Climate change not so global

Aug 04, 2014
Clouds over Australia are shown. Credit: NASA

(Phys.org) —Scientists are calling for a better understanding of regional climates, after research into New Zealand's glaciers has revealed climate change in the Northern Hemisphere does not directly affect the climate in the Southern Hemisphere.

The University of Queensland study showed that future climate changes may impact differently in the two hemispheres, meaning a generalised global approach isn't the solution to climate issues.

UQ School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management Head Professor Jamie Shulmeister said the study provided evidence for the late survival of significant glaciers in the mountains of New Zealand at the end of the last – a time when other ice areas were retreating.

"This study reverses previous findings which suggested that New Zealand's glaciers disappeared at the same time as ice in the Northern Hemisphere," he said.

"We showed that when the Northern Hemisphere started to warm at the end of the last ice age, New Zealand glaciers were unaffected.

"These glaciers began to retreat several thousand years later, when changes in the Southern Ocean led to increased and warming.

"This indicates that future climate change may impact differently in the two hemispheres and that changes in the Southern Ocean are likely to be critical for Australia and New Zealand."

The study used exposure dating of moraines - mounds of rocks formed by glaciers - to reconstruct the rate of ice retreat in New Zealand's Ashburton Valley after the last glacial maximum – the time when the ice sheets were at their largest.

The researchers found that the period from the last to the end of the ice age was longer in New Zealand than in the Northern Hemisphere.

They also found that the maximum glacier extent in New Zealand occurred several thousand years before the maximum in the Northern Hemisphere, demonstrating that growth of the northern ice sheets did not cause expansion of New Zealand glaciers.

"New Zealand glaciers responded largely to local changes in the Southern Ocean, rather than changes in the Northern Hemisphere as was previously believed," Professor Shulmeister said.

"This study highlights the need to understand regional climate rather than a global one-size-fits-all."

The research was conducted in collaboration with the University of Griefswald, Germany, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, and the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science in July.

Explore further: Research provides new theory on cause of ice age 2.6 million years ago

More information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, www.pnas.org/content/early/201… /1401547111.abstract

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Study adds new clue to how last ice age ended

Sep 08, 2010

As the last ice age was ending, about 13,000 years ago, a final blast of cold hit Europe, and for a thousand years or more, it felt like the ice age had returned. But oddly, despite bitter cold winters in ...

Recommended for you

Tropical Depression 9 forms in Gulf of Mexico

12 hours ago

Tropical Depression Nine formed over the western Bay of Campeche, Gulf of Mexico and is forecast to make a quick landfall on Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula. NOAA's GOES-East Satellite captured the birth of the ...

$58 million effort to study potential new energy source

17 hours ago

A research team led by The University of Texas at Austin has been awarded approximately $58 million to analyze deposits of frozen methane under the Gulf of Mexico that hold enormous potential to increase ...

And now, the volcano forecast

19 hours ago

Scientists are using volcanic gases to understand how volcanoes work, and as the basis of a hazard-warning forecast system.

User comments : 60

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Bart R
4.5 / 5 (17) Aug 04, 2014
We might point folks at the University of Queensland to the cause of the approximately 100,000-year glacial/interglacial periods, explained by the regularly changing North-South attitude of the planet toward the Sun, coupled with the North-South land/sea asymmetry of the Earth's surface.

This isn't new, it's been well-understood for years and is taught in climate courses on Coursera, for example.

Obviously, if the northern hemisphere is the one that's warming and providing the positive feedbacks that release CO2 from solution in the seas and ice-locked deposits of clathrates, then the northern extents will recede first until the feedbacks tip over the GHG warming regime.

