A global temperature conundrum: Cooling or warming climate?

Aug 11, 2014 by Kelly April Tyrrell
A fisherman walks toward open water in the Antarctic ice sheet. Conflicting research on the heating and cooling of Earth has led to a global temperature conundrum, which climate scientists plan to address further this fall.   Credit: iStock Photo

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently requested a figure for its annual report, to show global temperature trends over the last 10,000 years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Zhengyu Liu knew that was going to be a problem.

"We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming."

Writing in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences today, Liu and colleagues from Rutgers University, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, the University of Hawaii, the University of Reading, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, and the University of Albany describe a consistent trend over the course of the Holocene, our current geological epoch, counter to a study published last year that described a period of global cooling before human influence.

The scientists call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.

"The question is, 'Who is right?'" says Liu. "Or, maybe none of us is completely right. It could be partly a data problem, since some of the data in last year's study contradicts itself. It could partly be a model problem because of some missing physical mechanisms."

Over the last 10,000 years, Liu says, we know atmospheric carbon dioxide rose by 20 parts per million before the 20th century, and the massive ice sheet of the Last Glacial Maximum has been retreating. These physical changes suggest that, globally, the annual mean should have continued to warm, even as regions of the world experienced cooling, such as during the Little Ice Age in Europe between the 16th and 19th centuries.

The three models Liu and colleagues generated took two years to complete. They ran simulations of climate influences that spanned from the intensity of sunlight on Earth to global greenhouse gases, ice sheet cover and meltwater changes. Each shows global warming over the last 10,000 years.

Yet, the bio- and geo-thermometers used last year in a study in the journal Science suggest a period of beginning about 7,000 years ago and continuing until humans began to leave a mark, the so-called "hockey stick" on the current climate model graph, which reflects a profound global warming trend.

In that study, the authors looked at data collected by other scientists from ice core samples, phytoplankton sediments and more at 73 sites around the world. The data they gathered sometimes conflicted, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere.

Because interpretation of these proxies is complicated, Liu and colleagues believe they may not adequately address the bigger picture. For instance, biological samples taken from a core deposited in the summer may be different from samples at the exact same site had they been taken from a winter sediment. It's a limitation the authors of last year's study recognize.

"In the Northern Atlantic, there is cooling and warming data the (climate change) community hasn't been able to figure out," says Liu.

With their current knowledge, Liu and colleagues don't believe any physical forces over the last 10,000 years could have been strong enough to overwhelm the warming indicated by the increase in global greenhouse gases and the melting , nor do the physical models in the study show that it's possible.

"The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer," Liu says.

Caveats in the latest study include a lack of influence from volcanic activity in the models, which could lead to cooling—though the authors point out there is no evidence to suggest significant volcanic activity during the Holocene—and no dust or vegetation contributions, which could also cause cooling.

Liu says scientists plan to meet this fall to discuss the conundrum.

"Both communities have to look back critically and see what is missing," he says. "I think it is a puzzle."

Explore further: Global warming 'pause' since 1998 reflects natural fluctuation, study concludes

More information: The Holocene temperature conundrum, PNAS, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1407229111

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate change not so global

Aug 04, 2014

(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 ...

Recommended for you

Tree rings and arroyos

9 hours ago

A new GSA Bulletin study uses tree rings to document arroyo evolution along the lower Rio Puerco and Chaco Wash in northern New Mexico, USA. By determining burial dates in tree rings from salt cedar and wi ...

NASA image: Agricultural fires in the Ukraine

10 hours ago

Numerous fires (marked with red dots) are burning in Eastern Europe, likely as a result of regional agricultural practices. The body of water at the lower left of this true-color Moderate Resolution Imaging ...

NASA marks Polo for a hurricane

11 hours ago

Hurricane Polo still appears rounded in imagery from NOAA's GOES-West satellite, but forecasters at the National Hurricane Center expect that to change.

User comments : 498

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (50) Aug 11, 2014
Data from observation says global cooling

Another nail in the coffin, of the AGW Cult's CO2 lies.
So, who are truly in denial?
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (42) Aug 11, 2014
Cooling or warming?

Yes. The climate changes. It's what it does. Dairy farms in Greenland 1000 years ago.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (28) Aug 11, 2014
What the Article seems to be saying, AntiG, is that MAYBE the overall cooling of the Holocene is being replaced by artificially induced alterations of the "natural" cycle.
At least this researcher admits to a great degree of uncertainty.
orti
1.7 / 5 (42) Aug 11, 2014
"Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming."

The IPCC's solution to the conundrum: Just like our current policy, we'll choose the one (and its severity) that fits our agenda (and fudge it from there).
dogbert
1.7 / 5 (43) Aug 11, 2014
A global temperature conundrum: Cooling or warming climate?


The conundrum exists because of the need to show global warming. Otherwise, the observed reality would present nothing but information.

The political agenda cannot long survive a cooling or static climate.
MikPetter
4.7 / 5 (37) Aug 11, 2014
Reading the article it says "It does not, the authors emphasize, change the evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century." The article actually talks about analytic complexties of temperature proxies from 10,000 years ago.
indio007
1.4 / 5 (40) Aug 11, 2014
The model doesn't match reality. At least they finally admitted it and stopped trying to hide the data.

of course they will need more money to study the issue.

We seriously need to end the way science is funded and ostensibly advanced.
supamark23
4.4 / 5 (39) Aug 11, 2014
wow, 5 of 7 comments above me are from morons... there's a surprise (not). All from deniers, another not surprise - they tend to be below average in mental capacity. Those 5 saw the headlne and posted without reading the article. Protip deniertards - the headline doesn't accurately describe the article. The article actually says the climate is warming, even though it should be cooling. This is due to human influence.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (43) Aug 11, 2014
The data they gathered sometimes conflicted, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere

There is overwhelming evidence of data tampering, if not outright fabrications. Hide the decline was just the tip of the iceberg.

Hmmm... I guess it's supatards turn to abuse that single neuron he shares with the rest of the AGW Cult's peanut gallery.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (40) Aug 11, 2014
So last month it was - The MYSTERIES of Antarctic sea ice
http://phys.org/n...ice.html

Now it's the - global temperature CONUNDRUM.

At this rate the AGW Cult will soon run out of words for the only one they really need - LIES.
mememine69
1.4 / 5 (39) Aug 11, 2014
32 years of science never being more than their laughable 95% certain for a GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS was anything anybody wanted it to be except "sustainable in belief" for another 32 years of ; "Help my planet might possibly be on fire maybe with 95% certainty!".

Yes the lab coats you doomers bow to like bible thumpers are 100% certain the planet is not flat but 95% certain that THE END IS NEAR? REAL progressives doubt, question and challenge all authority especially ones that condemn the planet with 32 years of "could be" warnings. Grow up!
Mayday
4.5 / 5 (33) Aug 11, 2014
IMO, the point is that often people want to simplify complex things well beyond reason (see first sentence of article), Measuring climate, particularly in the distant past, and reporting it in a way to portray a broad pattern of change is extraordinarily difficult. Reducing it to a single number or a nice, clean curve on a graph is actually quite unreasonable and potentially misleading to the uninformed. The facts we currently face are that our climate has and continues to express more potentially destructive warming recently than in the not so distant past. And that mankind has recently pumped an enormous amount of GHGs into the atmosphere. If one correlates these, it prudently recommends changes in our behavior as a species. If one does not correlate these, then you are advocating taking a substantial risk that the rest of us may not agree to take, yet will be affected by. It will be hard to describe advocating the unnecessary release of more GHGs as anything but negligent.
MR166
1.4 / 5 (39) Aug 11, 2014
Ah, finally a paper that admits that climate science does not really know what is going on, the models are wrong and man's contribution to temperature change cannot be quantified.

