifications of suddenly and completely altering an ecosystem.
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 08, 2014
aksdad muttered
..Why did permafrost thaw during the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD) not result in dramatic global warming?
1 Evidence all melted ?
2 Did humans burn ~230,000 Litres of petrol/sec back then ?

aksdad lumbered
Natural negative feedback mechanisms as yet undiscovered that limit methane uptake in the atmosphere? Or is methane such a minuscule portion of the atmosphere that its warming potential is negligible?
Atmospheric physical properties of gasses well known.

aksdad could do with context education
..CO2, which is considered by many alarmists to be the main driver of 20th century warming, makes up 0.0397% of the atmosphere. Methane makes up 0.000179%, or 220 times less than CO2. Even if substantial methane is released by permafrost, back-of-the-napkin math..
You & your napkin can't calculate comparative thermal properties !

University education in Physics is Essential, yes ?

How does ADDING a gas with known thermal properties *not* change climate ?
enviro414
1 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2014
Mike - The record shows that CO2 change has no significant influence. This was demonstrated in the study made public 6 years ago at http://www.middle...urn.html .

Briefly:

In the late Ordovician, the planet plunged into the Andean Saharan ice age and later emerged from it while the CO2 level was about 10 times the present.

During the last glacial period, warming trends changed to cooling trends while the CO2 level was higher than it had been during the warming trend.

During the 20th century, average global temperature trends went down, up, down, up, flat (soon to be down) while the CO2 level went steadily, progressively up. Lack of correlation demonstrates lack of causation.

A couple of reasons why CO2 change has no significant effect on climate:

CO2 is a ghg. That means that it absorbs 14-16 micron EMR.

Approximately 12% of the absorbed EMR (mostly absorbed by water vapor) is thermalized. That means that it warms the atmosphere, which then rises by convection.

The residual EMR flux declines logarithmically with altitude. You should have learned that in physics class.

The effect of added CO2 is to very slightly reduce the altitude of absorption. If you actually understood all that physics, you could figure that out.

The second reason is that the influence of CO2 on climate is saturated. This is demonstrated by the rising CO2 and not-rising average global temperature.

All this is quantified at http://agwunveile...spot.com and sub-links.
rmolinanavas
5 / 5 (7) Apr 08, 2014
aksdad:
"Why did permafrost thaw during the Medieval Warm Period (950-1250 AD) not result in dramatic global warming?"
Mean global temperatures were not as high as now ...

"Even if substantial methane is released by permafrost, back-of-the-napkin math indicates its net warming potential is much less than CO2".
For climate CHANGE what matter are GHG concentration changes, not absolute values.
On the other hand, methane life is much shorter than CO2´s.

runrig
5 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2014
Enviro:

Your post is a complete travesty of the science, absolute bollocks in fact...

Regarding the Ordovician:

Err - ever heard of tectonic plates, and that they move?
Ever heard of Godwanaland?
Ever heard of Albedo and that ice reflects?
Ever studied the Earth's characteristics in the Ordivician?
Ever twigged that Godwanaland may have been over one of the poles?
Ever realised that the power of the Sun back then was weaker?
Ever wondered about what was the volcanic activity back then?

Which is why todays Earth is not even remotely comparable with ~450m yrs ago.

Regarding CO2 correlation/causation.
First off - causation is unarguable - has been known of and proved/observed for ~150 years - both in the lab and on earth via spectrograph.
Correlation is also indisputable - try looking at historical CO2 v temps - and yes, temp does follow - as it should,in a non-human messed-up world. Try to understand that CO2 can both follow and precede temp changes.

Cont
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2014
Cont

Also try examining the >90% of the climate system in terms of stored heat and please provide papers that show the Oceans AREN'T heating. While you're at it, also study the effect that the ENSO cycle has on ave global temps - oh and aerosols such as those present in the "Global darkening" period of the 60'/70's and also - the other underlying reasons while ave global temps naturally oscillate.

Regarding the science behind added CO2 to the atmosphere.
CO2 is NOWHERE near saturation. Look up "path-length" re GHG's and the fact that increased concentration lengthens that path vertically and therefore increases the *insulation* effect. The higher level of IR emission thus achieved being less efficient due lower temps.

In short have you ever thought SCIENTIFICALLY.
Instead of coming to your preferred opinion and uttering it stupidly on here ... to people that understand things.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2014
Also try examining the >90% of the climate system in terms of stored heat and please provide papers that show the Oceans AREN'T heating.


http://wattsupwit...and-ohc/

Yes, the oceans are heating.

At 0.02K per decade.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2014
http://wattsupwit...and-ohc/

Yes, the oceans are heating.

At 0.02K per decade.

Since when has a denialist blog been a source of unbiased science pray?

And try multiplying 0.02 by 4000 my friend - look up the thermal properties of water and it's mass in comparison with the atmosphere. ....... and you'll arrive at a temp rise applicable to that related to the atmosphere.
Can you do that?
Or shall I do that for you?
Err .... 80C my friend.

Hint: Do try to understand the difference between temperature and heat.
Also a question...
Why are you on here if you cant??????
TegiriNenashi
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 08, 2014
How did you arrive to that 80C temperature increase? Do you imply that if you connect the two bodies together, one with thermal capacity 4000 times larger than the other, then the body with lower temperature and lower thermal capacity would warm 80K? Did you miss thermodynamics course when in college?
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2014
How did you arrive to that 80C temperature increase? Do you imply that if you connect the two bodies together, one with thermal capacity 4000 times larger than the other, then the body with lower temperature and lower thermal capacity would warm 80K? Did you miss thermodynamics course when in college?