Interglacials aren't global. AGW absolutely is, though we have to agree, far more CO2 is emitted in the northern hemisphere than in New Zealand.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (26) Aug 04, 2014
Oh nose!! The GLOBAL warming is really REGIONAL...oopsies.
mememine69
1.3 / 5 (23) Aug 04, 2014
32 MORE years of science being a laughable 95% certain of a GLOBAL CO2 CRISIS is anything you "want" it to be except sustainable for another three decades of that it "could be" THE END OF DAYS.
Oil doesn't feed denial, it's the fact that not one single IPCC warning says "proven" or "inevitable" for a "threat tot the planet".
mememine69
1.3 / 5 (24) Aug 04, 2014
Find us one single scientist that "believes" as much as you eager "believers" do and beyond science's laughable 32 years of "could be" and "95%" certainty that THE END IS NEAR!
ColoradoBob
4.6 / 5 (19) Aug 04, 2014
32 MORE years of science being a laughable 95% certain of a GLOBAL CO2 CRISIS is anything you "want" it to be except sustainable for another three decades of that it "could be" THE END OF DAYS.
Oil doesn't feed denial, it's the fact that not one single IPCC warning says "proven" or "inevitable" for a "threat tot the planet".

Southern Alps melt accelerating - study

Scientists say the Southern Alps have lost a third of their permanent ice over the last 40 years, and the melt is accelerating.
Photos have shown retreating ice over the decades at Fox Glacier, Hooker Glacier and New Zealand's largest glacier, Tasman.
"We'll definitely see some more exposed rock," says glaciologist Heather Purdie.

In a study published today, glacier researchers from NIWA and the Universities of Auckland and Otago say the total ice volume on the Southern Alps has reduced by 34 percent since 1976, with the most pronounced decline since 1996.
In short, scientists say, the big thaw is speeding up.

Read more: http://www.3news....9RNqdLB1
ColoradoBob
4.5 / 5 (17) Aug 04, 2014
New Zealand's 'dramatic' ice loss could lead to severe decline of glaciers
Study says Southern Alps mountain range has lost 34% of permanent snow and ice since 1977

Researchers from the University of Auckland and University of Otago said this "dramatic" decrease has accelerated in the past 15 years and could lead to the severe decline of some of New Zealand's mightiest glaciers.

The Niwa data shows that New Zealand's glaciers experienced three growth spurts during the 1970s and 1980s due to a change in the Pacific climate system that generated more wind. But since that wind circulation has returned to its previous state, rising global temperatures have caused the glaciers to retreat dramatically.
http://www.thegua...glaciers
runrig
4.5 / 5 (17) Aug 04, 2014
Find us one single scientist that "believes" as much as you eager "believers" do and beyond science's laughable 32 years of "could be" and "95%" certainty that THE END IS NEAR!

Believers don't need evidence sunshine.
E.g. Bet you've never seen your God?
But many believe their imaginary friend exists just the same.
That's belief in words written down 2000 yrs ago, of a supernatural being.
Science is not belief - it's things figured out by Man's brain using experiment and observation/measurement.
Do you believe your fingers typing on a keyboard will, with the press of submit, make it show up on here? Well yes, of course. But the belief comes from science figuring out how to make it happen.
You reject climate science via a belief it is wrong. Some sort of world-wide conspiracy, world-wide incompetence, world-wide dark matter or whatever.

No, you have the world arse over tit, and like all delusionals are blissfully unaware, that science come first and belief follows.
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2014
Oh nose!! The GLOBAL warming is really REGIONAL...oopsies.


Not at all what the article says, which you'd understand if you weren't a simpleton. Of course, your stupidity is not unexpected, it's well established that pedophiles have diminshed mental capacity.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 04, 2014
Oh if it ain't supatard with another gem. Careful tardy, you don't want to burn out that lone neuron you and the rest of the AGW Cult's peanut gallery share.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 04, 2014
These glaciers began to retreat several thousand years later, when changes in the Southern Ocean led to increased carbon dioxide emissions and warming

Yep, magical changes in the Southern Ocean led to increased CO2. We aren't telling you what they were, just believe like a good Chicken Little in the AGW Cult.
skills4u
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 04, 2014
RUNRIG wrote:
Believers don't need evidence sunshine.
E.g. Bet you've never seen your God?
But many believe their imaginary friend exists just the same.
That's belief in words written down 2000 yrs ago, of a supernatural being.
Science is not belief - it's things figured out by Man's brain using experiment and observation/measurement.


Seeing how you brought GOD into it, you have confused belief and faith..