Goodby 97% it was nice knowing you.
supamark23
Aug 11, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (27) Aug 11, 2014
Since, this research appears to indicate anthropomorphic interruption of the natural cycle, Mayday is right. Prudent monitoring, interpretation and action is in order and just seems -
well - prudent...
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.2 / 5 (20) Aug 11, 2014
Climate change is real, and serious.
I have no clue how any of you can deny something funky has been going on with the weather. You don't need to go to college or watch a bunch of documentaries, i'm 23 years old and I can tell the weather has just become more extreme in just my time here, and a bunch of you are freaking middle aged.

This planet has not had major ice sheets on it since the Permian, that was about 300M to about 250M years ago, and had about 3x time the CO2 levels of the postindustrial world, yet it was only a few degrees hotter.
So what?
It matters because our oceans and atmosphere have reached a stable state at declined CO2 levels. Our modern ecosystems are intimately linked to have those cooler regions, even lady bugs actually go to the tundra to reproduce. But even if you don't care about that, our oceans are set to be relatively PH neutral with our current atmospheric conditions, with the added CO2 and pollution they have become more acidic.

cont.
Toiea
1.4 / 5 (30) Aug 11, 2014
Both communities have to look back critically and see what is missing
What is missing are various cosmic effects, which are generally neglected in the present era of anthropogenic warming hysteria. The skeptics have tendency to occupy more insightful stance in this controversy - albeit the main warming factor of Holocene period, i.e. the dark matter at the galactic plane wasn't considered yet.
TegiriNenashi
2.5 / 5 (22) Aug 11, 2014
...i'm 23 years old and I can tell the weather has just become more extreme...


So how exactly did you determine that? Raised a hand to feel more apparent wind?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (21) Aug 11, 2014
Hey, dumbass, that's not what the article (or paper) say. try reading before commenting idiot.


Have you not yet noticed the Toad is gone? You can be next.......
MR166
1.5 / 5 (26) Aug 11, 2014
"You don't need to go to college or watch a bunch of documentaries, i'm 23 years old and I can tell the weather has just become more extreme in just my time here, and a bunch of you are freaking middle aged."

It is really a shame that our higher educational system is capable of producing graduates that lack critical thinking skills. I suppose that feeding a young mind 97% propaganda can turn it to mush.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (25) Aug 11, 2014
What the Article seems to be saying, AntiG, is that MAYBE the overall cooling of the Holocene is being replaced by artificially induced alterations of the "natural" cycle.
At least this researcher admits to a great degree of uncertainty.


Maybe.
And the 'science' is settled!
Steve 200mph Cruiz
3.7 / 5 (16) Aug 11, 2014
...i'm 23 years old and I can tell the weather has just become more extreme...


So how exactly did you determine that? Raised a hand to feel more apparent wind?


I'm observant, I remember what winters were like in certain years, I remember when it snowed, when it rained, how much precipitation we had, and yes, how hard the wind blew. You don't need a weatherman for the past.
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.4 / 5 (26) Aug 11, 2014
It is really a shame that our higher educational system is capable of producing graduates that lack critical thinking skills. I suppose that feeding a young mind 97% propaganda can turn it to mush.


Joke's on you, I never went to college in a meaningful capacity, and I'm still smarter than you. I started my own machining business a while ago so I didn't need to go to get out of the corporate world, but I've always had an interest in the natural sciences, which has been my passion since I was a kid. Yale posts many of thier lectures on youtube and this great guy (ex hedge fund manager) started this website called khanacademy.org. There are many great resources out there.

I am a critical thinker, I don't understand what you are getting at. Are you saying that there is a global conspiracy that hydrocarbons don't turn to CO2 when you burn them with oxygen?
Basic chemistry
are you saying that CO2 doesn't impact the environment?
about 4 billion years of geology proves otherwise.
adam_russell_9615
4.5 / 5 (13) Aug 11, 2014
"The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer," Liu says.

Truer words were never said.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (25) Aug 11, 2014
I keep warning you pro-AGWers. CO2, temperature increase; red herrings. That isn't the way the world can work.

Actually, we're on a threshold. I think the climate will start warming, finally, in the future. But short-term realities will cause confusion to you sheep who won't think about how the world must change according to simple principles.

To start, again: You add heat to the earth system in addition to the Sun, you cause a change. The equilibrium change of adding heat to the earth system, and you've been arguing about it for long enough that I feel comfortable using an equilibrium approximation, is glacial melting, and other noticeable changes along those veins.

Not complicated, I've been predicting this for years now.

@adam_russel
If I put ice in your kool aid, then put it in the sun, does the temperature go up? No, it doesn't change, except at the fringes.

The Earth is much more stable than an iced drink.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (24) Aug 11, 2014
Actually adam, I believe you would find that a low temperature and high humidity could give the same warmth as a high temperature and low humidity.
TegiriNenashi
1.9 / 5 (18) Aug 11, 2014
I'm observant, I remember what winters were like in certain years, I remember when it snowed, when it rained, how much precipitation we had, and yes, how hard the wind blew. You don't need a weatherman for the past.


Human memory is not very reliable apparatus. We are talking temperature change 0.6C/century, and even this minuscule amount is debatable. Divide that by your conscious lifespan; 20 years at best? BTW, where are you living, on the coast? It always amuses me how many people living in the middle of the continent, where temperature swings 50 degrees during a single week are common, form an opinion about the climate based on their weather perception.

If you are living in growing metropolitan area, what you might have notice is UHI.
bmorrow492
2 / 5 (23) Aug 11, 2014
"morons...below average in mental capacity...dumbass..."

Ah yes, what is it they say? Insults are the last recourse of a lost argument?

Students of science ethics will still be studying the AGC movement a hundred years from now. It will be seen as the worst example of politics driving science since the middle ages.
Skepticus_Rex
2.6 / 5 (13) Aug 11, 2014
Climate change is real, and serious.
I have no clue how any of you can deny something funky has been going on with the weather. You don't need to go to college or watch a bunch of documentaries, i'm 23 years old and I can tell the weather has just become more extreme in just my time here, and a bunch of you are freaking middle aged....


Some of us are considerably older than middle aged, and it doesn't look much different than what I can remember in my childhood. But, you are young and aren't used to such changes in weather in your area. You should read climate reports from the 1920s and 1930s. They read almost identically to the ones we see today, including melting glaciers, glaciers gone, wildlife affected by heating, and so forth. Yes, I am serious. By the way, as many are fond of saying, you cannot judge climate by weather. :-)
ECOnservative
5 / 5 (14) Aug 12, 2014
Possibly we are beginning to understand just how complex our climate really is. Standing toe-to-toe screaming at each other is unlikely to advance our understanding much.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (16) Aug 12, 2014
32 years of science never being more than their laughable 95% certain for a GLOBAL CLIMATE CRISIS was anything anybody wanted it to be except "sustainable in belief" for another 32 years of ; "Help my planet might possibly be on fire maybe with 95% certainty!".

Yes the lab coats you doomers bow to like bible thumpers are 100% certain the planet is not flat but 95% certain that THE END IS NEAR? REAL progressives doubt, question and challenge all authority especially ones that condemn the planet with 32 years of "could be" warnings......

Grow up!

Exactly and quit with you pasting of the same sad argument and spamming this site.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (22) Aug 12, 2014
...............

Goodby 97% it was nice knowing you.


Hey, dumbass, that's not what the article (or paper) say. try reading before commenting idiot.


Supa....
They are so deluded that even if they did "read it" they'd spin what they want out of it.
If you start from a biased opinion you will ALWAYS bolster that opinion by ignoring everything bar the bits you think support you, and by twisting anything close to what you think is happening (or not - in this case). The last thing that was hilarious in this regard was the paper that found some additional warming from volcanic activity in one part of one glacier in Antarctica .... and magically that was THE reason that ALL the sheets there were melting.

Err .... it's the reason why jurors are screened to eliminate anything that may inform their judgment .... for a fair trial.
But then they get around that by maintaining there's a global scientific/socialist conspiracy to lie to the world.
FFS squared
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 12, 2014
@Mayday - nice reasoned response - thanks - sometimes it gets depressing watching all the childishness.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) Aug 12, 2014
Data from observation says global cooling.