Like I said - study the thermal properties of water v air and their relative masses on Earth .... and then figure out the difference between temperature and heat.

Err - you're talking to a professional Meteorologist my friend ... methinks (knows) it's you who are ignorant here.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2014
Also try examining the >90% of the climate system in terms of stored heat and please provide papers that show the Oceans AREN'T heating.


http://wattsupwit...and-ohc/

Yes, the oceans are heating.

At 0.02K per decade.

this is a BLOG
this is NOT a study
where is the STUDY? the empirical data?
all the numbers I looked up are different...
http://centerforo...warming/

http://biology.du...ge3.html

please note that the above links have references to data that you can look at yourself... studies... below is a good article

http://www.livesc...ing.html

Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2014
Runrig did well with TegiriNenashi & enviro414 more politely than I.
TegiriNenashi Obviously needs spoonfeeding with SIMPLE thermodynamics
How did you arrive to that 80C temperature increase? Do you imply that if you connect the two bodies together, one with thermal capacity 4000 times larger than the other, then the body with lower temperature and lower thermal capacity would warm 80K? Did you miss thermodynamics course when in college?
Try TegiriNenashi to understand this clear SIMPLE definitive example:-

Billion (10^9) tonnes ice at 0 deg C absorbs ~331 units of heat/gram becoming water at 0 deg C.
This water now holds 331 x 10^6 x 10^9 = 331 x 10^15 units of heat. (Tonne=10^6 grams)

That SAME amount of heat were applied to the same mass of water, then the temp. will become 331/4 ie 75 deg C !

This is simple Physics but, startling to the Uneducated !

See the details YOURSELF http://en.wikiped...of_water

Thermodynamics Education TegiriNenashi !

Cont.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (11) Apr 09, 2014
@ TegiriNenashi & enviro414's tech babble
Adding it takes ~4 units of heat to warm water by 1 deg/gram, so hence the 331/4 from my last post, can you guys SEE how significant the issue is !
Of course that billion tonnes of water is not in isolation, it is in contact with atmosphere, sea currents etc the Physics foundation is absolutely accurate.
These facts in CONJUNCTION with the Known physics & runrig's excellent posting.

- Sun gives us massive amounts of heat and on a continuing basis
- Observations of tremendous amount of ice melting & decreased ocean salinity Prove the actuality there is heat which is not showing a rise in temperature - YET !
- CO2 is not saturated enviro414 it is rising http://www.woodfo...o2/every

enviro414 accepts Science that CO2 is a GHG & accepts thermal properties.
ie. CO2 has Cumulative effect in retaining heat proportional with mass.

We see buffer effect re ice melting, when depleted we are in real trouble see Physics re water !
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2014
Runrig did well with TegiriNenashi & enviro414 more politely than I.
TegiriNenashi Obviously needs spoonfeeding with SIMPLE thermodynamics


He always does!
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2014
Runrig did well with TegiriNenashi & enviro414 more politely than I.
TegiriNenashi Obviously needs spoonfeeding with SIMPLE thermodynamics


He always does!

Thanks guys .... I am humbled.
enviro414
1 / 5 (8) Apr 09, 2014
Mike - "influence of CO2 on climate is saturated" means that increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has no significant effect on climate.

Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn't agree with observation, it's wrong.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some politicians and many others mislead the gullible public by stubbornly continuing to proclaim that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is a primary cause of global warming.

Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.

CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now (through December, 2013) increased since 2001 by 27.18 ppmv (an amount equal to 30.37% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; December, 2013, 398.31 ppmv).

The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat (5 reporting agencies http://endofgw.blogspot.com/). Graphs through 2013 have been added..

That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 27.18 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.

Before you think cherry picking, examine http://agwunveile...pot.com/ . It considers all measurements since before 1900 and corroborates that CO2 change has no significant influence on climate.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Apr 09, 2014
Enviro:

FFS - you still peddling that Dan Pangbourn bollocks?

His theory is the THE most unscientific and falsely constructed rubbish out there.
When he comes up with a detailed, per reviewed paper of same, that gives error bounds and is done in mathematics that are NOT done on the back of a fag-packet then fine ... until then it means less than zero, except for those, like you, that will cling ion to anything that supports your ideologically driven world-view.
That's NOT science my friend - its called confirmation bias.
Get it ?..
No, obviously not.
Now please answer the science re CO2's, so called "saturation" - with regard to why it is not.
.... Because of "path-length"....
I would give you the links to why it is so... but, do you know what... I really cant be bothered.
You're not worthy of it.
Now get back into your rabbit-hole so we who are in touch with reality can get on and do something about the mess that your ilk will condemn us to.
enviro414
1 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2014
runrig - Your comments expose your lack of science skill.

The CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature (AGT) doesn't. Apparently, the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising AGT will need to get even wider for the AGW mistake to become evident to some of the deniers of natural climate change.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
enviro414 PROVES he has ZERO understanding of combinatorial complexity and especially so in relation to the Properties of Water with this narrow minded idiocY
The CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature (AGT) doesn't.
enviro414 Obviously has ignorned or has inability to comprehend the vast dynamic of a chaotic & turbulent climate system undergoing CHANGE !

Check enviro414, FFS the properties of water to ABSORB massive amounts of HEAT via Melt water.

WHY do you REFUSE to address it - r u ill, or normally unintelligent ?

Can you not see massive melt water, ocean salinity decreasing, melt water ABSORBING heat whilst ocean currents suffer change...

enviro414 has small brain space with this naivety
Apparently, the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising AGT will need to get even wider for the AGW mistake to become evident to some of the deniers of natural climate change.
TRY to understand enviro414, climate system is chaotic - MATHS !
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
runrig - Your comments expose your lack of science skill.