Heb 11:1 (KJV) Now FAITH is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now FAITH is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. FAITH... makes us certain of realities we do not see.

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 04, 2014
you have confused belief and faith.
@skills4u
not how I see it... lets examine the definition of faith:
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, especially without proof or evidence (dictionary.reference.com)
You are assuming that he meant Faith as in: a religions belief system or dogma, or definition 2: a specific system of religious beliefs: the Jewish faith

A FAITH is simply the BELIEF in something ESPECIALLY without proof or evidence.
Runrig's post about faith and your god is cogent and well said. SCIENCE REQUIRES EMPIRICAL DATA AND PROOF... which is the antithesis of faith.
Science ONLY works this way.. which is why the definition of THEORY is SO DIFFERENT when defined in the lexicon of SCIENCES, and why SO MANY people have problems understanding just what it takes to get that far in science.

Scroofinator
2 / 5 (8) Aug 04, 2014
The researchers found that the period from the last glacial maximum to the end of the ice age was longer in New Zealand than in the Northern Hemisphere.

Does this mean that the global climate shifts occur from NH to SH? It makes sense to me if you look at it regarding Earth's wobble. Axial precession causes the NH to rotate faster than the SH over the 26000yr cycle. So in a simplistic view the heavier/colder mediums would tend to stay south as heat and gas would rise farther north.
skills4u
2.3 / 5 (12) Aug 04, 2014
Hiya Captain !
The definition you supplied is in agreement with mine "without proof or evidence" = " the evidence of things not seen"
You are assuming that he meant Faith as in: a religions belief system


I assumed nothing as he/she wrote "That's belief in words written down 2000 yrs ago, of a supernatural being" which directly infers to "a specific system of religious beliefs".

I see by looking at the definitions of faith&belief , they are pretty much the same.

IMHO Belief comes from the mind, faith is from the heart,.
ettubrute
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 05, 2014
Bart R is correct. It is also correct that the climate in the northern hemisphere does not have a DIRECT influence on the southern hemisphere due to the land/ocean ratio, topography, wind currents and ocean currents. These are all different from each other between the northern hemisphere and the southern hemisphere. I also note that there are a few responders here that have a serious problem with reading comprehension. The article clearly states that New Zealand's glaciers began to melt after the CO2 levels began to rise in the southern hemisphere. The southern oceans began to warm and release their sequestered CO2. Rising CO2 levels warmed the climate further. What is happening today is that anthropogenic means are releasing tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere and are also destroying some of the natural carbon sinks. While the largest amount of CO2 releases are occurring in the northern hemisphere, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is well mixed globally.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 05, 2014
So, tell us ettubrute, what warmed the oceans.
Also, what natural carbon sinks are being destroyed?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 05, 2014
I see by looking at the definitions of faith&belief , they are pretty much the same
@skills4u
that was pretty much part of the point of the post, so you can't really "confuse belief and faith" as your original post.
IMHO Belief comes from the mind, faith is from the heart
I can see that already... but this is also subjective and relevant only to you and perhaps those who think like you do (and likely there are many)
There is an ACTUAL difference in something like: religion and faith
but there is no real distinction between faith and belief
I assumed nothing
actually, you made assumptions about Runrig's comment and pulled words out of context ... not trying to be a jerk, but his comment is pretty cogent and lucid. A well written refute to mememine and accurate.

re-read it. a quick summation of it:
Belief/faith in something is not the same thing as science, which requires proof/empirical data

KDK
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2014
Nope, it occurs only at the IPCC on planet Agenda 21!
Bart R
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2014
antig

As ettub endorsed my comment, allow me to expand the explanation of what warmed the oceans over a period of some 20,000 years: it was the land-CO2-albedo feedback.

As the Earth turns the northern hemisphere toward the Sun, progressively more land area got more direct solar exposure, making the land warmer. As the land warmed, it warmed the water, releasing dissolved CO2 (as gases prefer to be dissolved in colder water), and melted the ice little by little. This process took about 2,000 years to kick over into the CO2-water vapour feedback loop. In this second (global) feedback phase, the warmer air (due more to CO2 and greenhouse effect than to warm land, now) kept more water vapour aloft, amplifying the greenhouse warming of the Earth.