So runrig, after denying it for so long, how would you spin that?
runrig
4.4 / 5 (20) Aug 12, 2014
Data from observation says global cooling.

So runrig, after denying it for so long, how would you spin that?

Try reading ... and most importantly comprehending what the article is saying - like I said, and not spinning it to mean what you want it to mean, that is, current post industrial warming. Look at a graph of temp trends since the HCO and you will see a general cooling trend UNTIL the post-industrial era.
from above ...
"....describe a consistent global warming trend over the course of the Holocene, our current geological epoch, counter to a study published last year that described a period of global cooling BEFORE HUMAN INLUENCE." (my caps)

They are saying that models want the world to warm from the HCO and observation shows it cooled............... THEN has warmed during the industrial era.

Not new ...
see (those who want to try to comprehend)

http://www.realcl...olocene/
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 12, 2014
Possibly we are beginning to understand just how complex our climate really is. Standing toe-to-toe screaming at each other is unlikely to advance our understanding much.

Think about all the hot air it is adding to the system...:-)
fidh
4.8 / 5 (8) Aug 12, 2014
The article was great, the title was not misleading as bunch have suggested and above all its great to see something like this on physorg.

The greatest problem with "climate science" is that its still taking it's baby steps yet the politicians and people alike demand for concrete answers to one of the most complex systems of planet earth.
It should not be the topic of heated public discussion or the cornerstone of someone's campaign.
All it should be is a pile of research resulting in whatever it will be.
Modernmystic
3.9 / 5 (10) Aug 12, 2014
Not that I'm conceding the point of AGW, because I'm not......

However, for the sake of argument....doesn't it make sense to get off hydrocarbons? Funneling money indirectly to ISIS, knowing that we're going to run out, knowing that (even if they don't heat up the earth...which they do) they put tons of particulate crap in the air which in FACT does kill millions....

Hydrocarbons make no sense geopolitically, health wise, and eventually not even economically. The only way they make sense is if you work for one of these companies, or own stock in them...and even then, taken all things into consideration, not even that makes ultimate sense.

GIVEN all that how about nuclear power. Barring that, how about sensible wind and solar for residential applications at the least. These should be non contraversial, especially with new nuclear costing half as much, producing no waste or weapons grade material, and being walk away safe....
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 12, 2014
Thanks runrig, excellent spin job, you didn't disappoint.
http://wattsupwit...-period/
MR166
1 / 5 (13) Aug 12, 2014
Mystic there is no doubt that we need to find other sources of energy. Fossil fuels are a finite resource. But, that fact does not mean that we should jump off an energy cliff and give monies to governments and their crony friends.

Every form of energy kills something so it has to judged on a cost effective/harm basis. As an example, we could pass a law that only solar and wind energy can supply electric power. How much poverty and starvation will that create?

If you look at history, governments have never solved a problem or created prosperity. Only bright free individuals can do that.
supamark23
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 12, 2014
Hey, dumbass, that's not what the article (or paper) say. try reading before commenting idiot.


Have you not yet noticed the Toad is gone? You can be next.......


Toad is gone because he actually threatened to beat someone up. antig somehow wasn't banned for threatening the president though... kinda surprised he didn't receive a visit from the FBI. this site is barely moderated, and you're still an anti-science idiot.
supamark23
4.5 / 5 (15) Aug 12, 2014
"morons...below average in mental capacity...dumbass..."

Ah yes, what is it they say? Insults are the last recourse of a lost argument?

Students of science ethics will still be studying the AGC movement a hundred years from now. It will be seen as the worst example of politics driving science since the middle ages.


But not in the way you think - the Bush admin used to change scientific reports that didn't match their politics. The deniers have paid massive amounts of money to politicians so they do nothing on the climate. That is the politics driving "science" today.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 12, 2014
Hydrocarbons make no sense geopolitically, health wise, and eventually not even economically.

Yes, they do make sense.
http://www.cleane...parison/
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 12, 2014
Toad is gone because he actually threatened to beat someone up. antig somehow wasn't banned for threatening the president though... kinda surprised he didn't receive a visit from the FBI. this site is barely moderated, and you're still an anti-science idiot.
--supatard
Obviously being retarded, has afforded you many privileges, denied to the intelligent.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (19) Aug 12, 2014
the Bush admin used to change scientific reports that didn't match their politics.


" John Beale, the Environmental Protection Agency employee who bilked taxpayers out of almost $900,000 by pretending to be a secret agent. Telling EPA colleagues that he was a CIA operative, Beale was paid for long absences while on imaginary missions for "Langley." Now there is a disturbing new question about John Beale that goes to the heart of the EPA's mission. What was he doing when he actually showed up for work?"
"From 1989 until 2013, Beale was employed in the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), which develops policies and regulations related to air pollution and climate change. It is the most powerful office within one of Washington's most powerful agencies, given the costs it can impose on American business and consumers. And for much of his time Beale was senior policy adviser. "
http://online.wsj...92025230
MR166
1.3 / 5 (16) Aug 12, 2014
Supa you really do not understand the underlying forces behind climate "science". It is totally funded and supported by those who are the direct beneficiaries of increased government power.

The governments, press and universities are all pretty much on the same side of the movement that is trying to strip you of your individual freedoms. Contrary to popular belief, this movement is funded by the few ultra wealthy that control the system. Of course it is popular to blame our ills on the right wing supporters of individual freedoms but this can not be further from the truth.
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (19) Aug 12, 2014
Supa you really do not understand the underlying forces behind climate "science". It is totally funded and supported by those who are the direct beneficiaries of increased government power.


They do understand.
AGWism is just another knob for 'liberals' to turn to increase their power.
Unfortunately, as we see by the shrill response of the socialists here, they are seeing that power slip away as the inevitable failures of socialist policies are in full view of all.
supamark23
4.7 / 5 (14) Aug 12, 2014
Supa you really do not understand the underlying forces behind climate "science". It is totally funded and supported by those who are the direct beneficiaries of increased government power.

The governments, press and universities are all pretty much on the same side of the movement that is trying to strip you of your individual freedoms. Contrary to popular belief, this movement is funded by the few ultra wealthy that control the system. Of course it is popular to blame our ills on the right wing supporters of individual freedoms but this can not be further from the truth.


Lol, you don't even understand why CO2 is a greenhouse gas; or why temperature *must* rise with increasing [CO2] absent other factors (such as sulfate aerosols like in the 60's and 70's). You claim all this money is going to AGW proponents, ignoring that an order of magnitude more money is funding deniers like yourself. You should be ashamed, but you're too stupid to understand why.
supamark23
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 12, 2014
Toad is gone because he actually threatened to beat someone up. antig somehow wasn't banned for threatening the president though... kinda surprised he didn't receive a visit from the FBI. this site is barely moderated, and you're still an anti-science idiot.
--supatard
Obviously being retarded, has afforded you many privileges, denied to the intelligent.


Oh, look, the NAMBLA member antigoricle tried to be funny (and failed, as he does in all things).
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Aug 12, 2014
Oh, look, the NAMBLA member antigoricle tried to be funny (and failed, as he does in all things).
--supatard
Luckily a retard like you is only a threat to yourself.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (14) Aug 12, 2014
Supra I do understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but a real science requires more than one variable in a perhaps 20 variable equation. If more CO2 equals higher temperatures equals even more CO2 from the oceans and even higher temperatures as "climate science" claims, the earth would be uninhabitable by now. Negative feedback loops have been totally discounted or misrepresented by this science.
MR166
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 12, 2014
If your goal is to have man have absolutely no influence on the ecology of the planet then you are condemning mankind to a life of bare subsistence.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (17) Aug 12, 2014
You claim all this money is going to AGW proponents

"SEPP calculated that from Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amount to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science. The White House reported that in FY 2013 the US spent $22.5 Billion on climate change. About $2 Billion went to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The principal function of the USGCRP is to provide to Congress a National Climate Assessment (NCA). The latest report uses global climate models, which are not validated, therefor speculative, to speculate about regional influences from global warming.