The CO2 level continues to go up while the average global temperature (AGT) doesn't. Apparently, the separation between the rising CO2 level and not-rising AGT will need to get even wider for the AGW mistake to become evident to some of the deniers of natural climate change.


Of course it is - like, you know, the vast majority of the world's climate scientists know nothing ... and you come on here and say otherwise. OK, I believe you. That make you happy?

FFS

Other than that, it is not worth my (repeated) comments to you my friend.
Last I checked I lived in a sane world.
That being the case, considering my expertise then it is you that talk bollocks, and a highly refined version at that.

What is your expertise?....apart from talking said bollocks and making black white on a subject you plainly know zero about.
But merely wish to be.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
the vast majority of the world's climate scientists know nothing

How long did it take for them to catch on that the ice on Kilimanjaro was sublimating, not melting as asserted by the IPCC?
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2014
the vast majority of the world's climate scientists know nothing

How long did it take for them to catch on that the ice on Kilimanjaro was sublimating, not melting as asserted by the IPCC?


Rygg2: So, let me get this right. The ice on Kilimanjaro is sublimating and you don't see that as any extra input of energy? You do understand that sublimation is the direct conversion of solid to gas and that it requires energy, don't you? If the temperature happens to be below the freezing point then sublimation takes place. If it happens to be above freezing it melts then evaporates. However, enthalpy is a state variable and it doesn't care about the path. What has happened in each case is that the material has changed state. It has done so because of energy. If the ice is changing from what it was like in the past then that means a change in energy. Have you ever taken a course in thermodynamics? It seems you have not or you need to brush up on it.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2014
Let's continue the discussion about the two connected thermal masses. If I subscribe to your "theory" (AGW heat playing hide-and-seek in the ocean), then almost all warming goes to the body with higher heat capacity (water). This is fine, I can believe that. However, be consistent with your model: if water takes almost all of the heat now, why would it suddenly stop doing it in the future? What exactly is mysterious thermodynamic mechanism of this alleged atmospheric heating "in the pipeline"? To clarify it for physics challenged: if two bodies are in thermal equilibrium now, what exactly would destroy this thermal equilibrium in the future?
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2014
"...Billion (10^9) tonnes ice at 0 deg C absorbs ~331 units of heat/gram becoming water at 0 deg C.
This water now holds 331 x 10^6 x 10^9 = 331 x 10^15 units of heat. (Tonne=10^6 grams)

That SAME amount of heat were applied to the same mass of water, then the temp. will become 331/4 ie 75 deg C !"

Let me introduce a simple physics fact. Take two bodies, "sink" say at 20C, and "furnace" at 30C. I allow you to have difference in thermal capacity to be as big as you like. Do you imply that when you connect them, thermal equilibrium can be reached at some temperature which is much higher than 30C? Congratulations, you just proved your gross incompetence in basic thermodynamics.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
Let's continue the discussion about the two connected thermal masses. If I subscribe to your "theory" (AGW heat playing hide-and-seek in the ocean), then almost all warming goes to the body with higher heat capacity (water). This is fine, I can believe that. However, be consistent with your model: if water takes almost all of the heat now, why would it suddenly stop doing it in the future? What exactly is mysterious thermodynamic mechanism of this alleged atmospheric heating "in the pipeline"? To clarify it for physics challenged: if two bodies are in thermal equilibrium now, what exactly would destroy this thermal equilibrium in the future?


Tegeri: Let me give this a try. I expect it will take more than one post since I only have about 250 characters after quoting your post.

First, let's clear up the difference between heat transfer and thermodynamics (although they are related). Thermodynamics (as taught in undergraduate courses) has to do with thermal equilibrium. cont
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
Continued for Tegeri: In most thermo textbooks, the system is constrained to a "control volume" which has defined boundaries. Two control volumes can be connected by a heat engine (either producing or consuming work). Thermodynamics normally deals with equilibrium (where the control volumes have moved as much as they can and no longer change) or with steady state where there is a constant exchange over time.

The real world is a bit more complicated than either equilibrium or steady state. Instead, things change in ways that do not always repeat. The ways they change are through heat and mass transfer as well as radiant transfer (which is really a part of heat transfer).

So, when you use the term "equilibrium" I assume you really mean "steady state" although that is probably not correct either except over short (by the time constants of the system) time intervals. Continued
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2014
Yes, earth system is far from equilibrium. My point is that if you have a system of two bodies with vastly different thermal capacity, and the body with larger thermal mass consumed almost all of the heat, then the process of releasing this heat is not trivial, to say the least. This is why this alleged 75K temperature increase is just some imaginary number.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2014
For tegeri continued: So, when you talk about two real connected thermal masses, you should be addressing heat and mass transfer not just equilibrium thermodynamics. For instance, in mass transfer there can be a movement of cold fluid into warm fluid or warm fluid into cold fluid through the various mass transfer mechanisms. If we were only looking at thermodynamics the energy would only move from the warm source to the cold sink. For convection or advection, we can have movement in any direction of fluids. Those are currents in a body of water or the air and they are studied. Those currents can move energy many times faster than conduction. For that reason, there can be heating of columns of water by movement of warm water into cold water (or warm air into cold air) which you would not get through conduction alone.

Continued
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
Continued yet again:

What I have seen in the recent papers is that they are finding mechanisms for transfer of heat from the surface to the lower depths of the water in the oceans that they had not taken into consideration. Those mechanisms will be incorporated into more advanced models to improve the model accuracy (as they are constantly doing). You are making the point (in your latest post that came up as I was writing this tome):

"My point is that if you have a system of two bodies with vastly different thermal capacity, and the body with larger thermal mass consumed almost all of the heat, then the process of releasing this heat is not trivial, to say the least. This is why this alleged 75K temperature increase is just some imaginary number."