We've seen this pattern repeated faultlessly 8 times in the past 800,000 years, in ice cores and supported by other paleoclimate data. We know the physics of each step to high precision, as proven by lab tests. That's what warmed the oceans.
ettubrute
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 05, 2014
antigoracle, I'll give you two carbon sinks that are easy enough for anyone to understand: rain forests and wetlands.

Also, as the oceans warm they are less capable of taking in more CO2 and will begin to release their stored CO2 as further warming occurs. Since The Laws of Physics, Chemistry and Thermodynamics state that increasing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will warm the planet beyond the natural variations within the climate system, then it is not a huge leap to state that anthropogenic means are also limiting our oceans' ability to sequester more CO2. The oceans are, by far, the largest CO2 and heat sink on our planet.

What warmed the oceans or what processes are capable of warming the oceans? Just to list a few of these processes, a change in Earth's orbit around our sun, a change of Earth's tilt on its axis, increased and enduring solar activity (TSI) and super volcanoes erupting that would initially cool the planet and then warm if from all of the COs
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 05, 2014
So, this is a question for the AGW Chicken Littles out there, especially runrig.
When you claim that the MWP wasn't GLOBAL and so your High Priest Mann, was right in making it disappear with his Hockey Schtick. Then all your claims about climate change today is rubbish.
ettubrute
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2014
Nice, scientific based retort, antigoracle. Did you quote Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh with this? Seriously, what scientific evidence are you able to provide anyone that our adding tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere will not induce a warming of our planet beyond the natural variations within the climate system? I, for one, would be ecstatic to learn that there is scientific evidence available that we, the human species, are not responsible for the current warming of our planet. I would even attend your acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize that would certainly be awarded to you for such a scientific discovery.
runrig
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2014
So, this is a question for the AGW Chicken Littles out there, especially runrig.
When you claim that the MWP wasn't GLOBAL and so your High Priest Mann, was right in making it disappear with his Hockey Schtick. Then all your claims about climate change today is rubbish.

Mr Muller also "made it disappear", and every other study has too.
See here the differences in the global MWP temp reconstruction and (recent) now.

For it to have been other wise ... then wot do you reckon wud av dun it?
There's no record of a TSI change, so not "it's the Sun, stupid"
Dark matter, clouds disappering (less WV so ???)
Even if a correlation globally (there isn't) you need to come up with causation.

http://www.skepti...iate.htm

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (10) Aug 06, 2014
ettubrute, the first thing you should be made aware of is that not everyone here is American, nor do we care for the drivel that is your political discourse.
As for man made CO2 not responsible for the warming. There is identical rate of warming from 1910 to 1940 and 1980 to 1998.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QxBGECHecpA/TS-Rmux-1PI/AAAAAAAABeI/1jBfsC8WbSY/s1600/Different-Records-same-warm.gif
As for 1998 to present, temperatures have actually dropped.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2014
Runrig, perhaps you can provide us with this evidence that Muller made the MWP disappear.
Benni
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 06, 2014
ettubrute, the first thing you should be made aware of is that not everyone here is American, nor do we care for the drivel that is your political discourse.
As for man made CO2 not responsible for the warming. There is identical rate of warming from 1910 to 1940 and 1980 to 1998.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QxBGECHecpA/TS-Rmux-1PI/AAAAAAAABeI/1jBfsC8WbSY/s1600/Different-Records-same-warm.gif
As for 1998 to present, temperatures have actually dropped.