Much of the remaining 89% of funding goes to goes to government agencies and industries claiming they are preventing global warming/climate change, even though they do not understand the natural causes of climate change and, likely, far overestimate the influence of CO2. "
http://www.powerl...rming-fo
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 12, 2014
Thanks runrig, excellent spin job, you didn't disappoint.
................

Neither have you (disappointed)

That link is more semantics about words in emails etc, is science free and says nothing about the graph shown by Monckton etc not being global and all spinning graphs thereafter omitted latest modern day warming to make it seem warmer. The graph is for central England and a schematic

Nothing and I repeat nothing in terms of headline comment, is of any worth on WUWT. Like I said, all you have to do to confirm your bias is ... read bias. And don't say it isn't - the whole raison d'etre of WUWT is to deny AGW. So why would you expect anything other than denial. Eh?
And before you say it RealScience has links to papers to support. Why I posted the link.

You know I have posted there and my comments were some of the very rare sensible ones to be found on it. Those that do, get hounded away or leave to preserve their sanity (me).
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 12, 2014
Oh, the "righteous" runrig, everyone outside the AGW Cult persecutes him. The climategate emails proved otherwise.
rp142
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 12, 2014
Climate change is a better term for the problem. We have the uninformed mass media to blame for the use of "global warming" which gives those with an overly simplistic view of the world a reason to cry when there is localised cooling or something else they fail to understand the significance of is reported...

The weather is driven by changes on an worldwide scale. The increased energy absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere results in more extreme weather events, such as, hurricanes, heavy snow fall, extreme high temperature days in summer, etc.

Weather patterns have been shown to shift with impacts on a state and country scale. In some areas that will actually create more extreme winters, as weather patterns shift and dump heavy snow where little would normally fall. In other areas, high productivity farming land is destroyed through lack of rain.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (18) Aug 12, 2014
Climate change is a better term for the problem.

The climate has been changing for thousands of years.
Now AGWites can claim any unusual weather event is human caused 'climate change'.
Convenient.
igh productivity farming land is destroyed through lack of rain.

Recall the dust bowl of the 1930s?
The Sahara was once forested I hear.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (14) Aug 12, 2014
Oh, the "righteous" runrig, everyone outside the AGW Cult persecutes him. The climategate emails proved otherwise.

They proved nothing except to bolster the denialists world view.

So they proved what precisely?
That the world's experts are scamming the world?
Or that proxy data from Scandinavian trees no longer followed temps and was replaced by REAL data..... for a presentation graph NOT a peer-reviewed paper.

As I said, in this or another thread... I'm denying your spamming bollocks on several threads as usual... not in this Universe my friend.
supamark23
4.7 / 5 (15) Aug 12, 2014
rygge said,
Recall the dust bowl of the 1930s?


poor ignorant rygge, the dust bowl was caused by a drought and bad farming practices that occurred after an unusually wet period in the region. Every decade after the 1930's has been warmer than the 1930's.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 12, 2014
The climate has been changing for thousands of years.
Now AGWites can claim any unusual weather event is human caused 'climate change'.
Convenient.
igh productivity farming land is destroyed through lack of rain.

Recall the dust bowl of the 1930s?
The Sahara was once forested I hear.

I've told you before ... science is not your strong point.
Better stick to your quote-mined, ranting regarding .... something that seems to bother you inordinately.

You hear right about the Sahara ... a PJ stream that was further south and brought Atlantic depressions further south into the Med. Mind have to go back to the time of the Pharaohs there.
Dustbowl ...
"The study found cooler than normal tropical Pacific Ocean surface temperatures combined with warmer tropical Atlantic Ocean temperatures to create conditions in the atmosphere that turned America's breadbasket into a dust bowl from 1931 to 1939. The team's data is in this week's Science magazine.

These changes in sea surface temperatures created shifts in the large-scale weather patterns and low level winds that reduced the normal supply of moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and inhibited rainfall throughout the Great Plains"
http://www.nasa.g...owl.html
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Aug 12, 2014
Climates changed, before CO2 increased.
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (18) Aug 12, 2014
So they proved what precisely?
That the world's experts are scamming the world?

Poor runrig, all the heretics are against him, only the AGW Cult speaks the truth.
http://www.forbes...-debate/
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (13) Aug 12, 2014
Ryggy -
Climates changed, before CO2 increased.


Wow - profound observation there. Good job you pointed that out. The climate scientists who constructed millions of years of proxy data - did not know that. They also did not know that there were milankovich cycles, or solar radaition changes, or atmospheric content changes, or plate techtonics, or albedo effect, or anything like that. You'd better write a paper on it Ryggy - make youself famous........
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2014
Ryggy -
Climates changed, before CO2 increased.


Wow - profound observation there. Good job you pointed that out. The climate scientists who constructed millions of years of proxy data - did not know that. They also did not know that there were milankovich cycles, or solar radaition changes, or atmospheric content changes, or plate techtonics, or albedo effect, or anything like that. You'd better write a paper on it Ryggy - make youself famous........

Yep Strange...

As I say - science isn't his strong point.
He just displays a stunning D-K syndrome infected by peculiar politics.

Well what's new on here eh? Many do. But you know what I mean. There's the laughter quotient with him as well. Whatever happened to NotParker?
fidh
5 / 5 (4) Aug 13, 2014
As the dust settles everything is exactly the same way as before the storm. Same arguments and same discussions over and over again.
I wonder if it's the perspiration Newton thought of so highly or is it just the insanity defined by Einstein that keeps this going.
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (13) Aug 13, 2014
As the dust settles everything is exactly the same way as before the storm. Same arguments and same discussions over and over again.
I wonder if it's the perspiration Newton thought of so highly or is it just the insanity defined by Einstein that keeps this going.


If you understand physics the question will answer itself. Many of us indulge to make sure that unsupportable comments are not allowed to stand without response. Newton would quickly see that greenhouse gases trap IR and raise the heat on the earth. It is those who do not understand physics that refute this. The banter you see is those of us who will not let pseudo-science prevail.
Mike_Massen
4.9 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2014
MR166 misses the mark
Supra I do understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but a real science requires more than one variable in a perhaps 20 variable equation. If more CO2 equals higher temperatures equals even more CO2 from the oceans and even higher temperatures as "climate science" claims, the earth would be uninhabitable by now. Negative feedback loops have been totally discounted or misrepresented by this science.
You forget or havtn worked out that water has a massive capacity for absorbing heat, habitability in some places is declining Eg Tuvalu etc

For there to be a negative feedback effect you need to remove more heat from the earth and that is atmosphere AND oceans, or you need to Reduce the amount of heat being absorbed.

So far all the mechanisms of potential to remove more or absorb less are in trouble. Eg more GHG's retain heat and less reflection so more is abosrbed.

What are your top 5 other negative feedback effects which 'might' play any role MR166 ?
Mike_Massen
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2014
adam_russell_9615 uttered
"The fundamental laws of physics say that as the temperature goes up, it has to get warmer," Liu says.

Truer words were never said.
BUT only when summed properly eg Atmosphere AND Oceans AND Land etc...

AND its also absolutely true H2O can absorb massive amounts of heat and not change temperature !

Education in Mathematics & Physics is essential, why are so many deniers not educated ?
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2014
fidh
As the dust settles everything is exactly the same way as before


I am not sure you are totally correct here. I think you have to keep in mind the big picture. We are at a fascinating moment in time. Science is progressing - obviously - and much is changing. Just yesterday there was an article on developing a blood test for cancer. Soon we may have cancer beaten. The march of time. Our understanding of the climate moves ever forward. So - as the evidence mounts - the anti science people will have to morph, or become irrelevant. Either way - we will have to deal with what we have to deal with. People like Rygg, and Antigoracle will probably disappear from this kind of board - and perhaps we will continue on the journey of freeing ourselves from ignorance - and figuring out how to live without killing ourselves.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2014
Ryggy -
Climates changed, before CO2 increased.