The point was (and the poster can confirm or deny this) that the number is an example of the differences in total heat capacity of the reservoirs, not something that will happen. Continued

thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2014
Continued to the point my fingers are bleeding...

My point is that you have to take heat and mass transfer into consideration and recognize that the real world is not at equilibrium (or we would not have wind, rain, or currents). Also, recognize that the arguments being made about the changes in ocean temperatures are being made considering currents (heat and mass transfer). Your use of an equilibrium argument is not valid because the oceans and atmosphere are not in equilibrium or steady state. Hence the need for detailed computer programs to try to study them. Let me know if anything in this is not clear to you and I can go into more detail. I do teach both thermodynamics and heat and mass transfer so I can help if you need more detail.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
"...you should be addressing heat and mass transfer not just equilibrium thermodynamics..."

Wouldn't heat and mass transfer be a function of temperature difference (with thermal capacity being mostly irrelevant)? So, given a typical air-to-sea surface temperature difference of several degrees, how much this 0.02K/decade is going to affect these convection or advection processes?

I see your post that it requires some more effort (creating a model) which is little more realistic than just two reservoirs. So is there an agreement, that the issue is rather complicated, and is not settled yet?
TegiriNenashi
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2014
Let me clarify, why skeptics thoroughly enjoy (somewhat unfairly) this heat hiding in the ocean hypothesis. It is just one competing explanation among many. When it is properly developed and confirmed that might make critics to look like fools. However, for an outsider the explanation of apparent observed low climate sensitivity is simple: the positive feedback in global warming model is just little exaggerated.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
"...you should be addressing heat and mass transfer not just equilibrium thermodynamics..."

Wouldn't heat and mass transfer be a function of temperature difference (with thermal capacity being mostly irrelevant)? So, given a typical air-to-sea surface temperature difference of several degrees, how much this 0.02K/decade is going to affect these convection or advection processes?

I see your post that it requires some more effort (creating a model) which is little more realistic than just two reservoirs. So is there an agreement, that the issue is rather complicated, and is not settled yet?


Tegiri: OK, this will take a couple of more posts. I am trying to answer your questions with the type of answers I would give to someone who understands physics and mechanical engineering. If I need to start more simply than that, please let me know where you are getting confused. Continued
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 10, 2014
Tegiri said: "Wouldn't heat and mass transfer be a function of temperature difference (with thermal capacity being mostly irrelevant)?"

No, and No. Heat and mass transfer can be a function of temperature difference, but it can also be a result of momentum and kinetic energy. Let me give you a simple example. If I have a bathtub full of cold water and I pour in a bucket of hot water from a height of 6 ft, the hot water will punch through the cold water, hit the bottom of the tub, and spread out where it will thoroughly mix with the cold water. The reason is that the bucket of hot water starts with potential energy (being above the tub and in the Earth's gravitational field). When I pour the bucket full of water it changes the potential energy to kinetic energy and that serves to mix the fluids on impact. If I were to very gently siphon the hot water onto the cold water it would float (since it is less dense). Continued
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2014
In the second case, the diffusion of heat from the hot layer to the cold layer would take much longer than the mixing took. The temperature difference drives a much slower process than the kinetic energy does. In the oceans, there are huge currents produced by multiple drivers including flow of rivers, intrusion of cold surface waters, wind, current interactions, the Coriolis force (fictitious but taught anyway by all because it is a simple explanation and lets us a simple frame of reference), temperature differences, and others. The point is that all of these can cause heat transfer without it being driven by a simple temperature difference. Of course you can make the argument that wind comes from density gradients that go back to the sun and heating but that is a stretch of the fact that once started the wind can mix different temperature systems without depending on hot versus cold control volumes. Continued
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
Continued: The above is the reason that the heat transfer is not solely dependent on the temperature difference.

Now your second question: "...(with thermal capacity being mostly irrelevant)?"

No, go back to my example of pouring a bucket of hot water into a cold tub. Isn't it clear from that example that the size of the bucket and tub makes a difference? If I pour in a big bucket the mixing if more violent (possibly splashing out of the tub) and if I pour in a small bucket it might not affect the water at the ends of the tub. Both the mass and thermal capacity are important and related.

Finally, you asked two more questions that you might consider conflated (but they are not).

You ask: "So is there an agreement, that the issue is rather complicated, and is not settled yet?"

Continued:
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2014
The conflated concepts are:

1) The issue is complicated.

2) The issue is not settled yet.

Yes, the issue is complicated and the process of deconvolution of all of the interactions is complex and ongoing. That does not mean there is not agreement on those processes as fundamental physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, heat transfer, and fluid dynamics. The issue of the basic science is settled.

What is not settled is how to accurately predict the magnitudes of some of those interactions. However, that does not imply that there is not fundamental agreement on the details of the interactions. That results in certainty that CO2 retards the emission of IR radiation from the earth. Exactly how that is translated into weather and changes in the temperature of masses of air and water are not settled. This goes back to Arrhenius at the end of the 19th century who knew how CO2 interacts in the atmosphere. He was right and that is what there is consensus on. Continued
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2014
Continued: Will any model ever tell us if it is going to snow in Vermont on December 12th next year? No, because the dynamics are complex. However, there will be models that tell us the probability of snow in that region in December of next year. If you have taken any quantum mechanics you will know that the world can only be predicted probabilistically at any far time for any process. So, what the models do is to tell us what the probability of an event is and there is an uncertainty associated with it. You might say that if there is no certainty then it is just a guess. That is incorrect. There is never any certainty in the Universe. There are only very high probabilities. There is never any certainty in a measurement, and if you think otherwise you have never tried to measure anything. It is the narrowing of the uncertainty that is the business of science. So, how do I say I am certain that CO2 retards IR? Because the uncertainty is close enough to zero. :-)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2014
There is never any certainty in a measurement, and if you think otherwise you have never tried to measure anything
@Thermodynamics
first: here is a short video that may help for future posts (about uncertainty in measurement in science)
http://ocw.mit.ed...nalysis/

professor Lewin talks about the uncertainty of measurement and gives a great demonstration in the video on the page, marked: "Clip 1: the art of making measurements"
It simplifies a little but pretty much reinforces some of what you've posted above

