Slowdown of global warming fleeting

Apr 07, 2014
Earth

The recent slowdown in the warming rate of the Northern Hemisphere may be a result of internal variability of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation—a natural phenomenon related to sea surface temperatures, according to Penn State researchers.

"Some researchers have in the past attributed a portion of Northern Hemispheric warming to a warm phase of the AMO," said Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology. "The true AMO signal, instead, appears likely to have been in a cooling phase in recent decades, offsetting some of the anthropogenic warming temporarily."

According to Mann, the problem with the earlier estimates stems from having defined the AMO as the low frequency component that is left after statistically accounting for the long-term temperature trends, referred to as detrending.

"Initial investigations into the multidecadal climate oscillation in the North Atlantic were hampered by the short length of the instrumental climate record which was only about a century long," said Mann. "And some of the calculations were contaminated by long-term climate trends driven or forced by human factors such as greenhouse gases as well as pollutants known as sulfate aerosols. These trends masqueraded as an apparent oscillation."

Mann and his colleagues took a different approach in defining the AMO, which they report online in a special "Frontier" paper in Geophysical Research Letters. They compared observed temperature variation with a variety of historic model simulations to create a model for internal variability of the AMO that minimizes the influence of external forcing—including greenhouse gases and aerosols. They call this the differenced-AMO because the internal variability comes from the difference between observations and the models' estimates of the forced component of North Atlantic temperature change. They found that their results for the most recent decade fall within expected multidecadal variability.

They also constructed plausible synthetic Northern Hemispheric mean temperature histories against which to test the differenced-AMO approaches. Because the researchers know the true AMO signal for their synthetic data from the beginning, they could demonstrate that the differenced-AMO approach yielded the correct signal. They also tested the detrended-AMO approach and found that it did not come up with the known internal variability.

The detrended approach produced an AMO signal with increased amplitude—both high and low peaks were larger than in the differenced-AMO signal and in the synthetic data. They also found that the peaks and troughs of the oscillation were skewed using the detrending approach, causing the maximums and minimums to occur at different times than in the differenced-AMO results. While the detrended-AMO approach produces a spurious temperature increase in recent decades, the differenced approach instead shows a warm peak in the 1990s and a steady cooling since.

Past researchers have consequently attributed too much of the recent North Atlantic warming to the AMO and too little to the forced hemispheric warming, according to the researchers.

Mann and his team also looked at supposed "stadium waves" suggested by some researchers to explain recent climate trends. The putative climate stadium wave is likened to the waves that go through a sports stadium with whole sections of fans rising and sitting together, propagating a wave around the oval. Random motion of individuals suddenly becomes unified action.

The climate stadium wave supposedly occurs when the AMO and other related climate indicators synchronize, peaking and waning together. Mann and his team show that this apparent synchronicity is likely a statistical artifact of using the problematic detrended-AMO approach.

"We conclude that the AMO played at least a modest role in the apparent slowing of warming during the past decade," said Mann. "As the AMO is an oscillation, this cooling effect is likely fleeting, and when it reverses, the rate of warming increases." Others working on this project were Byron A. Steinman, postdoctoral fellow in meteorology, and Sonya K. Miller, programmer/analyst, meteorology, Penn State.

Explore further: Warm North Atlantic Ocean promotes extreme winters in US and Europe

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

The Atlantic Ocean dances with the sun and volcanoes

Mar 31, 2014

Natural fluctuations in the ocean temperature in the North Atlantic have a significant impact on the climate in the northern hemisphere. These fluctuations are the result of a complex dance between the forces ...

'Stadium waves' could explain lull in global warming

Oct 10, 2013

One of the most controversial issues emerging from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) is the failure of global climate models to predict a hiatus in ...

European fisheries flip with long-term ocean cycle

Apr 17, 2013

A sudden switch from herring to sardines in the English Channel in the 1930s was due to a long-term ocean cycle called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), an international study shows. This is the ...

Recommended for you

NASA radar system surveys Napa Valley quake area

14 hours ago

NASA scientists are conducting an airborne survey of earthquake fault displacements in the Napa Valley area of Northern California using a sophisticated radar system developed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, ...

Aging Africa

Aug 29, 2014

In the September issue of GSA Today, Paul Bierman of the University of Vermont–Burlington and colleagues present a cosmogenic view of erosion, relief generation, and the age of faulting in southernmost Africa ...

NASA animation shows Hurricane Marie winding down

Aug 29, 2014

NOAA's GOES-West satellite keeps a continuous eye on the Eastern Pacific and has been covering Hurricane Marie since birth. NASA's GOES Project uses NOAA data and creates animations and did so to show the end of Hurricane ...

User comments : 195

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

orti
2.3 / 5 (19) Apr 07, 2014
Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology, is this similar to the "detrending" you and others have applied to tree ring data to hide the Medieval Warming for the "An Inconvenient Truth" film (and then "lost" the original un-detrended data)?.
TegiriNenashi
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 07, 2014
Now it's "Stadium wave" that ate my global warming?
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 07, 2014
Michael E. Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology, is this similar to the "detrending" you and others have applied to tree ring data to hide the Medieval Warming for the "An Inconvenient Truth" film (and then "lost" the original un-detrended data)?.


My friend ... never the let the truth get in the way of a "convenient" myth.................

http://www.youtub...2prBtVFo
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (17) Apr 07, 2014
Global cooling is a conundrum for AGWites for if it cools without their 'help', they are redundant and their theories are garbage. Only when the climate follows their dictates, and warms, are they happy.
'Liberalism' is a mental disorder.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (18) Apr 07, 2014
Now it's "Stadium wave" that ate my global warming?
LOL! This is particularly funny, as over on another thread they're still arguing vehemently for, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

Funny also, I haven't heard the, "Africa ate my global warming!" argument lately. I wonder when they'll resurrect that particular gem.

But the truth is, cooling for more than a dozen years!

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

runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) Apr 07, 2014
'Liberalism' is a mental disorder


No more than conservatism, fascism and ........ denialism.
foolspoo
3.4 / 5 (15) Apr 07, 2014
Global cooling is a conundrum for AGWites for if it cools without their 'help', they are redundant and their theories are garbage. Only when the climate follows their dictates, and warms, are they happy.
'Liberalism' is a mental disorder.


you are dumber than dirt. and i will certainly not provide any argument. can't teach a fool nothing new
Modernmystic
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2014
Global cooling is a conundrum for AGWites for if it cools without their 'help', they are redundant and their theories are garbage. Only when the climate follows their dictates, and warms, are they happy.
'Liberalism' is a mental disorder.


you are dumber than dirt. and i will certainly not provide any argument. can't teach a fool nothing new


Capital letters, and the word anything....
ubavontuba
2.1 / 5 (15) Apr 07, 2014
Global cooling is a conundrum for AGWites for if it cools without their 'help', they are redundant and their theories are garbage. Only when the climate follows their dictates, and warms, are they happy.
'Liberalism' is a mental disorder.


you are dumber than dirt. and i will certainly not provide any argument. can't teach a fool nothing new
But you can spare the time to behave like a bully...

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 07, 2014
"In Dictatorship of Virtue, Bernstein writes that "the multiculturalist rhetoric has the rest of us on the run, on the run for fear of being branded…racist" and so on. "In such a way does multiculturalism limit discussion: it makes people feel afraid to say what they think and feel; it presents dubious and cranky interpretations as self-evident, indisputable truths.""
"Whether or not the impulse runs back to the French Revolution, or to the Marxist tropism of left liberalism, the tendency is totalitarian. It is not just dissent that must be stifled, it is "incorrect" thought, for incorrect thought may lead to incorrect speech and incorrect speech may lead to incorrect action. "
"The Progressive faith of the modern American left is devoted to rule by experts,"
http://www.powerl...lism.php
This was motivated by the homosexual zealots who forced a CEO to resign.
But the thesis applies to all totalitarian 'liberals', including AGWites.
nevermark
4.1 / 5 (18) Apr 07, 2014
"Global cooling is a conundrum for AGWites for if it cools without their 'help', they are redundant and their theories are garbage. Only when the climate follows their dictates, and warms, are they happy.
'Liberalism' is a mental disorder."

Nice trolling. I suggest you leave out the gross political generalizations (a giveaway of poor thinking no matter what side of an issue you are on) and stop referencing a non-existent cooling (warming has slowed which is not the same thing), to avoid being so obvious. Troll on!
PsycheOne
2.4 / 5 (17) Apr 07, 2014
It appears more and more to me that the warmists are given more and more to ad hominem arguments, aka name calling. I believe this signifies desperation. It's been 17 years and, from what I read, even the warmists are willing to bet there are more to come.

I don't blame them really for not arguing from fact, those facts being so hard to come by these days.
nevermark
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 07, 2014
"I don't blame them really for not arguing from fact, those facts being so hard to come by these days."

If you can point to some scientific papers on climate change that consist of name calling and arguments based on philosophy or some other humanities instead of reasoning about factual data please post links!

If not, no worries. You have every right to form opinions based on comment thread quality, as apposed to higher quality but perhaps more challenging sources of information.

I also have found many comments on popular science sites to be of low information value, but it doesn't seem to be associated with any one side. Your comment for instance, uses subjective words like "desperation" which is just another subtle form of name calling.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 07, 2014
...and stop referencing a non-existent cooling (warming has slowed which is not the same thing)
Wrong, the globe has been cooling for more than a dozen years.

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

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 07, 2014
It appears more and more to me that the warmists are given more and more to ad hominem arguments, aka name calling. I believe this signifies desperation. It's been 17 years and, from what I read, even the warmists are willing to bet there are more to come.
I agree. 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!

I don't blame them really for not arguing from fact, those facts being so hard to come by these days.
If the warmists 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 warmists 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.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 07, 2014
"I don't blame them really for not arguing from fact, those facts being so hard to come by these days."

If you can point to some scientific papers on climate change that consist of name calling and arguments based on philosophy or some other humanities instead of reasoning about factual data please post links!
They're all over. Here are a couple of recent examples from Phys.org:

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

http://phys.org/n...l#inlRlv

If not, no worries. You have every right to form opinions based on comment thread quality, as apposed to higher quality but perhaps more challenging sources of information.

I also have found many comments on popular science sites to be of low information value, but it doesn't seem to be associated with any one side. Your comment for instance, uses subjective words like "desperation" which is just another subtle form of name calling.
His use of "desperation" was a spot on observation.

JIm Steele Landscapes and Cycles
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 08, 2014
"They also constructed plausible synthetic Northern Hemispheric mean temperature"

That sums up Michael Mann's approach to climate change- constructing synthetic mean temperatures.

As Dr. R.R. Wilson of University of Edinburgh and a dozen tree ring specialist published, "No current tree ring based reconstruction of extratropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures that extends into the 1990s captures the full range of late 20th century warming observed in the instrumental record."

That's why Mann eliminated tree ring data after the 1950s when trees no longer showed a warming that exceeded the 1930s and 40s, and created a "synthetic trend" by using urbanized and homogenized data that hid the effects of natural cycles.

Read http://landscapes...ts-.html
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 08, 2014
ubavontuba is at it again, anyone can play with datasets
http://www.woodfo....1/trend

You are completely disingenuous ubavontuba, you should refer to the notes from the site admins.

http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

Besides the link you posted ubavontuba does not represent "the globe" it only represents a small part of it, ie surface temperatures, not heat content.

Reference:- http://en.wikiped.../HadCRUT

Given:- http://www.woodfo...o2/every

Why are climate change deniers unable to answer or even comment on this basic question:-

How can the addition of a gas such as CO2 with known thermal properties of re-radiation *not* increase heat retention or could reduce it ?

Why is it climate change deniers cannot understand the "Latent of Fusion" of water has a significant impact on heat absorption & cannot connect it to reduction of ocean salinity ?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (15) Apr 08, 2014
@Mike_Massen
You are completely disingenuous ubavontuba, you should refer to the notes from the site admins.
It seems you need to read them, yourself. The owner clearly states the length of a selected trend is a personal choice. Why are you so eager to hide the cooling of the last dozen years in a larger data set? Cherry pick much?

Besides the link you posted ubavontuba does not represent "the globe" it only represents a small part of it, ie surface temperatures, not heat content.
Idiot, the "global heat content" would have to include all sorts of unmeasured, and immeasurable things, like the mantle and the core.

The surface is the part we're talking about when we discuss "global warming," as defined here:

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

http://ahdictiona...+warming

Why are climate change deniers unable to answer or even comment on this basic question:-

How can the addition of a gas such as CO2 with known thermal properties of re-radiation *not* increase heat retention or could reduce it ?
Because it's too diluted and solar irradiation is not uniform.

Sean_W
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 08, 2014
There is no pause, fleeting or otherwise. I've been told by some of the best climate activists that the pause is an artifact of cherry picking by anti-science deniers. So there.
Eddy Courant
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 08, 2014
The War on CO2 is OVER!!! Bring the troops home! Let my plants grow!
Eddy Courant
2.1 / 5 (14) Apr 08, 2014
"These trends masqueraded as an apparent oscillation." ~Michael Mann

Too funny!
Shootist
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 08, 2014
Hey Michael Mann! If Freeman Dyson doesn't understand the drivers of climate, neither do you.