Wow - profound observation there. Good job you pointed that out. The climate scientists who constructed millions of years of proxy data - did not know that. They also did not know that there were milankovich cycles, or solar radaition changes, or atmospheric content changes, or plate techtonics, or albedo effect, or anything like that. You'd better write a paper on it Ryggy - make youself famous........

If one doesn't know why climate changed in the past, how confident should anyone be about any climate change now?
This is why Mann had to fake his data to create the Hockey Stick.
supamark23
4 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2014
Climates changed, before CO2 increased.


But now is the first time a living organism has changed the climate in about 600 million years (since "snowball Earth").

Also, you'll find that [CO2] is a leading indicator of climate change every time (it goes up, then temp goes up, [CO2] goes down then temp goes down).

What's it like having the mental capacity of a 14 year old? Do you even realise how outmatched you are intellectually?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2014
Also, you'll find that [CO2] is a leading indicator of climate change every time (it goes up, then temp goes up, [CO2] goes down then temp goes down).


How do you track that from 600 million year old data?
Most likely CO2 increases as oceans warm releasing CO2. Cold water holds more CO2.
Why did the oceans warm?

"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," - Sune Olander Rasmussen"
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 13, 2014
Ryggy -
Climates changed, before CO2 increased.


Wow - profound observation there. Good job you pointed that out. The climate scientists who constructed millions of years of proxy data - did not know that. They also did not know that there were milankovich cycles, or solar radaition changes, or atmospheric content changes, or plate techtonics, or albedo effect, or anything like that. You'd better write a paper on it Ryggy - make youself famous........

If one doesn't know why climate changed in the past, how confident should anyone be about any climate change now?
This is why Mann had to fake his data to create the Hockey Stick.


Because we know the drivers of climate...
Orbital parameters
TSI
Albedo
GHG's

And we are sure it's the last one this time.
Why, because it's not the others ..... unless it's dark matter or something that coincidentally and magically matches the empirical science, observation and correlation of CO2, with ave global temps.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.
THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL is not matching observations very well lately.
supamark23
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.


[citation needed]
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.


[citation needed]

Look it up, if you know how.
LariAnn
5 / 5 (13) Aug 13, 2014
I had to make sure to read all the posts to see that none of the deniers were called out on their blatant support of models used in this research:

The three models Liu and colleagues generated took two years to complete. They ran simulations of climate influences that spanned from the intensity of sunlight on Earth to global greenhouse gases, ice sheet cover and meltwater changes. Each shows global warming over the last 10,000 years.


IMHO, the deniers love this article because in their form of creative logic, the article supports their position. The reality is that it does not, and that it is based on the results of models, which in this case is fine with the deniers because these models, even though they support global warming, incredibly seem to the deniers to support their position! No doubt about it - the deniers don't trust models except when they think the models support their position.

I rest my case.
supamark23
4.5 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.


[citation needed]

Look it up, if you know how.


You made the claim, it's your responsibility to back it up. Of course, you pulled that claim from your ass so there is no backup, typical anti-science denier troll.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.


[citation needed]

Look it up, if you know how.


You made the claim, it's your responsibility to back it up. Of course, you pulled that claim from your ass so there is no backup, typical anti-science denier troll.

Look it up:
"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," - Sune Olander Rasmussen"

If this were a real science site, physorg would have provided this information. AGWism is a religious/political movement and dissent must be shouted down.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 13, 2014
We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.

Really LariAnn!!
I've admonished supatard about burning out that lone neuron you, in the AGW Cult's peanut gallery, share. He, obviously, was too stupid to listen and then passed it on to you. So, LariAnn, after you've grown a brain, tell us which would you trust, observed data or the AGW Cult's computer models.
supamark23
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2014
lol, NAMBLA member antigoracle trolls again.
strangedays
4.9 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2014
Ryggy quotes Sune Olander Rasmussen (of course without giving and kind of links). I took a second to google Sune. I am glad that Ryggy likes Sune. Here is a quote from Sune -

"What we are observing in the present day is the mankind has caused the CO2 content in the atmosphere to rise as much in just 150 years as it rose over 8,000 years during the transition from the last ice age to the current interglacial period and that can bring the Earth's climate out of balance,"

I will give a link - http://news.ku.dk...and_co2/

Very interesting article - you and antigoracle should read it Ryggy.

Cont.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2014
"There exist a clear phase relationship between changes of atmospheric CO2 and the different global temperature records, whether representing sea surface temperature, surface air temperature, or lower troposphere temperature, with changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2 always lagging behind corresponding changes in temperature."
http://www.scienc...12001658
strangedays
5 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2014
Cont.

But again - there is a bigger point here. Ryggy stated "But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases." which is of course only partially correct - as sometimes C02 leads, and sometimes it lags.

But the bigger point - 'how do we know this piece of information that Ryggy so flippantly half quotes? Well of course - we know it because scientists have spent millions of hours studying tree rings, and ice cores, and sediments etc. etc. - and have developed proxy data. SO - people like Ryggy and antigoracle - who are not scientists themselves (me neither) are happy to take the work of scientists - and use it when it serves their purpose, but disparage it when they are pushing their agenda. So it is clear who are the cult members.

SO - just as it is my hope that one day - ISIS, the Taliban, the Baptists etc. will all go away - I also live for the day that we respect education - and fools will have no place on a science web site.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2014
lol, NAMBLA member antigoracle trolls again.
-- supaturd
Hmmm... seems like that priest did molest you after all and you liked it.
It's the only explanation for your mental state.
strangedays
5 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2014
So Ryggy - you quoted both Dr. Humlum, and Sune Olander Rasmussen. Dr. Humlum contends that human activity has not caused the recent increase in C02 levels. Sune contends that it does. You are contradicting yourself yet again.

Here is NOAA's position - http://www.esrl.n....html#44
runrig
5 / 5 (13) Aug 13, 2014
And we are sure it's the last one this time.

But in the past, CO2 lagged temperature increases.
THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL is not matching observations very well lately.


If I had a pound for every time I have explained this, never mind others on here, to the goldfish circling the bowl - I would be rich man.
CO2 is a GHG and as such slows terrestrial IR in it's path to space. As a result the Earth has to warm in order to achieve the requisite balance. SB law.
Now in the past CO2 was a feed-back as it only followed temp changes in being released from the biosphere.
Now, would you credit it - mankind has stepped in and bloody well injected a 40% increase of atmospheric CO2 in just ~100 years. Result .... it's now a driver and temps have followed.
In short CO2 can do both. In a natural world it follows and latterly in mankind's planet destroying one it leads.
It is not mysterious nor hard to understand .... so why do the usual suspects continue to circle the bowl? Spamming.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2014
We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.

Really LariAnn!!
I've admonished supatard about burning out that lone neuron you, in the AGW Cult's peanut gallery, share. He, obviously, was too stupid to listen and then passed it on to you. So, LariAnn, after you've grown a brain, tell us which would you trust, observed data or the AGW Cult's computer models.

I don't know about Lariann - but the observational data shows cooling until the industrial age then warming. Chiming with the 40% increase of a gas in the atmosphere that has been known for around 150 years to retard IR to space.
GCM's model that gases behaviour and attempt to include natural climate cycles. Those that have coincidentally modelled ENSO correctly are spot on and the rest are within the error bars.
So next Anti..?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2014
Also, you'll find that [CO2] is a leading indicator of climate change every time (it goes up, then temp goes up, [CO2] goes down then temp goes down).


How do you track that from 600 million year old data?
Most likely CO2 increases as oceans warm releasing CO2. Cold water holds more CO2.
Why did the oceans warm?

"Our analyses of ice cores from the ice sheet in Antarctica shows that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the rise in Antarctic temperatures very closely and is staggered by a few hundred years at most," - Sune Olander Rasmussen"

Now ryggy baby ... give it up sunshine - this is getting too repetitive even for your denialist brethren to stomach, surely. You are swimming very fast around the bowl.
Warming is induced by orbital cycles and then the CO2 follows (up or down). Your quote merely confirms accepted science. Bless.
supamark23
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 13, 2014
lol, NAMBLA member antigoracle trolls again.
-- supaturd
Hmmm... seems like that priest did molest you after all and you liked it.
It's the only explanation for your mental state.