In 1998 the ppm of CO2 was 367 ppm. So far in 2014 the Mauna Loa measurements have averaged 401, and to boot there is measurable global cooling. CO2 makes up 3% of the earth's atmosphere and increasing ppm since the year of the 1998 Hockey Stick is what must be causing warming to level off & even decline slightly.
ettubrute
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2014
I am compelled to correct you, once again, antigoracle. My comment on Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh has nothing to do with my politics. My comment has everything to do with these two talking heads making claims that they cannot support on the subject of anthropogenic global warming. Well, in reality, I was more making a point that there are too many among us that suffer from a self induced ignorance on anthropogenic climate change. They will take heed of what these talking heads will say on the subject simply because it soothes their own ignorance on the subject. It is far easier for those that suffer from their own self induced ignorance to listen to people that support their own beliefs instead of making the efforts to learn the Science behind the AGWT for them self. Why would these people try to learn anything for them self when they can simply listen to others that will appease their ignorance? Intellectual laziness is not something that should be treated as if it is a virtue.
ettubrute
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2014
Benni, your math is off. CO2 does not make up 3% of our atmosphere. CO2 makes up 0.04% of our atmosphere. This should speak volumes about the potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. You concentrate on quantity when potency should be the consideration to be taken in.

In 1880, the CO2 level was about 280 ppm. In a period of less than 135 years, anthropogenic means have raised the CO2 level to over 400 ppm. When you do the math you will discover that is about a 40% increase in CO2 levels in 135 years. That is a phenomenal increase in CO2.

Where do you get your data that the planet has cooled since 1998? You do know that there was a very strong and extended El Nino event, do you not? That is why you like to pick 1998 as a starting point. Surface temperatures have slowed their rate of increase since 1998, but the over all trend since then still shows a warming. The oceans have warmed considerably more than this during the same time frame. Are not our oceans also a part of our planet?
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2014
ettubrute: I hope you realize by now that Antigorical cannot get past his hatred of Al Gore and is incapable of understanding what is actually taking place in the natural world. He is a true-denier in that he hangs onto misconceptions about what is actually taking place in the world. Just don't be discouraged if he does not seem to understand what you are saying. The reason he does not understand is because he is incapable of getting past his own hatred and he does not have the mental capacity to understand science. Just give him the one he deserves (he actually deserves zeros but we can't give those) and write him off for the hate-filled ignoramus he is.
ettubrute
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2014
I am not here to try to change anyone person's mind on the subject of AGW, thermodynamics. I am more than suspect that antigorical chose his/her handle due to his/her personal bias towards Gore. Al Gore is not a climatologist and should not be liked nor disliked based on his presentations on the subject.

I am more interested in getting those that deny the Science concerning the AGWT to use more of their own critical thinking and less of their personal bias. I was once quite skeptical that mankind could introduce enough CO2 into our atmosphere to change the climate. It was not until I started to use critical thinking for myself that I was able to comprehend that, yes, we can and are changing the climate through our introducing more CO2 into the atmosphere. Antoigorical is capable of learning as well as I am. Antigorical just needs to decide that further knowledge leads to him/her being able to come to better reasoned thoughts and fewer biased opinions.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 06, 2014
I am more interested in getting those that deny the Science concerning the AGWT to use more of their own critical thinking and less of their personal bias
@ettubrute
a noble cause and a fine mission
Some people choose NOT to learn though. Watch antiG, he actually offers nothing of import other than snide comments and derision.

CO2 makes up 3% of the earth's atmosphere
@benni-gone-wild
not only is your math wrong, but this is easily found by simply typing "CO2 content earths atmosphere" into a search engine

And you call yourself a nuclear engineer?
What nuke engineer is so incompetent with computers? or search engines?
I doubt the veracity of your claims... you CLAIM to have knowledge but then you trip and fall flat on your face when trying to show your abilities

Sorry nuke-boy: LEARN TO GOOGLE

By the way: you know I post links to PO often,,, you should stay away! I might be phishing for your info! LMFAO (funniest thing you ever said on PO)
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 06, 2014
ettubrute, the first thing you should be made aware of is that not everyone here is American, nor do we care for the drivel that is your political discourse.
and apparently science is not high on the list for education either in your country...
Take this part of your post, for instance
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_QxBGECHecpA
that is as far as ANYONE with a little intelligence needs to go on order to dismiss your link/post
you referenced a Blogspot... not a scientific paper
not a science site
not a science journal
not an institute of higher learning
not even a lab or research facility...