"The polar bears will be fine".
no fate
4 / 5 (16) Apr 08, 2014
People who understand climate science = people who understand energy balance, transfer, production and storage. People who deny climate science...cannot comprehend these things.

When we release stored energy (fossil FUEL)into the environment, it doesn't disappear, a percentage of the heat and chemical by-products are absorbed by the earths systems, and a percentage are lost to space. It is called AGW because the percentage that is absorbed stacks on top of natural variability. If we could measure every square centimeter of surface and every litre of ocean we could tell exactly where the excess heat is stored. The fact that we can't doesn't mean that it is not happening, but it does give ignorants who can't comprehend what is going on a reason to deny that it is.

All other debates aside about the politics of negation, the worst offenders by country or per capita and who is fiscally responsible for curbing emmissions...the physical reality is that our existence has warmed the earth.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 08, 2014
It appears more and more to me that the warmists are given more and more to ad hominem arguments, aka name calling. I believe this signifies desperation. It's been 17 years and, from what I read, even the warmists are willing to bet there are more to come.

I don't blame them really for not arguing from fact, those facts being so hard to come by these days.


It's not desperation, sunshine. it's contempt.
No amount of evidence and explanation of science to you and your like can make the merest dent in the carapace of your ideological denialism.

Oh, and please look up the basic definition of a "system", as in the Climate system.
You will find that the Oceans store >90% of it's heat. So the 10% that comprises the atmosphere ???
Now go Google re Ocean heat trends..
Here I've done it for you...

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

Now go and study what effect a -ve ENSO cycle has on the atmosphere.

There, you see, it's easy if you apply knowledge...
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 08, 2014
When we release stored energy (fossil FUEL)into the environment, it doesn't disappear,

AGWites say nothing about stored heat, only CO2.
If all energy switched to nuclear, that heat would warm the planet. Heat captured by solar panels and mirror would warm the planet.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 08, 2014
...and stop referencing a non-existent cooling (warming has slowed which is not the same thing)
Wrong, the globe has been cooling for more than a dozen years.

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



The atmosphere is not the globe Uba baby, as well you know but you willfully ignore ad nauseum.

Please explain or post up a paper that says that water at 1000x the mass of the atmosphere and 4x the SH capacity manages to come second to atmospheric heat content. Pray?

And please provide a paper that shows it's cooling in bulk.
There ain't one. But of course that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, as "scientists" would have written that paper ... and 97% are corrupt/in on a global conspiracy to rob you of your "tax dollars. Diddums.
You do, of course, appreciate that I do not reply to your reply, as I wish to retain my sanity. If you do, I'll leave it to others to do that.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 08, 2014
Hey Michael Mann! If Freeman Dyson doesn't understand the drivers of climate, neither do you.

"The polar bears will be fine".


Do you have some sort of mental disease??

Seriously - cant you post on here without mentioning the vacuum cleaner man or Polar Bears.
A serious question, and maybe important to medical science.
It adds not a jot of validation to the denialist argument you realise?
No, obviously not.
It's the disease you see.
no fate
4.3 / 5 (16) Apr 08, 2014
When we release stored energy (fossil FUEL)into the environment, it doesn't disappear,

AGWites say nothing about stored heat, only CO2.
If all energy switched to nuclear, that heat would warm the planet. Heat captured by solar panels and mirror would warm the planet.


CO2 is by volume, the largest heat trapping gas our activities release, seems like a good place to start if the goal is negating as much as possible our influence on the climate. What you said above is true, no matter how we manipulate energy production we will still warm the planet. Why amplify it with emissions which trap the heat we generate along with more of the suns energy if we do not HAVE TO?
savroD
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 08, 2014
The AGW deniers are driven by ideology, not science. Some of them are just paid posters used by the nutty Koch gang. Ask any of them if smoking causes lung cancers and you'll grasp how foolish and unscientific most of them are.
Modernmystic
4 / 5 (16) Apr 08, 2014
When we release stored energy (fossil FUEL)into the environment, it doesn't disappear,

AGWites say nothing about stored heat, only CO2.
If all energy switched to nuclear, that heat would warm the planet. Heat captured by solar panels and mirror would warm the planet.


Why Ryg...you've just admitted you believe in AGW :)
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 08, 2014
Where does all the volcano heat go?
Out the IR windows.
There are very broad IR windows that allow heat to radiate into space.
Heat from burning any fuel or nuclear heat won't be trapped, it radiates into space.
Modernmystic
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 08, 2014
Where does all the volcano heat go?
Out the IR windows.
There are very broad IR windows that allow heat to radiate into space.
Heat from burning any fuel or nuclear heat won't be trapped, it radiates into space.


Whether or not it gets radiated into space is irrelevant to this point. You've just admitted that man made activity warms the planet. That's one step away from admitting there is a problem.

Welcome Ryg...*claps hands*
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 08, 2014
ryggesogn2 yet Again shows naivety in Physics with this utterance
Where does all the volcano heat go?
All, r u serious ?
Some goes to atmosphere, some to space, some absorbed by oceans,
seen any peaks in the thermal gradients ? or r u wasting time again ?
ryggesogn2 also muttered
Out the IR windows.
You have mentioned this before yet NO references, are these devoid of the resistivity of CO2 - do you know what "resistivity" means ryggesogn2 ?
ryggesogn2 claimed
There are very broad IR windows that allow heat to radiate into space.
You claim to be a Scientist so Name them, what was that university you got a degree in Physics from ?
ryggesogn2
Heat from burning any fuel or nuclear heat won't be trapped, it radiates into space.
Why ?
Is "nuclear" somehow special, it doesn't go into ocean, air or land but bypasses all those resistive issues & jumps up magically "into space" ?

LOL @ ryggesogn2 ?

What does your university Physics degree you claim tell you ?

Education !
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (11) Apr 08, 2014
savroD claimed & rather stupidly (is he/she/it a sock puppet)
The AGW deniers are driven by ideology, not science.
So U have a University education in;-

- Physics
- Probability & Statistics
- Chemistry

Why are you savroD, not aware of;-

- Rising CO2 levels ?
- Known properties (& demonstrably so) of CO2 re-radiation ?
- Properties of water - Eg "Latent Heat of Fusion"

Is experimental & demonstrated physics accepted by all Scientists an "ideology",

Where did you savroD, get a high school education in Science ?

Do you use *any* of the products developed from Science ?

Eg.
- Medicine
- Communications
- Food health
- Transport

Do you ignore savroD, the benefits all Science has offered or R U focused on propaganda, when
its clear the foundation for climate systems is Physics ?

Got an education yet ? University level, so you can understand Physics, Combinatorial Complexity,
the ability to connect complex topics through mathematics ?

Who are you savroD ???
savroD
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2014
Mike_Massen... WTF?
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Apr 08, 2014
Mike_Massen... WTF?


Mike, I think you got your deniers and "warmists" mixed up.
Tim Thompson
4.2 / 5 (15) Apr 09, 2014
uba:
If the warmists 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
4.3 / 5 (16) Apr 09, 2014
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.
Tim Thompson
4.3 / 5 (16) Apr 09, 2014
uba:
Idiot, the "global heat content" would have to include all sorts of unmeasured, and immeasurable things, like the mantle and the core.

Not really. The average geothermal heat flux is 65 milliwatts/meter^2 (mW/m^2) through continental crust, and 101 mW/m^2 through thinner ocean crust. The sun deposits a time-variable roughly 1.4 kilowatts/meter^2 (kW/m^2) at the top of the atmosphere, which is 14,000 times the ocean crust flux and 21,500 times the continental crust flux. Non-solar energy sources can be ignored in practice.
The surface is the part we're talking about when we discuss "global warming,

That's usual in public discussions, but it's a mistake. If you don't understand the partition of energy in the global climate system, then you don't understand global warming.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2014
savroD corrected me
Mike_Massen... WTF?
Ooops sorry mate, misread the comment and got heated, many apologies.. :-(

My only defense is too much red wine whilst too many windows open (sigh), such a breeze of stimulus has me all a twaddle !

My post should of course have applied to AGW deniers fully & completely...

Apologies savroD :-)

edit:
Oh and I must add a great informative factual post by Tim Thompson :-)

Which raises the question, how do AGW deniers deal with Physics & relational Facts, do they ignore conclusions - well yes, do they divert to propaganda - well yes as ryggesogn2 has only too well shown & do deniers also LIE, well ryggesogn2 should know, he lied about a university Physics degree and refuses to be even a little bit christian, he asked me - I responded. I ask him, he ignores, sad but true, onesided AND biased ryggesogn2 - and it seems ubavontuba as well :-(
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (13) 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 !
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 09, 2014
@ubavontuba,
Please avail yourself of excellent postings here:-

http://www.phys.o...bal.html
savroD
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 09, 2014
Mike_Massen..... You don't have to apologize, I know the paid trolls and other can be frustrating. It's an old game where those foisting this nonsense on others believe if you lie perpetually you'll eventually convince people generally, including those who do not want to think through problems to begin because they would actually have to use their brain. As the character Mathew Harrison Brady from Inherit the Wind says, "I don't think about what I don't think about". Which for the case of the AGW deniers is just about everything!
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
...and stop referencing a non-existent cooling (warming has slowed which is not the same thing)
Wrong, the globe has been cooling for more than a dozen years.

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



Whack-a-mole!
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2014
Whether or not it gets radiated into space is irrelevant to this point.

Where the heat goes and how it goes is the entire point of the exercise.
The ONLY way heat can escape the earth is by radiation, and there are very large IR transmitting windows from 8-12 um.
Modernmystic
4.6 / 5 (13) Apr 10, 2014
Whether or not it gets radiated into space is irrelevant to this point.

Where the heat goes and how it goes is the entire point of the exercise.
The ONLY way heat can escape the earth is by radiation, and there are very large IR transmitting windows from 8-12 um.


No, sorry it isn't. That's only HALF the story. The first half of the story is DOES mankind INDEED add heat to the planet. You said we do, and you're right. The other half of the question is "Is the planet able to deal with this EXTRA heat being applied to the system"....period. FYI CO2 absorbs IR radiation most effectively in the 15 micrometer wavelength, which is just outside that "big window" you mentioned....just so you know :)
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2014
The first half of the story is DOES mankind INDEED add heat to the planet.

How much compared to the sun and internal heating?
And this has nothing to do with CO2.
And of course the planet 'deals' with the heat.
How much energy is in the 14.9-15.1um band compared to the energy in the 8-12 um band at 300K?
28 times LESS.
At 320K, it is 32 times LESS.
As temperature rises, MORE (non-linear) radiates into space.
Comparatively very little.
Modernmystic
4.9 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014

How much energy is in the 14.9-15.1um band compared to the energy in the 8-12 um band at 300K?
28 times LESS.
At 320K, it is 32 times LESS.


If only for your argument the Earth behaved like a perfect black body....
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (14) Apr 10, 2014
The other half of the question is "Is the planet able to deal with this EXTRA heat being applied to the system"....period

What do you mean 'deal with this'? Of course the planet can deal with this. Will it be in a position to support human life (at close to present capacity...or at all) after it has reached the new equilibrium is the question. And more to the point: how much do we want to leave it to chance that the new equilibrium will be in the desired range?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2014

How much energy is in the 14.9-15.1um band compared to the energy in the 8-12 um band at 300K?
28 times LESS.
At 320K, it is 32 times LESS.


If only for your argument the Earth behaved like a perfect black body....

It's modeled as a grey body so the ratios are the same.

And more to the point: how much do we want to leave it to chance that the new equilibrium will be in the desired range?


What is the 'desired range' and what are all the inputs to keep it in that 'desired range'?
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (9) Apr 10, 2014
Emissivity of common materials:
Note snow is .8 from 8-14 um.
http://www.icess....am01.gif

http://www.infrar...al-1.htm
Mike_Massen
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2014
@ryggesogn2,
YOU are the one who CLAIMS to have a University degree in Physics, so obviously instead of just spouting off various disparate data - WHAT is your hypothesis ?

You did do University Physics as you CLAIM - didn't you ?

So ryggesogn2, have the intellectual mettle to show just why ADDING a greenhouse gas (CO2) should *not* increase thermal resistivity ?

Can u do that PLEASE ?

Its a VERY simple question ryggesogn2, can u go even a LITTLE way to answering it ?

You ask me for my credentials - and I affirm them, along with student number at my University so you CAN check - ok ?

Yet YOU ryggesogn2, refuse to reciprocate !

Why are you going to so much trouble to show so r so biased, a liar and/or unable or unwilling to think independently ?

Answer please ryggesogn2 ?

Hypothesis please ryggesogn2 ?

How can ADDITION (ie MATHS) of a GHG so SUBTRACT heat retention PRAY tell !

Still waiting & after some weeks, still counting ?

Who r u ryggesogn2 ?

Why SO quiet ryggesogn2 ?
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (14) Apr 10, 2014
Mod:
DOES mankind INDEED add heat to the planet.

ryg:
How much compared to the sun and internal heating? And this has nothing to do with CO2.