Second: great multi-post!
although wordy, it is well worth the read! might have made your fingers bleed but it is a great reference post for others: especially newbies.
THANKS
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2014
TegiriNenash desperately needs basic Physics Education
If I subscribe to your "theory" (AGW heat playing hide-and-seek in the ocean), then almost all warming goes to the body with higher heat capacity (water).
First its not a choice to subscribe to - it is a fully Proven fact that H2O has DIFFERENT heat capacities. It is not theory it is DEMONSTRABLE fact !

Heat moves towards lower temperatures.
Given amount of heat (Eg. from Sun) absorbed by materials of different heat capacities will result in different temperatures.

The maths is VERY simple, why can u not get your head around it - it is Simple high school stuff ?

Please TegiriNenashi, get an Education read & TRY to understand:-

http://en.wikiped...capacity

TRY to maintain this in short term memory in relation to:-
http://en.wikiped...of_water

This is NOT about your arbitrary belief, it is a FACT, it is PROVEN often.

To interpret it however, requires effort in conjunction with intellect.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2014
CS: Thank you for the clip from Lewin. He is someone who really knows how to teach. I think he is as good as Feynman was. I love the MIT opencourseware for video references. I have gone back to their courses a number of times to get alternate perspectives on science and math. Like the Feynman lectures, I can always learn something new. Thanks also for appreciating the time on the post. I just wanted to try to get some of the well known definitions on the record. It will be interesting to see if anyone needs more detail. :-)

Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2014
TegiriNenashi oiffered
Let me clarify, why skeptics thoroughly enjoy (somewhat unfairly) this heat hiding in the ocean hypothesis.
This tactic of using bad language terms like 'hiding' are stupid & designed to make it seem implausible - as if the heat has a choice or has some conscious control therefore making the notion utterly ridiculous but, it does not change facts, it adds a high layer of resistance to the Physics being understood by the vast majority of uneducated people - deniers !

Heat flow follows well PROVEN physics, that is the underlying FACT regarding heat, it has been proven many times all over the world & despite people trying has never been proven wrong !

Ice melting absorbs ~165 times MORE heat than just Ice warming up !

This shows CLEARLY that once the ice has warmed to up zero deg C it can ABSORB Much more heat so it cools atmosphere more - of the same relative amount of heat provided comparatively.

Of course, is in relation to turbulence, ocean currents etc
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2014
Although this physics video is designed for those at primary school, it is well worth watching all the way through and for adults it shows a very simple experiment they can do which PROVEs water has very high heat capacity.

https://www.youtu...LusD-tyM

What amazes me is that despite the large approx 230,000 Litres of petrol burned each SECOND in ADDITION to heat from the sun AND other sources from Earth, the globe only increases in temperature by a small, although measurable amount.

@TegiriNenashi
Suggest you craft a mathematics/physics arrangement re ice & air vs melting ice & air vs water & air in some container. Apply specific heat maths to assess an outcome for various temperatures/time for say small masses (eg Kg) of ice/water a& then once the paper maths is done & shows well the issue many cannot understand, then an experiment can be conducted in the home to prove it with a couple of temperature probes with source of ice, water & air in contact in a container.
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2014
Thermo:
Can I also add my appreciation of your multi-post.

I displays a patience that I once brought to this and other forums on the subject of AGW.
It is a patience I no longer have I'm afraid.
What does that tell of me?
Or of the obduracy of people who assume they are correct and that "experts" are wrong. The experts that they often blatantly despise, me included.
Well done anyway, maybe I'll regain my patience, who knows.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2014
I displays a patience that I once brought to this and other forums on the subject of AGW.
It is a patience I no longer have I'm afraid.
@runrig
don't let the blatantly stupid and the deniers get you down. there ARE people here who greatly appreciate the work people like you and Thermo et al do!
I am one of them!

THERMO, RUNRIG ET AL
YOUR EFFORTS ARE APPRECIATED! I've learned more from yall in the last year than I did in the previous ten

your efforts are not wasted. there are those who pay attention....
HANG IN THERE
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2014
Runrig: CS is right. You have put a lot of great information out there and if some do not listen to it then that is their loss. Your efforts are greatly appreciated and just keep up the good work. We all get tired at times by putting out information that is then attacked by folks who just don't understand it. I can't tell you the number of times I have gotten frustrated. But we all owe it to the sincere readers who really want to understand how science works. You have done that for a long time and it is appreciated. I like a pat on the back now and then and I got it tonight from you, Mike, and Capn' Stumps. I think we all should just say thanks to each other now and then and I know it will help me to keep my spirits up. This is a long haul and we have a lot more work to do on the way. Let's just keep putting good information out there to help others (who want to) to understand.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2014
I hate to spoil your triumph, but there was ridiculous 75-80K temperature increase number floating around. I understand that nobody defends this naive derivation anymore. As Judith Curry put it
http://judithcurr...an-heat/
"So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land?"

TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2014
"Yes, the issue is complicated and the process of deconvolution of all of the interactions is complex and ongoing. That does not mean there is not agreement on those processes as fundamental physics, chemistry, thermodynamics, heat transfer, and fluid dynamics. The issue of the basic science is settled."

So? The basic biochemistry foundation is well established. Yet, modelling even simple cell is beyond our capabilities. Not to mention that there are more cells in a single organ than stars in a galaxy.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2014
TegiriNenashi has NOT read or understood the "Properties of Water" with this idiocy
I hate to spoil your triumph, but there was ridiculous 75-80K temperature increase number floating around. I understand that nobody defends this naive derivation anymore.
Why TegiriNenashi are you pretending to be so stupid & unread ?

The 75-80 deg rise is FACT for the heat capacities shown.
Itt is also miscible with colder waters, these are also demonstrable FACTS.

How dare you be so STUPID to call a Scientific FACT a "naive derivation", the Physics are proven, the maths are Proven !!

FFS - what is WRONG with you & your thinking TegiriNenashi ????

PLEASE try to understand TegiriNenashi,

We NOW have buffer effect of massive absorption of heat by melting ice, did you NOT read about Properties of Water & "Latent heat of Fusion" ?

Can u read that - did you - eh ?

Note: Most Oceans are still below the temp of atmospheres summed (integrated) over the planet, as such Physics & logic show Flow !
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2014
TegiriNenashi should be able to think this out for himself - shouldnt he ?
"So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land?"
Please try to be aware of these FACTS:-

- Sunlight goes through atmosphere BEFORE it hits Ocean
- There are immensely complex dynamics between atmosphere & Oceans
- Ice can act as an insulator depending on its type
- Melting water absorbs MASSIVE amounts of heat
- Melt water at zero deg C discharges into the Oceans, reducing salinity
- The buffer effect of melting ice to water has a limited life span
- We are still burning ~230,000 Liters of Petrol/second discharging GHGs & Heat un-unaturally
- Water Expands when heated - we are already seeing that
- Most sea level rises are likely to occur around equator - Earth IS spinning last time I checked !

Now get a grip TegiriNenashi !
no fate
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2014
I hate to spoil your triumph, but there was ridiculous 75-80K temperature increase number floating around. I understand that nobody defends this naive derivation anymore. As Judith Curry put it
http://judithcurr...an-heat/
"So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land?"



In simple english - it takes 4000 times as much heat energy to warm the ocean .02C than it does the atmosphere. If the ocean hadn't absorbed enough heat for the temp. to rise by this much, the atmosphere would have risen 80C over the same time period. The worry isn't this heat coming back from the ocean, it is if the ocean uptake slows or stops.

Also @ Thermodynamics - well done. You could be a good educator for people willing to learn.
no fate
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2014
Sorry. Let that one go too quick. The atmosphere wouldn't have risen 80C over the same amount of time due to the heat retention capacity of water being greater than air, so a higher portion of this would have radiated into space if not absorbed. I'd go for the exact figure but i have a feeling you don't really care.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2014
@Mike
"Why TegiriNenashi are you pretending to be so stupid & unread ?"
He's not pretending.
enviro414
1 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2014
Mike, runrig - A natural long-term trend is defined by a proxy factor times the time-integral of the difference between each annual average daily sunspot number and the average sunspot number for a long period (1610-1940). The net surface temperature change of all natural ocean cycles oscillates above and below this trend. The combination calculates average global temperature anomalies (AGT) since before 1900 with R^2 > 0.9 (95% correlation) and credible AGT since the depths of the Little Ice Age.

All this is quantified at http://agwunveile...spot.com and sub-links.

All of the chaos, phase change, combinational complexity, turbulence and everything that you did not think of must find room in the unexplained 10%.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Apr 11, 2014
All this is quantified at http://agwunveile...spot.com and sub-links.
All of the chaos, phase change, combinational complexity, turbulence and everything that you did not think of must find room in the unexplained 10%.
@enviro414
if I may make a point...
IMHO - you might as well have linked the 4Chan/b site.

your page is NOT a peer reviewed study. it has links to climate realist, and it also uses BlogSpot as a reference...

now... there are studies in the references as well, and that is something to be applauded, however, you can find the same thing on the Electric universe site, and they have been thoroughly debunked (they cannot even get past the high school physics, let alone into the realm of hypothesis)

if there is legitimate science, link it. skip the blog/hater sites
you will go further in your argument
Mike/Runrig/Tim Thompson are in the field (or know physics)... they have seen all the hater site attempts

talk science and make a valid argument
IMHO-mind you
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2014
I hate to spoil your triumph, but there was ridiculous 75-80K temperature increase number floating around. I understand that nobody defends this naive derivation anymore. As Judith Curry put it
http://judithcurr...an-heat/
"So, can anyone figure out why 0.06C is a big deal for the climate? Or how all that heat that is apparently well mixed in the ocean could somehow get into the atmosphere and influence weather/temperatures/rainfall on the land?"



No triumph my friend, just basic physics - and why, pray, would you, a total ignoramus on the subject, be questioning those that have knowledge from the standpoint of your being correct, by default ????????????????

Beats the sh** out of me.

It must be the DK syndrome writ large or something.
Maybe I should do a paper on the DK appertaining to AGW denialism and the hubris affected by it proponents.

Do you get the impression, I'm a tad pi^^^** off.
You'd be correct
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
Mike, runrig - A natural long-term trend is defined by a proxy factor times the time-integral of the difference between each annual average daily sunspot number and the average sunspot number for a long period (1610-1940). The net surface temperature change of all natural ocean cycles oscillates above and below this trend. The combination calculates average global temperature anomalies (AGT) since before 1900 with R^2 > 0.9 (95% correlation) and credible AGT since the depths of the Little Ice Age.