A BLOG
a blog means: opinion pieces
a blog CAN contain important info IF THERE ARE LINKS TO STUDIES, but then you would/should have linked those studies.

IOW - legitimate science is not voted on by bloggers, the public, politicians or even nuclear engineers like benni-haha... it is empirical data that is shown in experiments that are repeatable and then published in peer review papers
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2014
Runrig, perhaps you can provide us with this evidence that Muller made the MWP disappear.

Comprehension failure again.

No it is you to prove that Mann did - as his graph merely agrees with all the others out there (in general shape).
And in Muller's case he was a skeptic who was converted by looking into the evidence. He headed the team in the BEST study which was funded by the arch oil money men, the Kochs.
Yet .... No MWP (in a world-wide temp raising manner).
Comprende now?
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2014
....... Why would these people try to learn anything for them self when they can simply listen to others that will appease their ignorance? Intellectual laziness is not something that should be treated as if it is a virtue.

Very well said ettubrute
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2014
So runrig, the MWP wasn't global and so your AGW Cult declares it inconsequential. This study shows that current climate change is NOT GLOBAL, thus by your cult's logic, it also must be insignificant.
Comprende?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2014
So runrig, the MWP wasn't global and so your AGW Cult declares it inconsequential. This study shows that current climate change is NOT GLOBAL, thus by your cult's logic, it also must be insignificant.
Comprende?

As usual I do and you do not.
They don't declare it anything.
They use the available proxies and come up with temp data for that period.
And who are you or anyone else to argue when ALL available data have produced the same shape.
" It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region."
http://www.skepti...sic.htm.

This article states that the SH is slower to warm, and not that current warming is not global. Why is that surprising with a massive frigid cold bit at the Pole, an O3 hole above it and surrounded by ocean. The NH has much more land-mass and the vast majority of the worlds CO2 production.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2014
Really runrig, you would use skepticalscience to make your case and especially an article that uses the "science" of Mann and Jones.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2014
Really runrig, you would use skepticalscience to make your case and especially an article that uses the "science" of Mann and Jones.


No I use SkS to link to the "seminal" paper on the MWP.
So for the hard of comprehension/effort to learn I give the direct link........
http://www.nature...797.html
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2014
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2014
Awesome link runrig - thanks.
Eddy Courant
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2014
Scientists. Always the last to know! They just discovered weed, too. Who knew? Stuff's SAFE!!!
phprof
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2014
Fun. Got my first internet ban. Anyway, I'll stick to neutron studies. This climate research is has more hacks than an online computer game.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
I was hoping for some kind of bait an switch from the title, but no,
University of Griefswald, Germany, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, and the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy


are not credible. So many reasons, starting with the "butterfly effect," and working to more solid weather cells, feedback effect of currents, da da da.
A study paid for with bias, to scientists who... rule of Thumper.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
& Well here is an experiment we can all do:
Set your AC to equal outside temperature. Notice how warm or cool it feels, believe it or not, your skin is very sensitive. See how much heat you can feel from the stove at a distance. The CO2 in your home is probably over 1000ppm. The H2O is probably 40% from the AC.
Now open your doors and windows.
Immediately you will notice it feels warmer. You will feel less heat further away from the stove.
The CO2 will have dropped to near 400ppm, and the humidity will probably have increased only a bit, to 60% max, maybe.
Half a reduction in CO2, and a slight increase in H2O results in a dramatic and uncomfortable change to our sensible environ, which would be more, not less impressive were you to measure it.

I'd love to hear some counter arguments ;)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
What's the point of this experiment chemist?
Is it to demonstrate our sensitivity to humidity?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2014
Alche said:
Set your AC to equal outside temperature. Notice how warm or cool it feels, believe it or not, your skin is very sensitive.


Are you going to explain what you want us to see with this experiment? Are you saying we should set the temp on the dial or screen to the outside temperature and then put our hand in front of the blower from the AC?