The average geothermal heat flux is 65 milliwatts/meter^2 (mW/m^2) through continental crust, and 101 mW/m^2 through thinner ocean crust. The sun deposits a time-variable roughly 1.4 kilowatts/meter^2 (kW/m^2) at the top of the atmosphere. The equivalent forcing for CO2 is about 1.5 W/m^2, and for CH4 + NO2 + other is another 1 W/m^2, so about 2.5 W/m^2 gross anthropogenic forcing. But the mean energy input of the sun is constant, averaged over a solar cycle, with a peak-to-peak variability of about 1 W/m^2. Geothermal forcing is obviously negligible, and the long-term solar forcing shows no evidence of variability apart from the peak-to-peak solar cycle. But forcing due to CO2 is on a steady increase, the only known possible source for long-term warming. So your CO2 comment is obviously wrong.
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 10, 2014
ryg:
And of course the planet 'deals' with the heat. As temperature rises, MORE (non-linear) radiates into space.

True, but that does not stop the temperature from rising. CO2 is much mode efficient than O2 or N2 at absorbing infrared energy. In the highly collisional troposphere there is only about 1 nanosecond between collisions, so the CO2 at a ratio of about 10,000:1 will lose the absorbed energy as kinetic energy in a collision rather than as radiated energy. That kinetic energy transferred to other molecules is now measured by thermometers as a rise in global average temperature. The existence of the transmittance bands does not prevent thermal equilibrium at a higher temperature.
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 10, 2014
Me:
The sun deposits a time-variable roughly 1.4 kilowatts/meter^2 (kW/m^2) at the top of the atmosphere

I should correct myself & clarify. That's the power that falls on a flat surface, perpendicular to the solar radiation, above Earth's atmosphere; that's what hits the top of the atmosphere when the sun is straight up. However, averaged over the entire curved surface of the Earth, the solar radiance that falls on Earth's surface is reduced by about a factor of 4 to 350 W/m^2 (strictly the geometry of a curved surface, ignoring small amounts that will be absorbed by the atmosphere or reflected back into space). That's 350 W/m^2 when averaged over the entire daylight half of Earth.
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 10, 2014
MM:
@ryggesogn2, … YOU are the one who CLAIMS to have a University degree in Physics, …

Really? What degree? When and from what school did you earn the degree?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2014
CO2 is much mode efficient than O2 or N2 at absorbing infrared energy.

In a very narrow band, 15 um, and the the quantity of CO2 is orders of magnitude less than O2 and N2.
If CO2 was such a great heat 'trapper' then one should be able to measure all this extra heat being trapped over deserts.
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 11, 2014
In a very narrow band, 15 um,

I have no idea why you think that is relevant.
and the the quantity of CO2 is orders of magnitude less than O2 and N2

So what? O2 & N2 cannot absorb at all in the near IR because they only have symmetric stretching mode vibrations. Only CO2 & H2O & N2O & CH4 & other greenhouse gases can absorb in the near IR. CO2 adds heat energy to the atmosphere with orders of magnitude more efficiency than N2 & O2, easily compensating for relatively low abundance.
If CO2 was such a great heat 'trapper' then one should be able to measure all this extra heat being trapped over deserts.

We can. See the animations on the GISS surface temperature website. While it is common to talk about the global average temperature, it is much more informative to see how warming & cooling are globally distributed.
http://data.giss....mations/
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2014
The first half of the story is DOES mankind INDEED add heat to the planet.

How much compared to the sun and internal heating?

You're asking the wrong question here. The Earth is a system in a balance. Analogy time: Think of heat as water. Heat trappen on Earth is a fat barrel brimming with water. There's stream coming in (heat from the sun, heat from radioactive decay in its interior) and there's a stream going out (radiation off into space).
As long as those two are in balance the barrel will not overflow (which would be the climate catastrophe).

But humans are adding another input that does not get compensated equally by more outflow (the 'more' is not all radiated away. And some of the 'in' stream also gets trapped for a long time in CO2).

Does it matter how big that extra input is in relation to the stream coming from the sun when it comes to the all important question: Will it overflow?

No it does not.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2014
The Earth is a system in a balance.

No. It's in equilibrium.
Balance implies a 'tipping point', which the AGWites use to promote fear.
As one factor changes, other factors adjust to an equilibrium, which may or may not be the same as before.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2014
I have no idea why you think that is relevant.

CO2 can only absorb photons in very narrow optical bands. 15 um is the only one that is of interest. 4.2 um is another and most of the energy in that band is from the sun.
Only CO2 & H2O & N2O & CH4 & other greenhouse gases can absorb in the near IR.

Only in specific bands.
H2O is a broad band absorber because of its unique molecular structure.
Near IR is .7 to1 um, LWIR is 7-14 um, MWIR is 2-6 um.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 11, 2014
As one factor changes, other factors adjust to an equilibrium, which may or may not be the same as before.

Equilibrium and balance are synonyms.
If you're having a net input that wasn't there before then the system will be pushed until it EITHER:
a) finds a new equilibrium (a bigger barrel that drives a bigger output stream).
b) goes into a runaway reaction for a while (e.g. what happened on Venus)

Neither of these are someone we can afford to take a chance on. That buffer systems (like icecaps melting) occasionally make it look like nothing much is changing in terms of absolute temperatures would only assure a complete fool that everything is OK.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2014
ryggesogn2 you blurt out disparate items now & then without any connection, so
ryggesogn2 spit out YOUR hypothesis & please save us all time and aggravation with you !

How does ADDING a GHG to the atmosphere not change resistivity in respect of heat flow ?

How does YOUR hypothesis deal with molecular collisions whilst CO2 re-radiation is occurring ?

Can you ryggesogn2, possibly frame a sentence of hypothesis/claim & support it with a comparative assessment in relation to CO2 in conjunction with the other atmospheric gasses ?

Should be SIMPLE for someone who has previously claimed they graduated from University with a degree in Physics ?

Which University ryggesogn2 ?

What was your student number & years of study ryggesogn2 ?

YOU asked me ryggesogn2 & I responded, you have enough information to check, here you go:-
http://niche.iine...physorg/

Where is YOUR data ryggesogn2 ?

Where is YOUR Physics ryggesogn2 ?

Hypothesis ryggesogn2 ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2014
a runaway reaction

Does not last forever and will reach an equilibrium.

Neither of these are someone we can afford to take a chance on

So you know the climate system well enough to know what causes ice ages and anything you do won't be bad?
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2014
No. It's in equilibrium. Balance implies a 'tipping point', which the AGWites use to promote fear.

Some probably do, but you still don't seem to understand what the word "equilibrium" actually means. Put a ball in a valley and it is in *stable* equilibrium; move it, and it rolls back to where it was. Put a ball on a hill and it is in *unstable* equilibrium; move it and it rolls away, not back to where it was. Complex systems like the climate system are typically in a local equilibrium; move it a little bit and it will come back to where it was, but move it far enough, and it will roll away. The ball in a valley is an example; move it a little, inside the valley, and it rolls back. But the rim of the valley is a tipping point. Move the ball almost that far and it rolls back, but move it a hair beyond the tipping point and it rolls away. Earth's climate system certainly has several tipping points, its just that no one is quite sure where they are.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2014
ryg:
CO2 can only absorb photons in very narrow optical bands.

So what?
Me:
Only CO2 & H2O & N2O & CH4 & other greenhouse gases can absorb in the near IR

ryg:
Only in specific bands

So? What's your point? It's still a fact that N2 & O2 (99% of the atmosphere) do not absorb in the near IR at all, so CO2 still beats them easily. The fact that CO2 is only about 0.04% of the atmosphere is why global warming is not a lot warmer than it is.

It certainly looks to me like you are just babbling. What's your point? Why not just say it, directly?
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2014
H2O is a broad band absorber because of its unique molecular structure.

This is not news, we all know that already. And we all know (or should know) that a bit more than half of the warming seen in global warming is caused by water. But as I have explained before in gory detail, water cannot trigger global warming because it is too close to saturation in Earth's atmosphere. Only a gas like CO2 (or CH4 or N2O & etc.) can trigger the warming that allows for the higher absolute humidity, by changing the atmospheric temperature structure in a way that water cannot.

So what's your point?
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2014
You didn't answer my question:
Me:
MM:
@ryggesogn2, … YOU are the one who CLAIMS to have a University degree in Physics, …

Really? What degree? When and from what school did you earn the degree?

thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2014
The Earth is a system in a balance.

No. It's in equilibrium.
Balance implies a 'tipping point', which the AGWites use to promote fear.
As one factor changes, other factors adjust to an equilibrium, which may or may not be the same as before.


Rygg2: Let's try some definitions.

From Wikipedia for equilibrium: "the condition of a system in which all competing influences are balanced."

In mechanics that means that all forces are balanced and there is no motion. In chemistry it means the chemical potentials are not changing. In fluid dynamics it means there is no motion.

Clearly, the Earth is not in equilibrium.

Steady state is: "In systems theory, a system in a steady state has numerous properties that are unchanging in time." From Wikipedia.

In heat transfer this means that heat flow does not change with time. In fluid dynamics the flows do not change with time.

Clearly, the Earth is not in steady state.

Continued
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 11, 2014
Continued for Rygg2: These definitions are taught in the first year of engineering or physics.

The earth is a dynamic system because things are constantly changing. It is also a massive system so things change slowly. The Earth system can be thought of in terms of slow dynamics. It cannot be addressed as either equilibrium or steady state. It should be considered dynamic. Both equilibrium and steady state have specific scientific definitions and those definitions should be understood for the sake of those who might not have a scientific background. They are confused by many.
Shamuss
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 11, 2014
rygges, bro, this is just getting embarrassing for you. your data is shit, your arguements are being destroyed, your academic credentials are non-existant. time to move on to a new site? maybe a Fox news site? you've been thoroughly outmatched.. but I suppose science deniers always are..
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (15) Apr 11, 2014
rygges, bro, this is just getting embarrassing for you. your data is shit, your arguements are being destroyed, your academic credentials are non-existant. time to move on to a new site? maybe a Fox news site? you've been thoroughly outmatched.. but I suppose science deniers always are..


You're spot on about ryygy except Fox is too far to the left in his world view.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 12, 2014
@thermodynamics,

Earth's climate is very obviously a dynamical system that has been clearly orbiting -- subject to a variety of relatively small/transient/slow perturbative forcings -- a stable limit cycle for the last ~million years at least (i.e. the ice age cycle.) A dynamical system orbiting an attractor is indeed in a type of dynamical equilibrium -- even if its instantaneous state is continually evolving. But the current attractor is clearly not the only one in the climate's parameter space, as evidenced by widely divergent past climate states. As Tim Thompson alluded above, a sufficiently large perturbation at the right time will kick Earth's climate out of its potential well, if you will, and what happens next is either a quick transition to an orbit around a different local attractor, or a long meandering chaotic trajectory until the system loses or gains enough energy to be captured by some attractor. [ctd.]
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 12, 2014
[ctd.]
The above having been said, from what I've seen so far it does not seem likely that we can really break the Earth out of its current climate cycle in a catastrophic manner. The thermal inertia is just too great (it would take thousands of years for the oceans just to warm up by a degree or two, and by then the anthropogenic CO2 would have largely fallen back out of the atmosphere.)

However, even if we can't cause a climate catastrophe (unless we really try extra-hard ;)), we can still kick the climate into a different orbit around the current local attractor. That is, even if we can't dislocate the climate altogether, we very much can disturb it, and quite rapidly/abruptly in geological terms -- enough to both trigger mass extinctions and economic/societal dislocations (which frequently lead to wars...), and generally make life for future generations rather uncomfortable.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 12, 2014
@Tim Thompson,
Apropos:
Only a gas like CO2 (or CH4 or N2O & etc.) can trigger the warming that allows for the higher absolute humidity, by changing the atmospheric temperature structure in a way that water cannot.
While CO2 and CH4 absorb over many of the same wavelengths as H2O, and H2O is the dominant GHG both in terms of absorption efficiency and by atmospheric fraction when evaluating the atmospheric column as a whole:

http://en.wikiped...um_2.gif

Yet H2O drops with altitude (plummeting to ~4 ppm past tropopause), while CH4 and CO2 do not (much.) The upper atmosphere is where a lot of the Earth's heat is either radiated up to space or back down toward the surface. This drastically raises CO2's profile as a GHG despite what its overall mixing ratio or radiative properties alone might suggest.

This and more has been explained to rygg, uba, etc. countless times; they are either idiots, trolls, or paid not to learn.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 12, 2014
@Tim Thompson,
Apropos:
Only a gas like CO2 (or CH4 or N2O & etc.) can trigger the warming that allows for the higher absolute humidity, by changing the atmospheric temperature structure in a way that water cannot.
While CO2 and CH4 absorb over many of the same wavelengths as H2O, and H2O is the dominant GHG both in terms of absorption efficiency and by atmospheric fraction when evaluating the atmospheric column as a whole:

...