All this is quantified at http://agwunveile...spot.com and sub-links.

All of the chaos, phase change, combinational complexity, turbulence and everything that you did not think of must find room in the unexplained 10%.


I'm fed up of telling you now.
That is total and utter bollocks.

And your mission Enviro, should you choose to accept it, is .....
To go and discover why that is so my friend.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2014
Maybe I should do a paper on the DK appertaining to AGW denialism and the hubris affected by it proponents.
@runrig
there are a few in the works, actually
not just deniers, though... it is quite a broad area. People like pseudoscience advocates (cantdrive, jvk, Hannes Alfven, reg mundy, etc) are in the same classification as deniers.

I DO know of at least one study collecting data even from here (the comments sections)

just something interesting that I thought you would like to know
Do you get the impression, I'm a tad pi^^^** off.
You'd be correct
just a tad!
LMFAO
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2014
Maybe I should do a paper on the DK appertaining to AGW denialism and the hubris affected by it proponents.
@runrig
there are a few in the works, actually
not just deniers, though... it is quite a broad area. People like pseudoscience advocates (cantdrive, jvk, Hannes Alfven, reg mundy, etc) are in the same classification as deniers.

I DO know of at least one study collecting data even from here (the comments sections)

just something interesting that I thought you would like to know
Do you get the impression, I'm a tad pi^^^** off.
You'd be correct
just a tad!
LMFAO


Capt.
Not a lot of people know that (Michael Caine quote)
Cheers
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2014
enviro414 quoted this site but WHY didnt he notice
http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com and sub-links.
Take a look at the graphs enviro414, NOT quantified, notice they claim 'no CO2 effect' - Eg graph 1 which purports to plot volcanic events, how is this correlated with accepted CO2 data from Eg This link:-
http://www.woodfo...o2/every

enviro414 desperately needs an education in Provenance in relation to blogspots which are NOT peer reviewed
All of the chaos, phase change, combinational complexity, turbulence and everything that you did not think of must find room in the unexplained 10%.
What garbage techo bable is this enviro414, The "unexplained 10%" of what precisely enviro414 ?

Other links posted previously enviro414 are also blogs, NOT peer reviewed.

What makes you think you and your blogspot links have more Science than the vast majority that have university credentials in Physics and have studied Heat Capacity, Statistical Mechanics etc.

Education !
enviro414
1 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2014
"…why that is so…"

In summary: Magnetic field from sunspots shields earth from galactic cosmic rays (GCR) so fewer low altitude clouds form. Fewer low altitude clouds means fewer clouds so lower albedo and warming planet. Also, fewer low altitude clouds means higher average cloud altitude and thus lower average cloud temperature, less radiation from clouds to space and warming planet.

A low but wide solar cycle can be as effective as a high narrow one. The sunspot number time-integral takes both magnitude and duration of solar cycles into account. Thus more sunspot number time-integral means warming and less means cooling. The huge effective thermal capacitance of the oceans greatly slows both heating and cooling.

The GCR/low-altitude-cloud was discovered by Svensmark, corroborated by Marsden & Lingenfelter and again by the CLOUD experiment at CERN.

enviro414
1 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2014
I calculated the sensitivity of AGT to low altitude clouds at http://lowaltitud...pot.com/
Either an increase in average cloud altitude of 186 meters or a decrease of average albedo from 0.3 to the very slightly reduced value of 0.2928 would account for all of the 20th century increase in AGT of 0.74 K. Because the effects add, the required cloud change is even less.
enviro414
1 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2014
As to 'peer review' there is this quote, available in Wikipedia, by Richard Horten, editor of the Lancet "But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

Thus the need for relevant broad scientific skill which allows one to challenge the 'peer review' as possibly being just more BS. Unfortunately, 'peer review' of papers on climate science has morphed into an academic club approving each other's work. My stuff has been 'peer reviewed' by physicists who are not members of the academic club.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2014

The GCR/low-altitude-cloud was discovered by Svensmark, corroborated by Marsden & Lingenfelter and again by the CLOUD experiment at CERN.


And was found to be orders of magnitude less than that necessary to produce cloud seeding particles in the troposphere.
Further studies are to be done to quantify things further.
In short you are grasping at a straw, when all correlation and causation physics is already in place determining GHG's as the cause of AGW.
And no, I'm not going to go around again in ever decreasing circles giving you chapter and verse on CO2 ... It'd be a complete waste of my time.
Everyone sensible on here knows it already and those that are neutral aught to have sense enough to investigate themselves.

Oh, BTW why hasn't this amazing global warming phenomenon happened before. Simply staggering that it comes along to give you a get-out.
Egleton
5 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2014
There are bots trawling the net looking for the words "climate", "Warming", "CO2" etc and the denialist horde descend with their pre-written copy-and-paste propaganda
They are not representative of the general population.
.
The general population is kept amused, engaged and neutered in Church. Some have never even heard of the Climate Catastrophe, such is the power of the propaganda ministry.

. Have you taken the time to tune in to the local radio station recently? That pap is what engages their attention.
.
Still-"iZulu leDuma iQuaniso." Heaven Thunders the Truth.