When you are talking about humidity, is that relative, absolute, or mole fraction?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
No, you can semi-qualitatively demonstrate how ineffective 1000+ppm of CO2 is vs. sub-ambient humidity as they impact the environment.
The proof has always been right there if we thought about it. Anybody else feel like they're wearing ruby slippers?
I always said CO2 was just something for you two sides to fight over. I always figured it was so silly it would blow over.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
No, you can semi-qualitatively demonstrate how ineffective 1000+ppm of CO2 is vs. sub-ambient humidity as they impact the environment.
The proof has always been right there if we thought about it. Anybody else feel like they're wearing ruby slippers?
I always said CO2 was just something for you two sides to fight over. I always figured it was so silly it would blow over.


Alche: Please just explain how this has to do with your example of holding your hand in front of an air conditioner that has been set at the ambient temperature?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Repeated for the slower of us:
Set your AC to equal outside temperature. Notice how warm or cool it feels In Your Home, believe it or not, your skin is very sensitive. See how much heat you can feel from the stove at a distance. The CO2 in your home is probably over 1000ppm. The H2O is probably 40% from the AC.
Now open your doors and windows (and shut off the AC).
Immediately you will notice it feels warmer. You will feel less heat further away from the stove.
The CO2 will have dropped to near 400ppm, and the humidity will probably have increased only a bit, to 60% max, maybe.
Half a reduction in CO2, and a slight increase in H2O results in a dramatic and noticible change to our sensible environ, which would be more, not less impressive were you to measure it.
Anyone can see an compare the effects of CO2 vs. humidity.

Even at 3x ambient CO2 you notice no greenhouse effect, but changes below ambient and fluctuations in humidity are dramatic.
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Alche: Thank you for repeating your interesting view. I asked for the repetition to verify what you were saying because I couldn't believe that even you were that ignorant.

You said:
Repeated for the slower of us:
Set your AC to equal outside temperature. Notice how warm or cool it feels In Your Home, believe it or not, your skin is very sensitive. See how much heat you can feel from the stove at a distance. The CO2 in your home is probably over 1000ppm. The H2O is probably 40% from the AC.
Now open your doors and windows (and shut off the AC).
Immediately you will notice it feels warmer. You will feel less heat further away from the stove.


I was surprised that you don't seem to have any clue as to how an air conditioner works. The coils over which air is blown are at a temperature well below the set point. The set point is where the air conditioner is trying to get the room temperature. If the coils were at the set point there would be no delta T. Continued
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2014
Continued: So, the temperature you feel, blowing across the coil, will be on the order of 15C below the set point. Naturally, it will feel cold.

What do you think that has to do with CO2 in the house?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2014
Apparently thermo can't read a thermostat, or a post. :D
You set the AC to make the temperature in your house equal the temp. outdoors. You feel the temperature in your room, not coming out of the AC. Modern AC reduce temperature and humidity. Only a complete moron or obfuscater would try to make it seem I want you to put your hand over the AC as a measurement, what folly!

Don't like it that I completely wiped away your years of belief with an experiment anyone can do, huh?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Apparently thermo can't read a thermostat, or a post. :D
You set the AC to make the temperature in your house equal the temp. outdoors. You feel the temperature in your room, not coming out of the AC. Modern AC reduce temperature and humidity. Only a complete moron or obfuscater would try to make it seem I want you to put your hand over the AC as a measurement, what folly!

Don't like it that I completely wiped away your years of belief with an experiment anyone can do, huh?


Alche: You really do have to visit your doctor to have your meds adjusted. You haven't said anything that has to do with falsification of AGW. Your claim is completely without merit. Please explain why you think that the idiocy you babbled has anything to do with falsification of AGW. So far you have shown zero understanding of heat transfer. Do you really not understand the difference between convection and radiation?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2014
Alche: You really do have to visit your doctor to have your meds adjusted. You haven't said anything that has to do with falsification of AGW. Your claim is completely without merit. Please explain why you think that the idiocy babbled has anything to do with falsification of AGW. So far you have shown zero understanding of heat transfer. Do you really not understand the difference between convection and radiation?