Yet H2O drops with altitude (plummeting to ~4 ppm past tropopause), while CH4 and CO2 do not (much.) The upper atmosphere is where a lot of the Earth's heat is either radiated up to space or back down toward the surface. This drastically raises CO2's profile as a GHG despite what its overall mixing ratio or radiative properties alone might suggest.

This and more has been explained to rygg, uba, etc. countless times; they are either idiots, trolls, or paid not to learn.

Excellent post Pink
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 12, 2014
While CO2 and CH4 absorb over many of the same wavelengths as H2O

No, they do not.
http://www.raythe...hart.pdf

It't interesting that when I ask questions AGWites don't want to answer, they question my credentials instead of addressing the question.
That's the AGW MO, if a physicist challenges AGW hype, he has no standing because he is not a 'climate scientist'. When real climate scientists challenge the hpye, their motives are attacked.
This is the Saul Alisky Rules for Radicals tactics, not science.
The IR wall chart shows clearly the vertical IR transmission through the atmosphere from ~8-13 um at 80%.
Peak radiation of a blackbody at 300K is ~10 um. the peak increases as temperature decreases. The 15 um band for CO2 is 1)narrow, and 2) has less energy in that band at 300K than at 10 um that radiates into space.
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (13) Apr 12, 2014
Pink:
While CO2 and CH4 absorb over many of the same wavelengths as H2O

ryg:
No, they do not.

Not according to the chart you posted, which shows H2O & CO2 absorbing over the same wavebands (see extended spectrum at the bottom of the chart). In the wavelength range where Earth's IR emission is strongest, (5 to 15 microns), H2O & CO2 do not absorb at exactly the same wavelengths; CO2 about 6.5 microns, H2O about 15-16 microns & CH4 about 13 microns. There is overlap between H2O & CO2 at longer wavelengths.

Here is a link from the University of Arizona people can play around with that plots the absorption spectra of various greenhouse gases (divide wavenumber by 100 to get microns of wavelength):
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

But it is important to note that this is mostly irrelevant to the real point: O2 & N2, over 99% of Earth's atmosphere, do not absorb in these wavebands at all.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2014
It may be fleeting, it may be oscillating, it may be accelerating, the thing about the future is that you can't see it.

https://www.youtu...AnECkaME
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 12, 2014
ryg:
It's interesting that when I ask questions AGWites don't want to answer, they question my credentials instead of addressing the question.

Well, I did answer your questions, so don't try that trick on me. We all know that the key test of any argument is content not credentials, but credentials are nevertheless relevant. It's not your credentials that I am asking about, it's your alleged claim to have credentials in the first place. Did you make such a claim or not? If you did, why are you afraid to say so? I have an M.S. degree in physics (CSULA, 1985) and a 28 year career that included research in the physics & chemistry of planetary atmospheres, though not specifically climate (Caltech/JPL). I think credentials mean I can expect to be taken seriously and my claims investigated for validity without prejudice. But I expect to advance on the strength of the content of my arguments, not by virtue of my credentials.
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 12, 2014
This is a chapter on greenhouse gas absorption from the University of Chicago (it's a PDF document). Pay special attention to the last page (figure 4.8) where we see how CO2 absorption depends on relative abundance. This is directly related to the general claim that the relative abundance of CO2 is too low to matter compared to H2O. This figure directly refutes that claim.

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf" title="http://http://forecast.uchicago.edu/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://forecast.u...ases.pdf

Here is the parent page, dedicated to the book "Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast" by David Archer (Prof. of Geosciences, University of Chicago). There are additional links thereon to video lectures & more.

http://forecast.uchicago.edu/

http://geosci.uch...d-archer
Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2014
Evidently some process prevents phys.org from linking directly to the PDF document, although I did it with no problem. I guess you have to copy & paste the link.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 12, 2014
It's interesting that when I ask questions AGWites don't want to answer, they question my credentials instead of addressing the question.


That's your interpretation ryggy ... mine is that I and others on here have answered ad nauseum questions posed by you and other deniers, giving (creditable - not blogged) links where at all possible.
And what happens ... it (the question/false assertion) just comes bouncing back parrot-fashion. There gets to a point where I certainly am just so p**ssed of with this attitude that the resultant short-tempered reply is inevitably forthcoming.
It is so hard to avoid the conclusion a) that you do not wish to know the answer. b) you're too stupid to assimulate the answer. c) There's a denialist trolling agenda at play.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 12, 2014
Tim works for the govt. What a surprise.
divide wavenumber by 100 to get microns of wavelength):

No, that is not the correct conversion
To convert 1000/cm to um: divide the wave number into 10,000.
10,000/1000/cm = 10 um
If you want a more detail atmospheric transmission, I consult the IR Handbook.
This is a decent chart:
http://commons.wi...e.IR.jpg
It shows the IR window from 8-14 microns.
If you go back to the IR Wall chart, you will see the Planck BB curve at various temperatures: Spectral Radiant Emittance. Note the plot is log-log and compare the energy under the curve at the 15 um peak of CO2 with the energy from 8-14 at 300K.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 12, 2014
Here is another nice plot showing the major absorption gases:
"The graph indicates atmospheric transmission as a function of wavelength in the UV, visible and IR bands. Among the molecular absorbers displayed, water is the dominant one."
http://www.photon...ID=25132
CO2 has a small notch at 9,5, 12.5 um and large band ~15 um.
H2O has broadband attenuates across the 8-14 window. I know because LWIR missiles have much longer range over desserts than over the tropics.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 12, 2014
ryggy baby:
"Measurements of the downward radiative flux have been made for several
important greenhouse gases. At mid-latitudes in summer as compared to winter, our
measurements show that the downward surface flux from H2O has doubled to 200
W/m2. The water increase causes a reduction of the fluxes from the other greenhouse
gases. These measurements show that the greenhouse effect from trace gases in the
atmosphere is real and adds significantly to the radiative burden of the atmosphere. The
greenhouse radiation has increased by approximately 3.52 W/m2 since pre-industrial
times. This compares favorably with a modeled prediction of 2.55 W/m2. Measurements such
as these can provide a means by which to verify the predictions made by global warming
models.
https://ams.confe...0737.htm

Pull the other one it's got bells on it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Apr 12, 2014
What is 'downward radiative flux' and what is the spectrum measured?

Also, precise infrared radiometry in a controlled lab environment is quite difficult. In the real world, the errors are even greater and you think 1 W/m2 is significant?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 12, 2014
"The uncertainty for radiance measurements using the TXR is of the order of 0.2 % or better. "
http://www.nist.g..._txr.cfm
"Calibration Accuracy:
+/- 0.2 C to NIST Standard "
http://www.infrar...563.html
"Figure 4 shows nighttime longwave downward irradiance
measured with eight original PIRs during eight consecutive
days of the comparison. Three sets of calibration factors were
used, and the calculations were performed with the Albrecht et
al. formula. With USER8 calibration factors the differences
between individual measurements can be above 13 W m
2
, and
an average of 11.1 W m
2
has been determined. "
http://www.patarn...Meas.pdf
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 12, 2014
What is 'downward radiative flux' and what is the spectrum measured?

Also, precise infrared radiometry in a controlled lab environment is quite difficult. In the real world, the errors are even greater and you think 1 W/m2 is significant?


Read the paper and all available on spectroscopic analysis of downward radiative flux.
There's plenty out there and it's highly illuminating/instructive of what's happening.
AGW due anthro GHG's my frined - so all your bizarre chuntering about the absorption windows of CO2 re other atmospheric gases, is well, bollocks, as the worlds experts have measured, observed and verified whats happening with them in the earth's atmosphere - and you, my friend, are a denialist idiot/troll.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 12, 2014
Facts are facts. The flatearthers will always deny them, mis-conscrew them, our shape the arguments into their favor, and at the same time insult the intelligence of all of the experts along the way. I loved the headline of the article;
Slowdown of global warming fleeting

Anyone that knows how to even look at a trendline could see there was never a slowdown when averaged over sliding 10 year scale. Nothing is pretty about AGW long term, and the flatearthers will always be loud and ignorant.

Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 12, 2014
Me:
(divide wavenumber by 100 to get microns of wavelength)

ryg:
Tim works for the govt. What a surprise. No, that is not the correct conversion. To convert 1000/cm to um: divide the wave number into 10,000. 10,000/1000/cm = 10 um

Yes, I got that one wrong, receiving yet another childish insult in return. I was not paying attention (1000 wavenumbers = 10 microns which is in fact dividing by 10, but only for that number). Dividing into 10,000 will indeed get microns. Wavenumbers are just inverse centimeters, so 3500 wavenumbers = 1/3500 centimeters = 0.000285 centimeters = 2.85 microns.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 12, 2014
One won't measure any 'down welling' from the IR window into space.

Maybe that's why CLARREO and TRUTHS were needed to measure the radiation FROM the earth, accurately.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 13, 2014
Tim Thompson noticed
when I said
@ryggesogn2, … YOU are the one who CLAIMS to have a University degree in Physics, …
Really? What degree? When and from what school did you earn the degree?
In this thread:-
http://phys.org/n...for.html on 12 Feb 2014

ryggesogn2 claimed:-
I have a physics degree and never heard of "Ekman physics".
I had classical theoretical physics, modern theoretical physics, nuclear physics, solid state physics, optics, electromagnetics, but not Ekman physics.
Since then ryggesogn2 has asked my credentials which is sheer hypocrisy since in other posts he claims not to be concerned yet when I respond dutifully & ask his - he ignores - is he therefore ignorant ;-)

So ryggesogn2, be fair or be labelled a liar ryggesogn2, which university, when, your student No. ?

Here are my details http://niche.iine...physorg/

Where are yours ryggesogn2 ?
Maybe he confused community college with university !
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 13, 2014
ryggesogn2 claims
One won't measure any 'down welling' from the IR window into space.
'One' who is this 'one'. Besides ever head of differential flows - Physics, ryggesogn2, integration ryggesogn2 comparison with KNOWN properties of gasses ryggesogn2 !

ryggesogn2 you still have NOT answered - why is that ryggesogn2 ?

"How is ADDING a known greenhouse gas such as CO2 with KNOWN thermal properties to the atmosphere NOT going to increase heat flow resistivity ?"

Basic physics ryggesogn2, why NOT answer, why ignore that question ?

You CLAIM a university degree in Physics yet have ignored that simple paradigm.

Have you been caught out again, know what 'resistivity' means in that context ryggesogn2 ?
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 13, 2014
This is from ryggesogn2, who claims a university physics degree
What is 'downward radiative flux' and what is the spectrum measured?
Obviously ryggesogn2, you don't have your claimed Physics degree to call on AND can't seem to use search engines.

Why are U ryggesogn2, going to some trouble to show us you are ignorant, unable to use Google Scholar and still a Liar !
Caliban
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 13, 2014
Now it's "Stadium wave" that ate my global warming?


LOL! This is particularly funny, as over on another thread they're still arguing vehemently for, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt


LOL!!!!!

What is particularly funny, ubybooby, is that you are too willfully disinformed to understand that there is no functional difference between the claim above and the content of this article.

Here's THE LEAD PARAGRAPH OF THIS ARTICLE:

"The recent slowdown in the warming rate of the Northern Hemisphere may be a result of internal variability of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation—a natural phenomenon related to sea surface temperatures, according to Penn State researchers."

IOW --the ocean did, indeed, eat (most of)your global cooling.

Moron.

Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2014
MM:
In this thread:-
http://phys.org/n...for.html
ryggesogn2 claimed:-
I have a physics degree and never heard of "Ekman physics".
I had classical theoretical physics, modern theoretical physics, nuclear physics, solid state physics, optics, electromagnetics, but not Ekman physics.

His response is as careless as my error in converting wavenumbers. It is very unlikely that anyone with a common BA or BS in physics would have studied atmospheric physics at all, so would never encounter "Ekman physics" (it should properly be called "Ekman transport") in the program. But all he had to do was search the web for "Ekman physics" and he would have immediately recovered the Ekman layer and Ekman transport, which anyone with a degree in physics should immediately comprehend. His response was both arrogant & incompetent.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2014
ryg:
One won't measure any 'down welling' from the IR window into space.