Oh, you're a priest too?
saposjoint
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 13, 2014
Nam-yo-ho renge-CO2...
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (13) Aug 13, 2014
Oh, you're a priest too?
--supaturd
Why, are you looking for more?
You truly need professional help.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2014
CO2 is a GHG and as such slows terrestrial IR in it's path to space.

How much? Not much at 15 um.
As a result the Earth has to warm in order to achieve the requisite balance.

How can it balance? By radiating IR energy in bands not absorbed by CO2 and H2O.
strangedays
4.9 / 5 (10) Aug 13, 2014
runrig
Warming is induced by orbital cycles and then the CO2 follows (up or down).


But the really pertinent point in this discussion - is that Rasmussen establishes that C02 increase CAN follow temperature increase - BUT - in the current situation - human activity is increasing the C02 levels, which are then driving the observed warming. It is very clear in the last paragraph of this article.

http://news.ku.dk...and_co2/

And NOAA is in agreement -

http://www.esrl.n....html#44

supamark23
4.5 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2014
Oh, you're a priest too?
--supaturd
Why, are you looking for more?
You truly need professional help.


It's amusing to see your impotent responses, they're not nearly as creative or amusing as mine (which aren't particulary creative, because you're not really worth the effort) and it's fun to troll the trolls (and you *are* certainly a troll here).
runrig
4.6 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2014
CO2 is a GHG and as such slows terrestrial IR in it's path to space.

How much? Not much at 15 um.
As a result the Earth has to warm in order to achieve the requisite balance.

How can it balance? By radiating IR energy in bands not absorbed by CO2 and H2O.

Go look it up yourself ... but the answer is by enough to give the warming we have seen and is measured by surface spectroscopic analysis and satellite TOA imbalance.
Just does - and if you want to know why and by how much you can find the answer just as well as me.
That's not your agenda is it though ryggy? It's just to continually spam this site.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (11) Aug 13, 2014
runrig
Warming is induced by orbital cycles and then the CO2 follows (up or down).


But the really pertinent point in this discussion - is that Rasmussen establishes that C02 increase CAN follow temperature increase - BUT - in the current situation - human activity is increasing the C02 levels, which are then driving the observed warming. It is very clear in the last paragraph of this article.

http://news.ku.dk...and_co2/


Err .... I'm sorry? .... I thought that was precisely what I said! (in my just prior post)
And have been saying ad nauseum on here for several years.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (13) Aug 13, 2014
Go look it up yourself ... but the answer is by enough to give the warming we have seen and is measured by surface spectroscopic analysis and satellite TOA imbalance.


By using the appropriate 'forcings' in THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL, that is now having credibility problems.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (12) Aug 13, 2014
runrig -
Err .... I'm sorry? .... I thought that was precisely what I said! (in my just prior post)
And have been saying ad nauseum on here for several years.


I know - but if you look at your quote here -
Warming is induced by orbital cycles and then the CO2 follows (up or down).


It could look as if you were supporting Ryggy's point - where Ryggy was stipulating that C02 levels LAG temperature changes. The reality of course being that sometimes they have lagged, and sometimes they have lead - but that does not change the understanding that currently they are the driver of today's warming. I was just trying to emphasize that your point does not support Ryggy's stipulation. Yes it is what you have been stipulating all along. Ryggy seems to love to muddy the waters. Ryggy has not addresed the contradiction between the two articles he/she referenced.

Thanks - we are on the same page.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (15) Aug 13, 2014
... your impotent responses
--supaturd
Oh, was that the response you got from the priest who tried to molest you?
Well, you really can't blame him for your ugly retarded face now can you.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2014
Go look it up yourself ... but the answer is by enough to give the warming we have seen and is measured by surface spectroscopic analysis and satellite TOA imbalance.


By using the appropriate 'forcings' in THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL, that is now having credibility problems.

Only if you don't understand what it is that GCM's do and DO NOT do.

Which is of course the whole of the denialosphere.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (15) Aug 14, 2014
what it is that GCM's do and DO NOT do

It's what THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL is being used for by AGWites. It is being used to promote panic for a disaster in 100 years.
xstos
4.4 / 5 (11) Aug 14, 2014
Keep focusing on warming and cooling, and just ignore the pollution, deforestation, ocean-killing, massive species extinction, and habitat destruction that actually matter. Our species deserves to destroy itself simply due to ignorance and irresponsibility. It will either be a warmer death or a cooler one, but we will still extinguish ourselves via sheer aggregate stupidity. Our planet of the apes is being filled with poop that we intentionally flung and soon we'll all be covered in shit.
strangedays
4.7 / 5 (13) Aug 14, 2014
Ryggy - you are obviously still trolling on this thread - and goading people with your ignorance. Why will you not even answer a simple question? Do you read the actual links that you post - or is it just a big game of provoke conflict? Your links directly contradict each other. One says that C02 does not cause warming, the other says it does. This is fundamental to this topic. Are you just playing with people?
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 14, 2014
what it is that GCM's do and DO NOT do

It's what THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL is being used for by AGWites. It is being used to promote panic for a disaster in 100 years.


They are being used to give those who need the advice a range of scenarios. All of which are serious.
The "disaster" ones, are a possibility and it is human nature to focus on headline grabbing alternatives.
Ever heard of journalistic license?
The IPCC clearly states the range of possibilities.
AND lets just go with that ..... just because they maybe being touted as disastrous within 100 years and "promote panic"..... doesn't mean they wont be.
Disastrous I mean.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (16) Aug 14, 2014
AND lets just go with that ..... just because they maybe being touted as disastrous within 100 years and "promote panic"..... doesn't mean they wont be.


AGWites have a PR problem.
What a tangled web you weave when you first practice to deceive.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 14, 2014
AND lets just go with that ..... just because they maybe being touted as disastrous within 100 years and "promote panic"..... doesn't mean they wont be.


AGWites have a PR problem.
What a tangled web you weave when you first practice to deceive.


No need to deceive you or anyone ryggy... you do that job yourself.

There is NO PR.... that's just the point.
The IPCC is not a political body - just a collection of experts collating the climatic science evidence.
If you see all through a prism of paranoia then all will seem political, and spin (or PR as you put it).
All on here know how that applies to you.
But please be my guest and go off on another one and make this a 100+ post thread.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Aug 14, 2014
Actually adam, I believe you would find that a low temperature and high humidity could give the same warmth as a high temperature and low humidity
@antiG
wrong again. try living in Germany for a few years then live in South or Central Florida for a few years
it will enlighten you to just how stupid your remark really is

Nam-yo-ho renge-CO2
@Saposjoint
how very Japanese... did you remember the beads?
AGWites have a PR problem.
@rygtard
only in your eyes... and the eyes of the stupid
when you don't know the science, all that is left is to support the stupid... which is why you keep posting against AGW
Keep focusing on warming and cooling, and just ignore the pollution, deforestation, ocean-killing, massive species extinction, and habitat destruction that actually matter
@xstos
the problem is NOT so much that we are ignoring it, but that we can't get enough people on board to help because it is too inconvenient to too many, like ryg etc...
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2014
Keep focusing on warming and cooling, and just ignore the pollution, deforestation, ocean-killing, massive species extinction, and habitat destruction that actually matter
@xstos
This deserved a little more to it.
So far, we have seen that there are a great many people who ignore the scientific evidence in front of them regardless of it's dire predictions because they are scientifically illiterate... but that is not always the case either
If you will read this link: http://arstechnic...nformed/

You will see that for some people, it is a challenge to their easy life, etc, and so they simply support what they PERCEIVE OTHERS SHOULD BE doing in their peer group... which can also be broken into age/religion/political/and other groups as well... essentially, PEER PRESSURE for adults and leadership that is obviously ignorant of the facts and the scientific method

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Aug 14, 2014
The IPCC is not a political body - just a collection of experts collating the climatic science evidence.