.Man's propaganda or not.
enviro414
1 / 5 (5) Apr 13, 2014
Sufficient information is provided in the links and sub-links for anyone to verify my findings and disclose the misleading and even false statements of others. For example:

In the Marsden & Lingenfelter study on the relationship between global cosmic ray intensity and low-cloud amount, the authors report that they found "a positive correlation at low altitudes, which is consistent with the positive correlation between global low clouds and cosmic ray rate seen in the infrared." Marsden & Lingenfelter 2003, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 60: 626-636 http://www.co2sci...6/C1.php
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 13, 2014
In the Marsden & Lingenfelter study on the relationship between global cosmic ray intensity and low-cloud amount, the authors report that they found "a positive correlation at low altitudes, which is consistent with the positive correlation between global low clouds and cosmic ray rate seen in the infrared." Marsden & Lingenfelter 2003, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 60: 626-636 http://www.co2sci...6/C1.php

Even should there be any correlation there is yet to be any causation demonstrated my friend -whereas GHG's have been studied for 150 years and their effect on the atmophere is known demonstrated and observed my friend.
Now go check into your paymaster and tell him how many mails you've sent off recently or do you have an app than counts them automatically.
Still waiting to be enlightened as to how this "effect" has not been uncovered in the historical record and led to such unprecedented warming without the necessary causations present in the past.
It hasn't. It isn't
enviro414
1 / 5 (4) Apr 13, 2014
Runrig - You can't explain why average global temperature is 0.3 K lower than the 'consensus', with their GCMs, predicted. That is 40% of the total increase of the 20th century.

I can, and have, identified the two drivers of average global temperature since before 1900 with 95% correlation.

Apparently you lack the science skill to understand the analysis even though it is described in detail and all of the references to data sources are provided.

I am unfunded. I was initially motivated by curiosity and now by a desire to stop the wasting of prosperity with no benefit for humanity.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 13, 2014
Runrig - You can't explain why average global temperature is 0.3 K lower than the 'consensus', with their GCMs, predicted. That is 40% of the total increase of the 20th century.

I can, and have, identified the two drivers of average global temperature since before 1900 with 95% correlation.

Apparently you lack the science skill to understand the analysis even though it is described in detail and all of the references to data sources are provided.

I am unfunded. I was initially motivated by curiosity and now by a desire to stop the wasting of prosperity with no benefit for humanity.


Bullshit.

You've identified --much less proven-- nothing of the sort.

What you've done is cobble together a flood of cut'n'paste pseudoscience which you believe adequately masquerades as ACTUAL science --which it doesn't.

You have, however, succeeded in proving yourself willfully disunderstanding, AKA

A troll.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2014
Runrig - You can't explain why average global temperature is 0.3 K lower than the 'consensus', with their GCMs, predicted. That is 40% of the total increase of the 20th century.

I can, and have, identified the two drivers of average global temperature since before 1900 with 95% correlation.

Apparently you lack the science skill to understand the analysis even though it is described in detail and all of the references to data sources are provided.

I am unfunded. I was initially motivated by curiosity and now by a desire to stop the wasting of prosperity with no benefit for humanity.


Bullshit.

You've identified --much less proven-- nothing of the sort.

What you've done is cobble together a flood of cut'n'paste pseudoscience which you believe adequately masquerades as ACTUAL science --which it doesn't.

You have, however, succeeded in proving yourself willfully disunderstanding, AKA

A troll.

Seconded
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2014
Apparently you lack the science skill to understand the analysis even though it is described in detail and all of the references to data sources are provided.

I am unfunded. I was initially motivated by curiosity and now by a desire to stop the wasting of prosperity with no benefit for humanity.

Oh, I do do I?
And what pray are "your science skills"?

And to anyone with "science skills" it is patently obvious there's no science in it at all - just back of the fag-packet maths made to fit a preconceived theory ... the flaws in which I have pointed out to you several times, stretching back indeed well into last year.

We on here who are staggered by your posts, would very much appreciate you telling us of your "science skills" my friend.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2014
enviro414 muttered
As to 'peer review' there is this quote, available in Wikipedia, by Richard Horten, editor of the Lancet "But we know that the system of peer review is biased.."
How do we "know" ?

You REFUSED to provide the link ?

enviro414
Thus the need for relevant broad scientific skill which allows one to challenge the 'peer review' as possibly being just more BS.
How can broad ever be enough, surely in terms of climate issues you need SPECIFIC skill in understanding:-

http://en.wikiped...capacity
http://en.wikiped...echanics
http://en.wikiped...of_water
Do you enviro414, have formal training in any of the above & in conjunction with Calculus - ie MATHS ?

enviro414 lumberred
.. My stuff has been 'peer reviewed' by physicists who are not members of the academic club.
Top 3 examples ?

Especially so how making claims without comparative references constitutes any sort of acceptance, r they blind ?

BIAS !
enviro414
1 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2014
Nature has been speaking. Some can understand.

None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2014
Nature has been speaking. Some can understand.

None are as blind as those who refuse to see.


That's exactly what I say to you my friend.
Just replace the "some" with "most" however.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2014
Nature has been speaking. Some can understand.

None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
This is true. That it is utterly ironic coming from you is probably lost on you.
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 15, 2014
enviro414 might have gathered a wee bit of education with this tangent
Nature has been speaking. Some can understand.
Nature is well versed at providing Evidence, ie Laboratory experiment such as:-
- Thermal properties of CO2
- Properties of water etc
None are as blind as those who refuse to see.
Indeed !
But, enviro414, do you imagine it can be done without a formal education and without laboratory experience, maybe enviro414 ?

Show us, did you formally study Physics ?

If not (informal), did you follow a discipline - ie Such as Experimental Method, Laboratory experience, Probability & Statistics, Preesearchercision etc ie. All the necessary means to AVOID coming across as ignorant to trained rs ?

Di you notice enviro414, the reason just why the vast majority of Scientists do not necessarily peer review basic Physics papers with claims of fabrications ?

Becauseenviro414, the Physicists who write the papers are trained in the very same Physics as the reviewers !

Get it ?