Aside from being poorly constructed English, this is ridiculous; nobody with a degree in physics should be this incompetent. There will be downwelling thermal emission at every measurable wavelength, always, including the "IR window". This is because no atmosphere emits thermal radiation with directional preference. If you look up, you are looking at an atmosphere with a non-zero temperature, and that atmosphere will radiate thermal IR into your eyeballs (or instrument). CLARREO & TRUTHS are in space for obvious reasons: to measure solar irradiance falling on the top of the atmosphere, and to measure thermal IR radiated from the top of the atmosphere. The difference between them is the most fundamental of all indications of global warming.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2014
Tim suggests there is no IR window into space.
Go out into the desert at night.
You can feel the heat radiating into space. I grew up in SD and did farm work at -30F, The coldest I have ever been is standing out in the middle of the NV desert at night, wearing insulated coveralls and a parka with air temp much warmer than -30F.
"The National Research Council (NRC) decadal
survey defined three types of CLARREO bench
-
mark measurements. The first is spectrally resolved
infrared radiance (IR) emitted from Earth to space
determined with an accuracy of 0.065 K (
k
= 2, or 95%
confidence
1
). "
"Depending
on the infrared wavelengths chosen,
trends could be examined for near-
surface midtroposphere, or strato
-
sphere temperatures "
http://journals.a...-00149.1
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2014
"TRUTHS is the first satellite mission to calibrate its EO instrumentation directly to an SI 'primary standard' in orbit, overcoming the usual uncertainties associated with drifts of sensor gain and spectral shape by using an electrical rather than an optical standard as the basis of its calibration."
http://www.npl.co.uk/TRUTHS
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 14, 2014
"Between 7 and 13 microns, the emission is coming from a region with temperatures in excess of 280K which, in this example, is actually the surface. So, there isn't a single emission region, but the emission is still equivalent to a blackbody with a temperature of 259.9K."
http://andthenthe...-height/
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2014
@ryggesogn2

Where is your degree in Physics ryggesogn2, where from, when how much did it cost ;-)

Why can't you answer this simple physics question ryggesogn2 ?

"How is ADDING a known greenhouse gas such as CO2 with KNOWN thermal properties to the atmosphere NOT going to increase heat flow resistivity ?"

What is your hypothesis ryggesogn2 ?

Education ryggesogn2 !

Physics ryggesogn2 !

Not disparate data - where is your formed hypothesis how adding CO2 INCREASES directional emission to space ?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2014
Climate science requires an interdisciplinary approach. No one climate scientist can be an expert on all the tools required to collect and analyze the data.
And when experts in fields like statistics, computer modeling, radiometry find problems with the the climate 'science', they are told to go away because they are NOT experts in climate science.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2014
Climate science requires an interdisciplinary approach. No one climate scientist can be an expert on all the tools required to collect and analyze the data.
This is possibly the only thing you have ever said that is actually worth considering. This is exactly why the IPCC was formed! It is a body tasked with reviewing the literally 10's of thousands of papers and outlining what those researchers are discovering.
And when experts in fields like statistics, computer modeling, radiometry find problems with the the climate 'science', they are told to go away because they are NOT experts in climate science.
No they aren't.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 14, 2014
Tim suggests there is no IR window into space.

No I did not. This is what I said:
There will be downwelling thermal emission at every measurable wavelength, always, including the "IR window".

Thermal radiation is never directional; if you took a class in thermodynamics, then you know that. There will always be IR radiation emitted both up & down by every parcel of gas in the atmosphere; if you look up you will see the downward emission, and if you look down you will see upward emission. The *net* emission is obviously upwards, because the atmosphere is relatively transparent in the IR window wavelengths. But there will always be upwelling & downwelling emission.
barakn
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2014
You can feel the heat radiating into space. I grew up in SD and did farm work at -30F, The coldest I have ever been is standing out in the middle of the NV desert at night, wearing insulated coveralls and a parka with air temp much warmer than -30F. -soggyring2

Uh-huh. And when you were doing farm work, your metabolism was amped and increased heart rate ensured proper blood flow to extremities. Whereas when you were loafing around in the desert, your metabolism was lower and your blood moving slower, especially in your legs which depends on what physiologists refer to as the calf muscle pump to return blood to the heart against the gravity gradient.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2014
Tim suggests there is no IR window into space.
intentional stupidity for obfuscation: Mr. Thompson said
There will be downwelling thermal emission at every measurable wavelength, always, including the "IR window". This is because no atmosphere emits thermal radiation with directional preference
problems with reading comprehension rygg?
And when experts in fields like statistics, computer modeling, radiometry find problems with the the climate 'science', they are told to go away
conjecture based upon ignorance: how do you know they are NOT included?
perhaps some are told to go away because thy intentionally misrepresent data due to ignorance (or contrivance)? that is what we see here on phys.org... especially with people like you
that is the issue with most people here. they deny empirical data because they want to believe something different. like your desert analogy: its irrelevant, misleading, and fully explainable. just because YOU are ignorant, doesn't mean we are
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2014
You can feel the heat radiating into space. I grew up in SD and did farm work at -30F, The coldest I have ever been is standing out in the middle of the NV desert at night, wearing insulated coveralls and a parka with air temp much warmer than -30F. -soggyring2

Uh-huh. And when you were doing farm work, your metabolism was amped and increased heart rate ensured proper blood flow to extremities. Whereas when you were loafing around in the desert, your metabolism was lower and your blood moving slower, especially in your legs which depends on what physiologists refer to as the calf muscle pump to return blood to the heart against the gravity gradient.

Ever been in a desert at night with a clear sky?
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2014


Well, this will cause the anti-science, denialist, no-warming-for-fifteen-years, willful htmldisunderstanding crowd a huge embarassment:

http://www.slate...._monster

"Fleeting", indeed.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2014
Ever been in a desert at night with a clear sky?
Yes. Have you ever been north of the Artic Circle? How about in the Rocky Mountains? Ever stepped into thawing tundra?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 15, 2014

Well, this will cause the anti-science, denialist, no-warming-for-fifteen-years, willful htmldisunderstanding crowd a huge embarassment:
You link didn't work for me. Was that the article about the El Nina forming in the Pacific?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2014

Well, this will cause the anti-science, denialist, no-warming-for-fifteen-years, willful htmldisunderstanding crowd a huge embarassment:
You link didn't work for me. Was that the article about the El Nina forming in the Pacific?
@Maggnus
tracked down the article... try this link

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

interesting clip from a graph in the article
That giant red blob is a huge sub-surface wave of anomalously warm water that currently spans the tropical Pacific Ocean–big enough to cover the United States 300 feet deep. That's a lot of warm water.
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2014
ryggesogn2 seems to be going to a lot of repeated trouble to come across as stupid with an agenda to obfuscate and not address quantitative FACTS
Ever been in a desert at night with a clear sky?
You SHOULD know the difference between qualitative & quantitative ?

Why can't you answer this simple physics question ?

"How is ADDING a known greenhouse gas such as CO2 with KNOWN thermal properties to the atmosphere NOT going to increase heat flow resistivity ?"

Caliban
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2014

Well, this will cause the anti-science, denialist, no-warming-for-fifteen-years, willful htmldisunderstanding crowd a huge embarassment:
You link didn't work for me. Was that the article about the El Nina forming in the Pacific?


Maggnus(and everyone),

Here it is again:

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

Apologies for the mangled link.

And thanks for providing it earlier, Capn' --didn't notice you had until I'd already reposted with corrected link.

Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 16, 2014
ryg:
And when experts in fields like statistics, computer modeling, radiometry find problems with the the climate 'science', they are told to go away because they are NOT experts in climate science.

So, in which of these fields are you an expert?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2014
My experience and credentials are immaterial to AGWite assertions that ONLY climate scientists can challenge the faith.
Mikey's continuous rants are one example and another are the attacks on experts in statistics, McIntrye, or computer simulations like Dyson and many others.
My 20+ years experience with radiometry and calibrating IR imaging systems motivate my questions and critique of the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere.
And my BS alarm started in the 70s with firth the global cooling hype, then the Models of Doom and then the politics in the 80s (Gore) pushing AGW.
Too bad so many others have swallowed the AGW 'cool-aid' and refuse to live up to the profession of science and be skeptical of all claims. Especially those from climate models.
Unfortunately history shows that the ego (and system) of some scientists won't allow them to admit to being wrong.
It's quite telling that Mann is suing for libel instead of letting the science speak for him.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 16, 2014
AGWites aren't critical of the credentials of Al Gore or the head of the IPCC. Neither are climate scientists.
Wonder why.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2014
AGWites aren't critical of the credentials of Al Gore or the head of the IPCC. Neither are climate scientists.
Wonder why.


Perhaps because it's immaterial to the science ... ever thought of that o omniscient one.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2014
AGWites aren't critical of the credentials of Al Gore or the head of the IPCC. Neither are climate scientists.
Wonder why.


Perhaps because it's immaterial to the science ... ever thought of that o omniscient one.

Why does the 'science' need the PR and politics to sell it's line of bull?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2014
AGWites aren't critical of the credentials of Al Gore or the head of the IPCC. Neither are climate scientists.
Wonder why.
Because they don't do the science.

Your duplicity is the wonder here.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2014
AGWites aren't critical of the credentials of Al Gore or the head of the IPCC. Neither are climate scientists.
Wonder why.


Perhaps because it's immaterial to the science ... ever thought of that o omniscient one.

Why does the 'science' need the PR and politics to sell it's line of bull?
Because of lying, denialist, jack-booted idiots such as you.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2014
AGWites aren't critical of the credentials of Al Gore or the head of the IPCC. Neither are climate scientists.
Wonder why.
Because they don't do the science.

Your duplicity is the wonder here.

Why does the 'science' need politicians, PR and coercion?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2014
So rent seeking climate 'scientists' need a state protected monopoly and state sponsored censorship to sell their schtick.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2014
"The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Sunday released the "summary for policymakers" in Berlin, intended to be a palatable synopsis of the technical conclusions of more than 200 experts on how to stop runaway global warming – and what that would cost.

However entire paragraphs, plus graphs showing where carbon emissions have been increasing the fastest, were deleted from the summary during a week's debate prior to its release. Other sections had their meaning and purpose significantly diluted. They were victims of a bruising skirmish between governments in the developed and developing world over who should shoulder the blame for, and the responsibility for fixing, climate change.

Read more: http://www.smh.co...z5Cf6XHq
Chickens are coming home to roost for the AGWites.
Too bad they didn't stick with science.
Modernmystic
3.8 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2014
AGWites aren't critical of the credentials of Al Gore or the head of the IPCC. Neither are climate scientists.
Wonder why.


Perhaps because it's immaterial to the science ... ever thought of that o omniscient one.


Completely agreed. Yet since the problem with deniers isn't scientific but political do you think it would be a good idea for the face of AGW to BE a scientist?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 16, 2014
Look at rygg go! He has just linked to an article decrying the political interference faced by the IPCC, forcing them to makes changes in the report to appease the political objections of certain countries coming into the next round of negotiations in Paris. As said by SInger:

"This document is sufficient enough to tell governments what to do to stay below two degrees [temperature rise], despite some vague and ambiguous language [added by] the governments which was based on consensus and haggling back and forth for very long hours."

In other words, and this for rygg who has a poor grasp of even elementary English, the IPCC was forced to water down their report to meet the political needs of various countries. "Coming home to roost" indeed!

Yes MM, I think the message behind the IPCC report should be a scientist. If you look you'll note there are some 10,000+ scientific papers that they considered. Perhaps a spokesperson is not such a bad idea in communicating their findings?
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
ryg:
My 20+ years experience with radiometry and calibrating IR imaging systems motivate my questions and critique of the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere.

My 20+ years experience with atmospheric physics & chemistry and infrared remote sensing has convinced me that the impact of CO2 in the atmosphere is critical. All of the scientific arguments you have tried to advance have failed on their lack of scientific merit, and I can go toe-to-toe with you on any scientific argument you care to try. The fact is that your attempts at scientific arguments have so far been scientifically incompetent.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 18, 2014
"Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations slightly reduce the rate at which infrared heat is lost by the Earth to outer space, leading to an energy imbalance. Warming then results, which stops after energy balance is once again restored as a warmer Earth radiates infrared energy at a greater rate to outer space."
http://www.drroys...-change/
barakn
5 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2014
"Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations slightly reduce the rate at which infrared heat is lost by the Earth to outer space, leading to an energy imbalance. Warming then results, which stops after energy balance is once again restored as a warmer Earth radiates infrared energy at a greater rate to outer space."
http://www.drroys...-change/
Exactly, except that your quote forgets to mention if the CO2 concentration keeps increasing than so does the equilibrium temperature.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2014
"The article notes that ice coverage on the lakes remains unseasonally thick - the second highest ice-cover for the time of year since recording began in 1973. It also dutifully mentions, as all HuffPo pieces must, that there have been disastrous environmental consequences, in this case "unprecedented duck deaths" and "disruptions to the fish ecosystem."

However, what the piece doesn't do - and this is what is puzzling scientists around the world - is try to blame the phenomenon on carbon dioxide emissions, global warming, or man's selfishness, greed and refusal to amend his lifestyle.

"We're mystified, seriously. A HuffPo article on the environment which doesn't try to guilt-trip us into giving up meat and hot showers and bombing our economy back to the dark ages in order to combat man-made global warming. How can this possibly be?" asked Professor Otto Spengler of the University of East Anglia's Department of Environmentalist Bullshit Studies."
http://www.breitb...itbart-L
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2014
Dissension in the ranks.
Too bad govt employees have to wait until retirement to speak up if they don't support the corporate line.

"In a March 28 letter addressed to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, 49 former employees said the "unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements."

But NASA responded on Wednesday by saying they don't "draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings."

"We support open scientific inquiry and discussion," NASA chief scientist Waleed Abdalati said in a statement provided to The Daily Caller.