"The IPCC is an intergovernmental body. It is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are members of the IPCC. Governments participate in the review process and the plenary Sessions, where main decisions about the IPCC work programme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. The IPCC Bureau Members, including the Chair, are also elected during the plenary Sessions. "
http://ipcc.ch/or...on.shtml
I have a bridge to sell.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 14, 2014

http://ipcc.ch/or...on.shtml
I have a bridge to sell.


You missed this bit ...
"The IPCC is a scientific body under the auspices of the United Nations (UN). It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process, to ensure an objective and complete assessment of current information. IPCC aims to reflect a range of views and expertise. The Secretariat coordinates all the IPCC work and liaises with Governments. It is supported by WMO and UNEP and hosted at WMO headquarters in Geneva."

You have a world-view to support and a hatred of humanity.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Aug 14, 2014
You missed this bit ...

No, I did not.

"The [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] charter from the outset has been "to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation".

The IPCC's focus is therefore very specific – any human influence on climate. It has no mandate to examine other causes of climate change."
"What starts out being a scientific report becomes a political instrument because after a hard-core group of IPCC supporters draft the Summary for Policymakers, government representatives discuss, negotiate and eventually agree on the wording of each sentence. The scientific component of the report is then modified to better align it with the thinking of government representatives."
http://www.brisba...clouds-t
Eddy Courant
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 14, 2014
97% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming. Whilst the other 97% agree it's cooling.
supamark23
4 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2014
You missed this bit ...

No, I did not.



You just chose to badly interpret it? Okay...
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 14, 2014
97% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming. Whilst the other 97% agree it's cooling.


"Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research. "
"Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch —most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change."

http://online.wsj...13553136
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2014
Ryggy
The IPCC's focus is therefore very specific – any human influence on climate. It has no mandate to examine other causes of climate change."


But if there are multiple factors affecting climate (most of us know this already - just trolls pretend not to) - one of course has to study all of the factors - in order to develop a full understanding of the whole picture - duh!!!!
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 14, 2014
one of course has to study all of the factors

Not if the intent is to 'prove' humans are the cause.
You assume IPCC wants to really understand climate.
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 14, 2014
Ryggy
AGWites have a PR problem.


Just in the minds of a few very vocal trolls. Most of us know the shit is going to hit the fan soon - so we are trying to stay educated - maybe we can pull a rabbit out of the hat - no thanks to your gang.
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2014
Not if the intent is to 'prove' humans are the cause


But that is not the intent - so your base premise is wrong.
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2014
I have a bridge to sell.


Should read "I have a bridge to re-sell"

You already bought the corporate version of the Brooklyn Bridge didn't you? Which goes a little like:

"No amount of pollutants dumped into the atmosphere could possibly have any affect on the world. Watch while we continue running this experiment"

And now you're trying to pawn it off on someone else. Nice try ryg.
MR166
1 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2014
"You already bought the corporate version of the Brooklyn Bridge didn't you?"

Rockwolf do you really understand how gullible that statement makes you? To think that major industry is not 100% behind "climate science" and the funds that it generates for them really shows that you have your head stuck in the sand. BTW, that is putting it nicely. I could have referred to body a part.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 14, 2014
Corporations are fully behind AGWism.
Enron pushed hard to have Kyoto approved and if you dig a little you will find letters Ken Lay sent to GHW Bush urging him to go to Rio.
Enron was hoping for two big scores. One, to corner the market on carbon trading and two to build more natural gas pipelines.
Then you have GE sucking up as much govt cash as they can along with BP and so many others on the bio-fuels, windmill, solar , ...crony gravy train.
AGWism is good for many big corporations.
strangedays
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2014
MR166
To think that major industry is not 100% behind "climate science"


So - please explain how these magical corporations are making the ice sheets melt, and the oceans rise, and the glaciers melt etc.

Sure - there is some money to be made by companies like GE - in building wind turbines - that are made more economical with the use of subsidies. But are you not aware that the fossil fuel industry has benefited greatly from government supports for many decades. Government money sloshes around all over the place - and I wish that were not the case. But to then blame scientists who are crawling around on the ice sheets - just shows how distorted your thinking is.
strangedays
4 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2014
Ryggy
Enron pushed hard to have Kyoto


Enron was a ponzi scheme - run by a bunch of crony capitalists - who were feeding out of the hands of the corrupt Republican admisistration of George Bush and Dick Cheney. Their ponzi scheme collapsed - and they went bancrupt - causing huge levels of devastation. Read the book 'Pipe Dreams' - it is very informative of how the capitalist system can go horribly wrong.
MR166
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2014
" But are you not aware that the fossil fuel industry has benefited greatly from government supports for many decades."

They received no greater subsidies than some other companies and in return they supplied the nation with inexpensive power that made us great. Oh what a shame eh!
strangedays
4.4 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2014
They received no greater subsidies than some other companies and in return they supplied the nation with inexpensive power that made us great. Oh what a shame eh!


Irrelevant to the point at hand. You are accusing scientists of being responsible for climate change - and saying that they profit from said change - that they have caused. This is total insanity. Yes - companies profit from government money. There is trillions sloshing around - and crony capitalism is sickening. Get rid of Exon, Chase, GE, etc. etc. etc. But it shows your sloppy thinking to suggest that this proves that scientists have caused climate change.
rockwolf1000
4 / 5 (8) Aug 14, 2014
I could have referred to body a part.


You and ryggy been huffing the glue again I see.

You wanna try that again? In English perhaps?
rockwolf1000
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 14, 2014
Corporations are fully behind AGWism.
Enron pushed hard to have Kyoto approved and if you dig a little you will find letters Ken Lay sent to GHW Bush urging him to go to Rio.
Enron was hoping for two big scores. One, to corner the market on carbon trading and two to build more natural gas pipelines.
Then you have GE sucking up as much govt cash as they can along with BP and so many others on the bio-fuels, windmill, solar , ...crony gravy train.
AGWism is good for many big corporations.


"AGWism" as you call it is good only as far as their marketing department goes in most cases. The whole system is corrupt as far as I'm concerned whether you pump oil or make solar panels. In reality, large corporations will do whatever it takes to make a buck for themselves and their shareholders. They are legally obligated to do this. It's all just a shell game to disguise their greedy and immoral business practices. What? You think solar panel companies are run by hippies??
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2014
They received no greater subsidies than some other companies and in return they supplied the nation with inexpensive power that made us great. Oh what a shame eh!

US oil companies effectively ARE the US government as the USA dollar is defined by energy, called the petrodollar. The influx of energy caused financialization, and the present decoupling means that your money is dangerously financialized at your bank instead of being held safe. Thus the impending crash will destroy your wealth and bring your economy in line with other banana republics, instead of flatlining a few mere economic sectors
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2014
There you go again referencing an opinion piece as the truth.
Err no, anything filtered through someones psychology is worthless ..... I mean just look at you.

About the author Mr Mclean...

http://www.skepti..._arg.htm
www.crikey.com.au...ments=50
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2014
97% of scientists agree that the Earth is warming. Whilst the other 97% agree it's cooling.


That's the conclusion only a confused idiot would arrive at.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
"As many readers are aware, John Cook of SKS refused to provide complete data on his 97% Consensus Project (flatly refusing date-stamp and anonymized rater identification.) Ironically, Cook left the data lying around the internet (to borrow a phrase from Phil Jones). In an incident remarkably similar to the Mole Incident, Brandon Shollenberger alertly located the refused data, which he has provided a teaser at his blog.

The University of Queensland sent Brandon Shollenberger a threatening cease-and-desist letter. Brandon has been discussing the events at his blog. This morning, he announced his surprise at discovering that the University's threatening letter had been parodied as a Hitler video online."
http://climateaud...ensland/
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
So Ryggy - what percentage of climate scientists do support the mainstream belief - that the current warming trend is being driven by man made green house gasses being injected into the atmosphere?