The quoted idiotic babbled above has nothing to do with AGW, and apparently you don't understand:
The little experiment below removes CO2 as a relevant factor, for anyone who wishes to conduct the experiment, in their own home! It shows how much more powerful water is, and demonstrates you can't even notice 3x (even 10x if you really want) changes in CO2.
This would be true if you could run this test in even the driest desert.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2014
Alche said:
The little experiment below removes CO2 as a relevant factor, for anyone who wishes to conduct the experiment, in their own home! It shows how much more powerful water is, and demonstrates you can't even notice 3x (even 10x if you really want) changes in CO2.
This would be true if you could run this test in even the driest desert.


That is the reason I wanted you to elaborate. Anyone with an introduction to heat transfer would be able to spot the flaws in your proposed experiment. The idea that you can tell a difference in radiant heat transfer over a distance of a few meters inside your home is absurd. Instead, what you are feeling is changes in the evaporation rate off your skin. If you increase the humidity, your skin has more trouble evaporating water you dolt.

If this is this your idea of "falsification of AGW?" You have lost your grasp on reality. No wonder you didn't embarrass yourself (more) by entering the contest to falsify AGW.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (5) Aug 13, 2014
@thermostumped,
Yes, evaporation is an important effect, but you just keep trying to obscure the experiment. It is fun watching you squirm, first you attack my credibility, on an experiment ANYONE can do, now you try to muddy the waters.

But it is a good warning for the inexperienced, evaporative cooling or condensation should be kept in mind as you run the experiment.

The point is, you will notice changes, even "small" changes in humidity on radiative heat, and despite up to 10x changes in CO2, you will notice nothing. The Earth doesn't notice either.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2014
@thermostumped,
Yes, evaporation is an important effect, but you just keep trying to obscure the experiment. It is fun watching you squirm, first you attack my credibility, on an experiment ANYONE can do, now you try to muddy the waters.

But it is a good warning for the inexperienced, evaporative cooling or condensation should be kept in mind as you run the experiment.

The point is, you will notice changes, even "small" changes in humidity on radiative heat, and despite up to 10x changes in CO2, you will notice nothing. The Earth doesn't notice either.


Sure Alche. We will just let everyone do your experiment and report back. Of course if you knew the concept of optical depth it would help everyone understand how really bad your experiment is.

http://en.wikiped...al_depth

The Alchemist
1 / 5 (4) Aug 15, 2014
A fish on a hook squirms less.
Optical depth, ppft. Invoke god next.
It is done, this experiment ANYONE can do is proof positive.

You must really think I haven't taken enough physics or thermodynamics to live and breath this stuff... and not to have done my time with Einstein Coeffs..

You're rather embarrassing yourself.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2014
Set your AC to equal outside ...your skin is very sensitive
@alkie
did your experiment
there is NO way to compare the effects of CO2 and Humidity with the experiment because there is no way to separate CO2 and Humidity in the experiment.

Therefore the effects you feel in ONE (the A/C idiocy) are also being felt in the other (the stove idiocy)

we can then conclude without a shadow of a doubt that not only is THERMODYNAMICS COMPLETELY CORRECT,
but that you are trying to obfuscate reality with a delusional flawed experiment that has NO BEARING at all whatsoever on reality other than to jack up your electric bill and waste heat on your stove!

and you CLAIM that you know thermodynamics and physics? REALLY?
You screwed the experiment from the start!
ANY FIRST YEAR IDIOT knows that given the inability to separate the two gasses, you cannot come to a viable conclusion!

You need to go back to school

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2014
A fish on a hook squirms less.
Optical depth, ppft. Invoke god next.
It is done, this experiment ANYONE can do is proof positive.

You must really think I haven't taken enough physics or thermodynamics to live and breath this stuff... and not to have done my time with Einstein Coeffs..

You're rather embarrassing yourself.
@alkie
the ONLY thing you did with your experiment was PROVE that:

you are not very good at physics

you might be drunk

you are not very good at conducting experiments and getting a valid scientific result

you know enough stupidity to create a flawed experiment that sounds good ONLY in the mind of a "delusional acolyte against reality and empirical data"

you definitely don't know much about science...

you are the only one squirming here, worm boy
if anyone tried an experiment like this in college, they would be drummed out for being a complete moron...
bye bye degree, hello Super size fries