Read more: http://dailycalle...zIHlmekb
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2014
"Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations slightly reduce the rate at which infrared heat is lost by the Earth to outer space, leading to an energy imbalance. Warming then results, which stops after energy balance is once again restored as a warmer Earth radiates infrared energy at a greater rate to outer space."
http://www.drroys...-change/
Exactly, except that your quote forgets to mention if the CO2 concentration keeps increasing than so does the equilibrium temperature.

But the temperature is not rising.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
ryg:
But the temperature is not rising.

A common claim of late, but not obviously true. See "Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends"; Cowtan & Way, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 12 Feb 2014. This study shows that the appearance of no significant rise in temperature is an artifact of gaps in spatial coverage in the HadCRUT4 global data, which is commonly used as the basis for the claim that temperatures are not rising. If this study is correct, then the claim is falsified.

http://onlinelibr...abstract
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
barakn:
Exactly, except that your quote forgets to mention if the CO2 concentration keeps increasing than so does the equilibrium temperature.

ryg:
But the temperature is not rising.

In this case, equilibrium temperature is the wrong idea, and is the root of much misunderstanding. Rather, the climate system will reach an equilibrium of energy rather than the atmosphere simply reaching an equilibrium of temperature. This is because the interacting elements of the system have widely disparate heat capacities, and are all dynamic as well. Despite the anti-scientific attitude of the deniers, the time variable partition of energy between air, land & ocean is legitimate, and dynamics will decide where the energy & temperature go. It is naive to expect the atmospheric temperature to always directly correlate with CO2 abundance.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
ryg:
But the temperature is not rising.

This dubious claim suffers from yet another problem. See "Has Global Warming stopped?", Berkeley Earth Memo by Richard Muller (Prof. of Physics, UC Berkeley & Senior Scientist at LBNL), updated 26 Sept 2013 (link to PDF below). Muller makes the same point I made in criticizing ubavontuba's erroneous exercise in plotting sea surface temperatures. He points out that because the data have large excursions associated with natural events, especially the ENSO, and that several apparent "hiatuses" are seen in the data, the statistical significance of the current "hiatus" is too small to give it credence. He also points out as I did that the reality of the "hiatus" is highly dependent on the arbitrary bounds of plotted intervals, another weakness of the argument. Muller's demonstration is well illustrated and more detailed than my arguments were, worth reading.

http://static.ber...pped.pdf
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
Me:
the time variable partition of energy between air, land & ocean is legitimate, and dynamics will decide where the energy & temperature go.


See "An apparent hiatus in global warming?"; Trenberth & Fasullo, Earth's Future, December 2013 (Earth's Future is an open access online journal sponsored by the American Geophysical Union). Well written & well illustrated, worth reading. They conclude: "The picture emerging is one where the positive phase of the PDO from 1976 to 1998 enhanced the surface warming somewhat by reducing the amount of heat sequestered by the deep ocean, while the negative phase of the PDO is one where more heat gets deposited at greater depths, contributing to the overall warming of the oceans but cooling the surface somewhat."

PDO stands for Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

http://onlinelibr...165/full
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2014
It's too bad Tim and his fellow AGWites can no longer be trusted.
What a tangled web you must weave when at first you practice to deceive.
Popper recognized this type of deception when Marxist claims failed and new excuses had to be created for the failure.
At least the physics folks (AIP) have the courage to attempt to return rationality and science to climate science.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
It's too bad Tim and his fellow AGWites can no longer be trusted.
What a tangled web you must weave when at first you practice to deceive.
Popper recognized this type of deception when Marxist claims failed and new excuses had to be created for the failure.
At least the physics folks (AIP) have the courage to attempt to return rationality and science to climate science.


AIP is doing their normal five year review and if anything, newer data since their last review will likely strenghten their stance on AGW.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2014
It's too bad Tim and his fellow AGWites can no longer be trusted.
What a tangled web you must weave when at first you practice to deceive.
Popper recognized this type of deception when Marxist claims failed and new excuses had to be created for the failure.
At least the physics folks (AIP) have the courage to attempt to return rationality and science to climate science.


AIP is doing their normal five year review and if anything, newer data since their last review will likely strenghten their stance on AGW.

Depends upon the bias of the committee. It did for their previous statement.
Tim Thompson
4.6 / 5 (10) Apr 20, 2014
It's too bad Tim and his fellow AGWites can no longer be trusted.

Who do you think you are fooling? You're supposed to be a physicist, but all we get from you is regurgitation from somebody's blog or a documentary. When did you cite published research? Not once, and when I do, you don't even look at it. You are the one ignoring an inconvenient truth, you are the one dominated by prejudice and ideology, you are the one who exalts lies and defames anyone who tries to speak honestly on the topic. You are the one who cannot be trusted, and everyone looking at you here knows that very well.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2014
...and stop referencing a non-existent cooling (warming has slowed which is not the same thing)
Wrong, the globe has been cooling for more than a dozen years.

http://www.woodfo....1/trend
The atmosphere is not the globe Uba baby, as well you know but you willfully ignore ad nauseum.
The atmosphere is the globe, in the context of "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."

Please explain or post up a paper that says that water at 1000x the mass of the atmosphere and 4x the SH capacity manages to come second to atmospheric heat content. Pray?
Shifting the Burden fallacy.

And please provide a paper that shows it's cooling in bulk.
And again, Shifting the Burden fallacy.

There ain't one. But of course that's a self-fulfilling prophecy, as "scientists" would have written that paper ... and 97% are corrupt/in on a global conspiracy to rob you of your "tax dollars. Diddums.
Abusive fallacy.

You do, of course, appreciate that I do not reply to your reply, as I wish to retain my sanity.
How can you retain that which you do not have?

If you do, I'll leave it to others to do that.
Avoidance.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2014
@Tim Thompson,
Apropos:
Only a gas like CO2 (or CH4 or N2O & etc.) can trigger the warming that allows for the higher absolute humidity, by changing the atmospheric temperature structure in a way that water cannot.
While CO2 and CH4 absorb over many of the same wavelengths as H2O, and H2O is the dominant GHG both in terms of absorption efficiency and by atmospheric fraction when evaluating the atmospheric column as a whole:

http://en.wikiped...um_2.gif

Yet H2O drops with altitude (plummeting to ~4 ppm past tropopause), while CH4 and CO2 do not (much.) The upper atmosphere is where a lot of the Earth's heat is either radiated up to space or back down toward the surface. This drastically raises CO2's profile as a GHG despite what its overall mixing ratio or radiative properties alone might suggest.

This and more has been explained to rygg, uba, etc. countless times; they are either idiots, trolls, or paid not to learn.
Me an idiot? Am I the idiot who wrote about high atmosphere CO2 in the context of warming? Did you not know that high atmosphere CO2 induces cooling?

"Emissions of carbon dioxide may warm the lower atmosphere, but they cool the upper atmosphere, because of the density of the atmospheric layer."

http://www.univer...cooling/

This effect was spectacularly demonstrated during a solar storm:

"'Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats," explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER's principal investigator. "When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space."

That's what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth's magnetic field."

http://science.na...r_saber/

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2014
ryg:
But the temperature is not rising.

This dubious claim suffers from yet another problem. See "Has Global Warming stopped?", Berkeley Earth Memo by Richard Muller (Prof. of Physics, UC Berkeley & Senior Scientist at LBNL), updated 26 Sept 2013 (link to PDF below). Muller makes the same point I made in criticizing ubavontuba's erroneous exercise in plotting sea surface temperatures. He points out that because the data have large excursions associated with natural events, especially the ENSO, and that several apparent "hiatuses" are seen in the data, the statistical significance of the current "hiatus" is too small to give it credence. He also points out as I did that the reality of the "hiatus" is highly dependent on the arbitrary bounds of plotted intervals, another weakness of the argument. Muller's demonstration is well illustrated and more detailed than my arguments were, worth reading.

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).

Can you, at least, admit likewise?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2014
Now it's "Stadium wave" that ate my global warming?


LOL! This is particularly funny, as over on another thread they're still arguing vehemently for, "The ocean ate my global warming!"

http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
LOL!!!!!

What is particularly funny, ubybooby, is that you are too willfully disinformed to understand that there is no functional difference between the claim above and the content of this article.

Here's THE LEAD PARAGRAPH OF THIS ARTICLE:

"The recent slowdown in the warming rate of the Northern Hemisphere may be a result of internal variability of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation—a natural phenomenon related to sea surface temperatures, according to Penn State researchers."

IOW --the ocean did, indeed, eat (most of)your global cooling.

Moron.
BAHAHA! What is even funnier is Calibatty thinks this makes any sense at all. So, let's see him try to explain a few simple steps in the process:

How is atmospheric CO2 content 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, Calibatty moron, try to make a plausible argument for this. I dare you.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2014
Tim suggests there is no IR window into space.

No I did not. This is what I said:
There will be downwelling thermal emission at every measurable wavelength, always, including the "IR window".

Thermal radiation is never directional; if you took a class in thermodynamics, then you know that. There will always be IR radiation emitted both up & down by every parcel of gas in the atmosphere; if you look up you will see the downward emission, and if you look down you will see upward emission. The *net* emission is obviously upwards, because the atmosphere is relatively transparent in the IR window wavelengths. But there will always be upwelling & downwelling emission.
BAHAHAHA! Tim Thompson (who claims to be an expert!) also didn't know high atmospheric CO2 acts to cool the upper atmosphere.

Are there any AGWites who actually understand the science?

Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
Did you not know that high atmosphere CO2 induces cooling?

Of course I knew, but the cooling effect works only in the stratosphere. Not only is it standard stuff, it's one more example of proof that CO2 is responsible for global warming. The high rate of collisions in the troposphere means CO2 absorbs IR energy, but loses the energy in collisions that transform it into kinetic energy. The low rate of collisions in the stratosphere means CO2 absorbs kinetic energy in collision, and then has time to lose that energy as a IR photon, and the energy escapes into space. One side effect of this is to steepen the temperature gradient between the troposphere & stratosphere, which might in turn affect the average strength of deep convective tropical storms (this is a speculation on my part).
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2014
CO2 absorbs strongly at 4.25 um.
Instead of inducing cooling this features blocks IR radiation from the sun.
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
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). Can you, at least, admit likewise?

If one looks at the atmospheric data alone, then cooling in the atmosphere is certainly a possibility, but certainly not a certainty; since you are the one who insists it is a certainty, will you admit that it is only a possibility and not a certainty? Will you admit that the atmosphere could be slightly warming?
Tim Thompson
4.5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
CO2 absorbs strongly at 4.25 um. Instead of inducing cooling this features blocks IR radiation from the sun.

Not it does not. Aside from the fact that CO2 in the stratosphere is too sparse, the 4.25μm feature is narrow and outside the wavelength range where solar IR is strongest (0.7 - 1.0 μm). Far more important is the very strong CO2 absorption at wavelengths above 10 μm. There is a complex of absorption lines in the 13-14 μm range that are pressure broadened in the troposphere into a near continuum absorption. In that wavelength range the IR emission is terrestrial, not solar.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
"Additionally, some stratospheric warming effects are also observed. {...in the heart of the 4.23 um CO2 band} The most evident is February in the >40 deg North Latitude and 70-13 5 deg East Longitude.
Stratospheric warming is typically observed in January and February in the Northern
Hemisphere at high latitude regions."
http://www.cis.ri...urke.pdf
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2014
Did you not know that high atmosphere CO2 induces cooling?
Of course I knew, but the cooling effect works only in the stratosphere. Not only is it standard stuff, it's one more example of proof that CO2 is responsible for global warming. The high rate of collisions in the troposphere means CO2 absorbs IR energy, but loses the energy in collisions that transform it into kinetic energy. The low rate of collisions in the stratosphere means CO2 absorbs kinetic energy in collision, and then has time to lose that energy as a IR photon, and the energy escapes into space. One side effect of this is to steepen the temperature gradient between the troposphere & stratosphere, which might in turn affect the average strength of deep convective tropical storms (this is a speculation on my part).
Oh brother, there you go backpedaling again...

Tim Thompson, you are a fraud.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2014
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). Can you, at least, admit likewise?
If one looks at the atmospheric data alone, then cooling in the atmosphere is certainly a possibility, but certainly not a certainty; since you are the one who insists it is a certainty, will you admit that it is only a possibility and not a certainty? Will you admit that the atmosphere could be slightly warming?
When did I supposedly declare anything is a certainty?

Obviously, anything is possible. But the evidence weighs heavily toward a hiatus and/or cooling.

Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
Tim Thompson, you are a fraud.

ubavontuba you are an idiot; sorry, but you aren't smart enough to be a liar or a fraud, just a simple minded fool. Wow, isn't this an intellectually stimulating post. Wanna do it again?
ubavontuba
Apr 21, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2014
@uba,
When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.
Problem is, for all their trying, those molecules are only about 50% efficient - because roughly half of the heat photons they're shedding, are directed down toward the ground, or sideways into the atmosphere... Isn't that just the darndest thing you ever heard, for the millionth time?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
It's too bad Tim and his fellow AGWites can no longer be trusted.

Who do you think you are fooling? You're supposed to be a physicist, but all we get from you is regurgitation from somebody's blog or a documentary. When did you cite published research? Not once, and when I do, you don't even look at it. You are the one ignoring an inconvenient truth, you are the one dominated by prejudice and ideology, you are the one who exalts lies and defames anyone who tries to speak honestly on the topic. You are the one who cannot be trusted, and everyone looking at you here knows that very well.
Yep, yep and yep. There are a couple of regular denialists/contrarians on this site who play this game on a constant basis.

There is no discussion with Rygg, and he is suffering from paranoid schizophrenic personality disorder and as such, so anything you say simply feeds his delusional (and dishonest) view of the world. He has proven himself to be a liar, what more is there to say?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
There are a small and ever shrinking cadre of denialists on this site. whose sole purpose seems to be the obfuscation of the evidence and an ongoing campaign of disinformation and denialist rhetoric. justswallowsBS, ubamoron, Ryggtheanarchist are all examples.

The good news is that they are becoming a laughing stock.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
Mangy, like the others, use 'denialist', an inaccurate term to describe me and many others.
I will state again, the climate has been warming for over 10,000 years because the glaciers covering Canada are gone.
I, and many others, are very skeptical of AGWites assertion that human are affecting climate today and, therefore, humans can do little to change the climate.
Based upon the actions of AGWites, I can demonstrate their socialist inclinations and their faith in AGWism and their anti-science agenda.
No real scientist or anyone who respects science would ever claim 'the science is settled' and they would not use 'consensus' to assert their 'science' is legitimate.
And why is climate 'science' the only 'science' with a govt agency that creates so much controversy and critique from other scientists in the field?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
...others, use 'denialist', an inaccurate term to describe me and many others
not inaccurate. you deny the accuracy of science and its methods in order to ignore what you don't wish to address, see, believe or accept
Based upon the actions of AGWites, I can demonstrate their socialist inclinations and their faith in AGWism and their anti-science agenda
conjecture without evidence
just because someone believes in empirical data and the scientific method does not mean they are socialist etc, that is something that YOU BELIEVE based upon personal prejudice and a delusional outlook on life due to past personal events
controversy and critique from other scientists in the field
I think you are blowing your conspiracy websites predictions/statements all out of proportion due to a personal inability to be objective and comprehend
IOW - Maggnus is right... you ARE one. on MORE than just climate science. you are a contrarian, not a skeptic. skeptics understand empirical data
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
Rygg2 said: "No real scientist or anyone who respects science would ever claim 'the science is settled' and they would not use 'consensus' to assert their 'science' is legitimate."

There are things that are settled in science and things that are not. To pick out one issue that has significant error bars attached to it and declare everything that has to do with the field to be "unknown" is just stupid. Let me give you some examples.

1) Newtonian physics is settled. F=MA applies as well now as it did in Newton's time. Yes, if things move near the speed of light or are as massive as a black hole, or are as small as a quark, Newtonian physics breaks down. However, to consider it unknown or unsettled is just stupid.

2) The absorption of photons by CO2 and H2O is well known and settled. To claim anything else is just stupid. I use the absorption lines to measure CO2 and H2O levels in my combustion products. It is well known and settled.

Continued.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
Continued for Rggy2:

Let me elaborate on the issue of absorption and emission of photons by CO2 and H2O since you don't seem to have a clue. You continue to state that H2O and CO2 overlap and, consequently, the effect of CO2 is negligible in the regions covered by water vapor. You are wrong on a massive fundamental basis and I am just tired of hearing your drivel. Let me explain why you are completely wrong. You are assuming that the "bands" where these molecules are continuous functions. That has not been the way physicists look at emission from gas molecules (and emission and absorption take place at the same wavelengths).

Around the turn of the 20th century the physicists started to recognize that emission from gases took place at specific wavelengths. Bohr came up with an explanation of the hydrogen spectrum (which was incomplete but a first step) in which he showed that the electron's orbit could be explained in terms of full wavelengths for an orbit.

Cont.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
Cont for Rygg2:

The approach was called quantum physics or quantum mechanics. It was successful but difficult. However, it gave a basis for understanding the fundamental reasons that emission and absorption by specific gases have specific wavelengths. These are not bands. They are lines. The lines have width due to broadening for a number of reasons including Doppler, Stark, uncertainty principle, pressure, etc...

However, those lines are not wide enough that they run into each other and produce a "band." The concept of a band is used to simplify calculations.

Consequently, when you make a calculation you cannot assume that just because the bands overlap that they are completely masking a new gas that is added. In fact, if you had ever taken a course in radiant heat transfer (as I have suggested you and others do many times in the past) you would realize how fundamentally unsound your claims are.

Cont
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
Cont for Rggy2: So, good radiant heat transfer books (such as Siegel and Howell "Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer" 4th ed., pg 468 fig 11-23) have tables or figures specifically to correct for "band overlap" because any competent engineer of scientist will know (from their training) that bands are not real and groups of lines are.

So, I am tried of your ignorant rants about water vapor bands masking CO2 bands. That is a fiction and you should know it by now (since many of us have explained it to you). If you don't consider that settled, you are an oaf who does not want to understand anything that is scientifically known.

So, pick out something that is not well known (such as the way aerosols impact cloud formation) and then claim since that is not well known, nothing is known. That is a really ignorant way to approach science.

Please fill us in on what you think is unsettled? Or do you prefer to just sound like a Luddite?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
Newtonian physics is settled.

Yes, it is a limited model of reality.
E=mc^2 resulted from the failure of Newtonian mechanics.
The absorption of photons by CO2 and H2O is well known and settled.

I agree, but AGWites assert that somehow a miniscule amount of CO2 in a very narrow band around 15 um is more important than H2O.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
Mangy, like the others, use 'denialist', an inaccurate term to describe me and many others.
Not you. You are just a paranoid schizophrenic whose delusional world view has been so corrupted by your desire that "socialism" be equated with evil that you cannot help but see societal concern about global warming as a socialist plot of some kind. You are an idiot, a parody of a denier, and a fool.

Go take your medicine now dim wit, the adults want to talk.
thermodynamics
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
Rygg2 said: " ""Newtonian physics is settled. ""

"Yes, it is a limited model of reality.
E=mc^2 resulted from the failure of Newtonian mechanics."

Rygg2: There was no failure of Newtonian mechanics. It was never expected to work at relativistic speeds, huge scales, or microscopic scales. On the scales it was designed for it still works. They didn't know about relativistic issues. They didn't know about quantum issues. So, for the world of speeds much smaller than the speed of light, masses smaller than neutron stars, and sizes larger than nanometers, it still works well. In fact, the lead into quantum mechanics was through Boltzman and Maxwell simulating molecules by small hard spheres and statistics. That was Newtonian in nature. I guess statistical physics isn't one of your strong suites either. Newtonian physics did not fail in the realm it was designed for. It only failed when it was used in realms Newton had no concept of. Read a little history.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
your desire that "socialism" be equated with evil

Desire?
Socialism IS evil.
Unless you believe that using a gun to steal from someone is not evil.
If murder or theft is wrong, evil for an individual, then is it wrong or evil for a collection of individuals, the state.
AGWites had a choice to pursue a socialist, or evil, remedy to their perceived problem and they chose the evil, coercive method.
Now the AGWites are surprised non-believers don't want to be plundered by the AGWite socialists.
So much so the socialist politicians are fearing they will loose their jobs and asked the church of AGWism, IPCC, alter their latest epistle.
"A major climate report presented to the world was censored by the very governments who requested it, frustrating and angering some of its lead authors."
"They were victims of a bruising skirmish between governments in the developed and developing world over who should shoulder the blame for, and the responsibility for fixing, climate change."

Read
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
It was never expected to work at relativistic speeds, huge scales, or microscopic scales

Of course it was.
They didn't know about relativistic issues. They didn't know about quantum issues.

That's why it didn't work and therefore the science wasn't settled.
Real science advance when reality fails to match the model.
AGWites try to hide the failure of their models instead of welcoming the opportunity to advance science.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
Rygg2 said: " ""The absorption of photons by CO2 and H2O is well known and settled"".

"I agree, but AGWites assert that somehow a miniscule amount of CO2 in a very narrow band around 15 um is more important than H2O."

Rygg2: You have not even tried to look anything up have you? Try to read a reference. I suggested Siegel and Howell "Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer." On page 457 they list the bands for CO2 as: 2.0, 2.7, 4.3, 9.4, and 15.0 um. It is ignorant folks like you who think that these are real bands instead of groups of lines. Those who are ignorant ignore all but the 15.0 um band because that is the only one that is not in a water vapor band. As I explained above the way a scientist incorporates this overlap is to use methods to account for the lines that don't overlap in the bands that do. I explained that above and I am explaining it in more detail now. I don't expect you to be able to understand it because you avoid any books with math in them.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
Rygg2 said: " " They didn't know about relativistic issues. They didn't know about quantum issues. "

"That's why it didn't work and therefore the science wasn't settled."

Your just having fun trolling aren't you. Please go tell all of the civil and mechanical engineers out there that they have to start using quantum mechanics and general relativity to build a building or bridge. The science is settled for all but exotic ranges. Are you saying Newtonian physics doesn't work for the scales that civil engineers use it for? It works and is settled.

If you want to describe a neutron star you have to use general relativity and quantum chromodynamics. But Newtonian physics is still alive and well. You are either really stupid or just trolling.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
On page 457 they list the bands for CO2 as: 2.0, 2.7, 4.3, 9.4, and 15.0 um.

You just said bands don't exist, only lines.
Which is it?

"The energy level diagram to the left depicts the three vibrational modes of CO2 and their first couple of energy levels. Notice that the characteristic frequency for the symmetric stretch mode is 1288cm-1 and for the bending mode it is 667cm-1. For the asymmetric stretch mode, the characteristic frequency is much higher at 2349cm-1."
"The energies associated with molecular vibration are quantized just like electron energies so only certain vibrational levels are possible. "
http://www.phy.da.../co2.htm

Of course CO2 has another characteristic wavelength, 10.6um, but this requires artificial stimulation of N2 along with He, and H.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
Newtonian mechanics is a theistic used for certain applications.
It's accepted for those applications for which is works. When it fails to achieve the desired results, other heuristics like quantum mechanics must be applied.
'Settled' really only means this method has been demonstrated to work, for now, for this application.
Asserting global climate models are 'settled' requires much imagination or faith.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
It's fun to read all the doom and gloom, failed predictions made on the first earth day.
Then the fear was the next ice age.
Why were they so wrong?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
Rygg2: It seems that you might not know how to convert from wave numbers to wavelengths. Do you know what the wavelength of the 2349cm-1 you quoted above is? I bet Run or CS could tell you that it is one of the numbers I quoted above.

Also, it is interesting that you picked a site that discusses lasers and the output wavelength for specific laser types. That is stimulated emission not thermal emission. Thermal emission is noise in a laser. Do you know the difference?
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2014
Rygg2 quoted from me:

"On page 457 they list the bands for CO2 as: 2.0, 2.7, 4.3, 9.4, and 15.0 um."

Rygg2 then said: "You just said bands don't exist, only lines. Which is it?"

What he did not quote from me was the next line where I say: " It is ignorant folks like you who think that these are real bands instead of groups of lines."

If that is not the best job of selective quoting I am not sure what compares. Anyone out there that come up with better selection from a quote?

I am stunned that Rygg2 would think that people won't look up the page to check the context of the quote. I guess he is just using his own habits as an example.

Come on Rygg2. Aren't you even a little embarrassed by that one?
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
Come on Rygg2. Aren't you even a little embarrassed by that one?
I suspect not, his duplicity and hypocrisy blind him to normal human discourse.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2014
E=mc^2 resulted from the failure of Newtonian mechanics.
@ryggy
not so much "failure" but it made it "more accurate" especially at relativistic speeds... we still use Newtonian mechanics
I agree, but AGWites assert that somehow a miniscule amount of CO2 in a very narrow band around 15 um is more important than H2O
did you even read that Thermodynamics posted? I suggest you heed Thermo's advice and take
a course in radiant heat transfer (as I have suggested you and others do many times in the past) you would realize how fundamentally unsound your claims are.
also
good radiant heat transfer books (such as Siegel and Howell "Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer" 4th ed., pg 468 fig 11-23)
as for this
AGWites try to hide the failure of their models ...
personal conjecture and just as stupid as the EU claims that modern cosmologists dont know anything about plasma physics... see ANY college climate course and labs and studies
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014

Newtonian mechanics is a theistic used for certain applications
@rygg
WTF does this even mean? that Newtonian mechanics equates with belief in a single deity? or were you making an attempt to be clever... you should stop. it doesn't work. not as an analogy, or even as a clever pun. (or even as a satirical hyperbole intended as a distorted analogy, in fact)

we still use Newtonian mechanics for most everything because it works and it is accurate, the only thing it "fails" at is relativistic speeds or in things that require the knowledge of QM
It seems that you might not know how to convert from wave numbers to wavelengths
@Thermodynamics
he should be aware of it. Tim Thompson posted on this not too long ago arguing this same point with Rygg above, which he ignored completely and STILL argues about. perhaps Maggnus is more correct in just calling a nut a nut and move on? IDK...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
Do you know what the wavelength of the 2349cm-1

10000/2349 = 4.2571306939123031077054065559813 um

not so much "failure" but it made it "more accurate" especially at relativistic speeds..

Right. This is same reason why global climate models are failing.

That is stimulated emission not thermal emission.

A CO2 laser emits at 10.6 um. This is in the long wave IR and yes, CO2 lasers need to be cooled.
The quantum mechanism of stimulating 10.6um is the same quantum mechanism that absorbs at 14.99 um or 4.27um.
Such quantum processes have unique lines, and in the real world, with real detectors and real filters, the lines are spread into bands.
http://www.iridia...;pid=100
http://www.thorla...FB700-10
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
An example of a Newtonian model of the motion of a projectile:

h(t) = -16t^2 +vt +s; t in seconds, h and s are in feet.

Would such a formula be accurate enough for you to know how the height of a bullet fired straight into the air?
Of course not because gravity is not exactly 32 ft/sec^2 and friction in air is not accounted for.
One would think that all the parameters describing satellite orbits would be so well known that there would be no need for these satellites to be tracked periodically to remeasure their orbit.
Yet the US Air Force tracks and updates orbital data for all objects orbiting the earth.
But the AGWites want others to believe their models are so accurate that they can predict future climate for 100 years when the US Air Force can't predict the orbits of satellites for more than a few weeks with precision sufficient to ensure satellites won't run into each other.

Newtonian mechanics is a theistic

Correction, Newtonian mechanics is a heuristic..
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2014
And we must believe the 'experts' at universities?

"Harvard student Sandra Y.L. Korn recently proposed in The Harvard Crimson that academics should be stopped if their research is deemed oppressive. Arguing that "academic justice" should replace "academic freedom," "
"this is already a reality in most universities across America, where academics and university administrators alike are trying, often successfully, to discredit and prohibit certain ideas and ways of thinking. "
"Korn's dream of a "just" academic utopia is already being realized. But like many utopian visions, there is a dark underbelly. Anyone who does not ascribe to the dogma of "academic justice" can expect to be shunned and muzzled—as Brandeis demonstrated recently. "
http://thefederal...ic-mind/

Of course this can't happen with climate science can it.
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2014
10000/2349 = 4.2571306939123031077054065559813 um
No kidding... now let's try to make the connection to the list of numbers:
On page 457 they list the bands for CO2 as: 2.0, 2.7, 4.3, 9.4, and 15.0 um.
Any reaction? Any pulse? Any synapses firing in there at all??
This is same reason why global climate models are failing.
How exactly are they failing, again? By only simulating bulk processes and not fine-grained dynamics that are irrelevant to decade-smoothed global averages? Where's the successful alternative "skeptic" model that is capable of reproducing even weakly, the known climate history with known past atmospheric chemistry/land use patterns/forcings?
An example of a Newtonian model of the motion of a projectile:
In a vacuum. The Newtonian model of projectile motion in the atmosphere would include hydrodynamic terms (including wind also) -- and yes, hydrodynamics is part of Newtonian physics too. Airplanes are designed based on it. Flown lately?
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2014
One would think that all the parameters describing satellite orbits would be so well known that there would be no need for these satellites to be tracked periodically to remeasure their orbit.
The parameters are indeed extremely well known. What isn't predictable, are small forces (yes, mostly Newtonian ones) continually acting on those satellites to perturb their orbits (e.g. highly variable thermospheric drag at low-altitude orbits due to transient events like solar storms.)
But the AGWites want others to believe their models are so accurate that they can predict future climate for 100 years when the US Air Force can't predict the orbits of satellites for more than a few weeks with precision sufficient to ensure satellites won't run into each other.
Bulk climate predictions aren't sensitive to small perturbations the way orbit predictions are. You don't need to predict the movement of every molecule in a tea pot, in order to predict when the tea pot will come to a boil.
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2014
And we must believe the 'experts' at universities?
Right, it's so much better to believe industry-funded shills. The latest Cosmos episode had a highly topical review of the first such 'science' battle in modern history:

http://scienceblo...-debate/

What you are doing now, is using the exact same tactics and methods as the proponents of Lead in the last century. Your modern equivalents of Kehoe are paid shills like Lindzen. Real champions of 'capitalism' and foes of 'socialism': who cares about future generations or the 'little people', when profit is at stake?

Keep on eating up their garbage, and don't be afraid of lead in your blood stream. And while you're at it, keep on smoking 'cuz it don't harm anyone. Keep on burning coal 'cuz it's clean. Go on denying global warming, and so on. Proudly be what you are: a perennial lap dog for villainous, murderous, sociopaths. But not socialists, thank goodness...
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
Pinky, like his fellow travelers who don't have the data support AGWism resort to personal attacks and ulterior motives.
It seems the real profit is in prophesying doom. University professors have their own research groups, plenty of govt grants while govts dole out grants and loans to cronies subsidizing failed business models while the taxpayers are plundered to pay for it all.
ho cares about future generations or the 'little people',

Certainly NOT AGWites:
"the policies that these groups want to put into place to combat climate change are incredibly costly and they hurt the poor most of all, says Bjorn Lømborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre."
"
, a $10 billion renewable energy investment would lift 20 million Africans out of poverty.
But a $10 billion investment in gas electrification? That would lift 90 million out of poverty.

People and nations become prosperous with access to affordable and dependable energy."
http://www.ncpa.o...ndex.php
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
How will AGWite polcies prevent blackouts in the middle of winter, or summer?

"Environmental policies established by Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are moving us toward electrical grid failure. The capacity reserve margin for hot or cold weather events is shrinking in many regions. According to Philip Moeller, Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, "the experience of this past winter indicates that the power grid is now already at the limit."
"
In addition to shrinking reserve margin, electricity prices are becoming less stable. Natural gas-fired plants are replacing many of the closing coal-fired facilities. Gas powered 27 percent of US electricity in 2013, up from 18 percent a decade earlier. When natural gas is plentiful, its price is competitive with that of coal fuel.

But natural gas is not stored on plant sites like coal. When electrical and heating demand spiked in January, gas was in short supply."

http://dailycaller.com/2014
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2014
"As wind-generated electricity has grown, the frequency of negative electricity pricing has grown. When demand is low, such as in the morning, wholesale electricity prices sometimes move negative. In the past, negative market prices have provided a signal to generating systems to reduce output."
"But wind systems ignore the signal and continue to generate electricity to earn the PTC, distorting wholesale electricity markets. Negative pricing by wind operators and low natural gas prices have pushed nuclear plants into operating losses. Yet, Congress is currently considering whether to again extend the destructive PTC subsidy."
"Without a return to sensible energy policies, prepare for higher prices and electrical grid failures."

Read more: http://dailycalle...zlbeQb4i
High prices and blackouts are good for the little guy, right Pinky?
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2014
Pinky, like his fellow travelers who don't have the data support AGWism resort to personal attacks and ulterior motives. It seems the real profit is in prophesying doom.
Lead. It's what's for dinner.
a $10 billion renewable energy investment would lift 20 million Africans out of poverty.
But a $10 billion investment in gas electrification? That would lift 90 million out of poverty.
The two are, of course, mutually exclusive because they can't possibly be pursued simultaneously. Natch.
People and nations become prosperous with access to affordable and dependable energy.
Eat up that lead. It makes your work commute more affordable. Because there's No Other Way (TM).
How will AGWite polcies prevent blackouts in the middle of winter, or summer?
Oh I don't know, by slashing peak demand through retrofits of living and working premises with high-quality insulation? By reducing energy demand in bulk and at peak hours, by raising efficiency mandates? Etc.?
PinkElephant
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2014
"Without a return to sensible energy policies, prepare for higher prices and electrical grid failures."
Or alternatively, prepare for lower prices and a restructuring of the electrical grid. More mass production of renewable energy tech means cheaper renewable energy tech. (Besides the fact that all forms of renewable energy tech are still in the rapid improvement phase, in terms of reliability, serviceability, manufacturing/installation cost, and efficiency delivered.) Capitalism, at work.

Boohoo for legacy players in the energy space, whose customary markets and last-century business models are being disrupted. Adapt, or die. Capitalism, at work.

But do let's instead assume that a change in demand patterns on the grid is utterly unsolvable by technological innovation or market forces. After all, Capitalism doesn't work. Isn't that right?
Tim Thompson
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2014
ryg:
but AGWites assert that somehow a miniscule amount of CO2 in a very narrow band around 15 um is more important than H2O.

No, "AGWites" assert no such thing. As I have already explained, and you have ignored, water does more of the warming than does CO2 in standard global warming physics. The warming is about 50% due to water, and the other 50% due to CO2, N2O & CH4 combined (along with small contributions from other trace gases like CFCs). What "AGWites" so assert is that water cannot trigger global warming because it is too close to saturation in the atmosphere. Something else that is not is needed as a trigger (like CO2), so that it & water can do the warming. This is inescapable basic physics, and neither you nor anybody else, has an argument against it that is based on sound physics.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 26, 2014
@uba,
When the upper atmosphere (or 'thermosphere') heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.
Problem is, for all their trying, those molecules are only about 50% efficient - because roughly half of the heat photons they're shedding, are directed down toward the ground, or sideways into the atmosphere... Isn't that just the darndest thing you ever heard, for the millionth time?
That's a nice assertion, but that's all it is. Clearly, NASA feels otherwise.

Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 27, 2014
ryggesogn2 again betrayed the fact he has NO university degree in Physics with this anti-intellectual rant
And we must believe the 'experts' at universities?
Your statement ryggesogn2, proves unequivocally you have bias against Science & cannot logically have such education from a uni !

ryggesogn2 went on with remarkable consistency
Of course this can't happen with climate science can it.
As you "Should" know ryggesogn2, climate Science is based upon fundamental properties in Physics; heat, statistical mechanics, gasses, water !

But ryggesogn2, obviously hasn't learned them, despite his LIE he achieved a University degree in Physics!

Which University ryggesogn2 ?

When ryggesogn2 ?

Why do you ask me (and I answer with student number) but you do not reciprocate, is this not proof of your (paid) bias ryggesogn2 ?

I say "paid" because no-one can be that stupid unless they are ok being portrayed as so ignorant, therefore PAID !

Logic ryggesogn2 ?

Education ryggesogn2 ?
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2014
ubavontuba muttered
That's a nice assertion, but that's all it is. Clearly, NASA feels otherwise.
Are you claiming ubavontuba, that CO2 re-radiation is particularly directional - show it ?

Are you also claiming ubavontuba that ADDING a greenhouse gas should have NO increase in atmospheric heat flow resistivity ?

Do you know what resistivity is ubavontuba ?

Do you have a basic high school education in heat flow ubavontuba ?

Do you think ubavontuba ?

Do you think ubavontuba, that NASA "feels" they can and should ignore heat capacities and the fact humans on average globally are burning ~230,000Litres of petrol per second ?

Do you really have faith these numbers should be ignored ?

Do you ubavontuba have faith there is the same amount of heat in the system as say 100 years ago, you have already accepted there "was" warming ?

So the glitch of one data item is enough for you to dismiss warming & continue to ignore Physics ?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2014
ubavontuba muttered
That's a nice assertion, but that's all it is. Clearly, NASA feels otherwise.
Are you claiming ubavontuba, that CO2 re-radiation is particularly directional - show it ?
When did I supposedly make that claim?

Are you also claiming ubavontuba that ADDING a greenhouse gas should have NO increase in atmospheric heat flow resistivity ?
When did I supposedly make that claim?

Do you know what resistivity is ubavontuba ?
Do you?

Do you have a basic high school education in heat flow ubavontuba ?
Do you?

Do you think ubavontuba ?
I'd ask the same of you, but chatterbots don't really think.

Do you think ubavontuba, that NASA "feels" they can and should ignore heat capacities and the fact humans on average globally are burning ~230,000Litres of petrol per second ?
What's this have to do with the discussion?

Do you really have faith these numbers should be ignored ?
Of course not. It's my job to protect the environment. Can you honestly say similar?

Do you ubavontuba have faith there is the same amount of heat in the system as say 100 years ago, you have already accepted there "was" warming ?
It is not a closed system.

So the glitch of one data item is enough for you to dismiss warming & continue to ignore Physics ?
Hand-waving nonsense. Either the globe is warming, or it is not warming. Saying it should for reason "X" is not the same as proving that it is.

Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Apr 28, 2014
@ubavontuba,
Please try to gain some basic physics understanding, its obvious from your obtuse posts which seem designed to muddy the waters and avoid core issues, especially so since you have already accepted the climate was previously warming but, don't seem to understand the probability issue re "outliers", this proves you have negligible formal understanding of maths or physics, start please by understanding what is meant by a closed vs an open system in respect of climate:-
http://www.ametso.../ccs.pdf

Rather than shift position, just answer if you made the respective claims BECAUSE you imply such claims by your unfortunate use of language - it is as if you are trying to obfuscate & make it rather more difficulty to pin down a position.

Arbitrary implications does not make for mature dialectic, do you possibly understand the attention such a topic deserves ?