We are of course only having this discussion because of the vocal community of anti science folks like yourself - have nothing constructive to add to the topic - but want to muddy the waters - and promote a political agenda. No one is questioning the research money going into other areas - such as the drive to understand and cure cancer. Your gang has a lot to answer for.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
what percentage of climate scientists

1) define a 'climate scientist'
2) how many of are there?

""What it is observed right now is utter dishonesty by the IPCC advocates. … They are gradually engaging into a metamorphosis process to save face. … And in this way they will get the credit that they do not merit, and continue in defaming critics like me that actually demonstrated such a fact since 2005/2006," Scafetta added.

Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv similarly objected to Cook and colleagues claiming he explicitly supported the 'consensus' position about human-induced global warming. Asked if Cook and colleagues accurately represented his paper, Shaviv responded, "Nope… it is not an accurate representation. "
http://www.forbes...-claims/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
"Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis."
http://www.forbes...-claims/
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
"Specifically, Mann alleged that four phrases in Simberg's post were defamatory: "data manipulation," "academic and scientific misconduct," "posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber," and accusing the Penn State professor of molesting his data and thus being the "Jerry Sandusky of climate science." He also cited a subsequent CEI press release that called his research "intellectually bogus.""
"The entire situation is silly. If this were a playground, Dr. Mann would be a tattle-tale who complains to the teacher that someone said mean things about him. After spending years arguing that climate-change skeptics are shills for big oil, Mann has apparently decided that the government should shut them up instead."
http://www.forbes...-column/
This is climate 'science', today.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
"Some climatologists have long been frustrated that a persistent group of scientists have not yet fully accepted the theory of an impending climate-change catastrophe. For most normal scientists, the fact that there are others who disagree with them is not a problem. Disagreement in science, after all, is how science progresses. For some climate-change catastrophists, however, the fact that there are people who disagree with them is a reason to sue."
http://www.forbes...r-wilde/
Can 'strange' understand how Mann's actions are very bad for science and really show how insecure climate scientists must be.
We see it here every day with the personal attacks and insults.
If Mann wins, then I can sue physorg for enabling those who attack critics here.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
Not only that, Climate-gate confirmed the despicable acts the AGW Cult did to force out true scientists who revealed the CO2 lie.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2014
Ryggy
1) define a 'climate scientist'
2) how many of are there?


A climate scientist is a scientist who studies the climate. I do not know how many of them there are - lots. The point is that the scientific community that is studying our climate has a very high level of agreement on the basic facts of climate change. The earth is in a warming trend, and the primary driver of that trend is the injection of man made green house gasses into the atmosphere.

If you disagree with this understanding - get yourself a phd in climate science - and start doing the research.

Of course you wont do that - it is easier to spread disinformation on the internet - your gang has a lot to answer for.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
The point is that the scientific community that is studying our climate has a very level of agreement on the basic facts of climate change.


Based upon ....what?
It has been demonstrated that the 97% 'consensus' data is flawed.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2014
The point is that the scientific community that is studying our climate has a very level of agreement on the basic facts of climate change.


Based upon ....what?
It has been demonstrated that the 97% 'consensus' data is flawed.


Rygg2: It has only been demonstrated to you. That is because you troll the denier blogs and believe what they tell you. You need to find a peer reviewed paper that refutes the peer reviewed 97% number.
supamark23
4.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
Corporations are fully behind AGWism.


In other world of rygge news, up is down, left is right, and cats 'n dogs are shaggin' in the streets.

How do you even type such obvious bullshit and still keep a straight face? Is it because you're getting paid to post this drivel? How much money is enough to sell out the human race rygge?
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2014
Ryggy
Based upon ....what?
It has been demonstrated that the 97% 'consensus' data is flawed.


No it has not. All the protocol from the original Cook study is open information - so the data can be easily recreated - if any one disagrees with the findings. As thermo says - you have been trolling the denier blogs too long.

Here is a discussion of the whole issue of the 97%.

http://www.skepti...sus.html

Again Ryggy - if you disagree with alleged 97% - why not conduct your own research - and give us a different number. Oh that is right - too easy troll the internet - spreading disinformation. Your gang has a lot to answer for.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
Big business is fully behind the AGW govt gravy train.
Obviously you are too lazy to dig into the details for yourself.
denier blogs and believe what they tell you.

You believe what the IPCC politicians tell you.
spreading disinformation

Yep, like all AGWites, strange is on the censorship bandwagon.

When has any scientist ever sued for libel over criticism of his work?
Mann sued because he needs a court to state he is not a fraud. A real scientist would be exonerated by his science.
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
rygge said:
You believe what the IPCC politicians tell you.


It's already been explained to you several times that they are not politicians, are you really that stupid or do your paymasters direct you to continue lying?
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2014
rygge said:
You believe what the IPCC politicians tell you.


It's already been explained to you several times that they are not politicians, are you really that stupid or do your paymasters direct you to continue lying?


Of course you must believe that or your world collapses.
supamark23
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 15, 2014
rygge said:
You believe what the IPCC politicians tell you.


It's already been explained to you several times that they are not politicians, are you really that stupid or do your paymasters direct you to continue lying?


Of course you must believe that or your world collapses.


No, not really... it just happens to be fact (and I, unlike you, live in a fact based world).
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2014
Yep, like all AGWites, strange is on the censorship bandwagon.


That's right - asking ryggy - 'if you disagree with the 97% number - go ahead and do the research - come up with the correct number. And what does Ryggy have in response? Accuse me of censorship. Ryggy forgot to mention Al gore, the hockey stick, and Benghazi.

Where is your number ryggy?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2014
go ahead and do the research - come up with the correct number.


The research has been done. I posted the results.

I wouldn't conduct consensus research since real science places no value on consensus 'science'.
But I notice this crowd places much value on the opinion of others whining when they are 'downrated'.
Crony 'capitalists' have been quite supportive of AGW to get their piece of the govt pie.
http://www.politi...1297.pdf
"Dear Mr. President:

I am writing to urge you to attend the upcoming United Nations Conference on Environment and Development scheduled for early June in Brazil and to support the concept of establishing a reasonable, non-binding, stabilization level of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.
- See more at: http://www.master...ZYF.dpuf
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2014
go ahead and do the research - come up with the correct number.


The research has been done. I posted the results.


no you didn't, liar. You posted some stuff that doesn't have anything to do with what strangedays is requesting. That's alright, we all know you have no sciene education or ability. That's nothing to be ashamed of, but making continued claims that you *should* know are false *is*.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 15, 2014
"When faced with a powerful, threatening argument to a troubled paradigm, those in denial will first ignore. If this does not work, they will ridicule. And it this does not work, they will shout and even use hateful talk.
" "You just don't get it," Jeff Skilling would tell Enron's detractors. Ken Lay, in the middle of his company's implosion, likened short sellers and media critics to 'terrorists' (his last speech to employees was a few months after 9/11). The Enron duo wanted an undeserved peace. They were really saying: "Stop the criticism. Just believe the shared narrative, and we will all be better off." Enron, indeed, was a postmodern corporation.

Enter the Shared Narrative of catastrophic global warming. The data is going the other way, the public has all but turned off the alarm, and the climate lobby has increased their shrillness."
- See more at: http://www.master...N7T.dpuf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2014
"We now have yet another distressing example, where a leading scientist has lost his job — apparently for the crime of being a conscientious, competent academic, focused on quality research (instead of chasing grant money). "
"Dr. Henrik Møller is an world-renown expert on infra-sound, and has published several high-quality studies on low-frequency acoustics (like here, here, here, and here). More recently, some of these have dealt with industrial wind energy noise (e.g. here — which was peer-reviewed) "
"The VP of the Danish Confederation of Professional Associations noted that it's rare that a Danish professor is fired.

— It has been reported that the wind industry has frequently complained about Dr. Møller to his boss (Dean Eskild Holm Nielsen)"
- See more at: http://www.master...re-31359
Not everyone is happy in Denmark.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2014
" A reason why we seem to be a nuisance to the wind industry in Denmark is that we keep finding errors in noise calculations and evaluations. As an example, we found serious errors in the environmental impact assessment behind a new law on a wind turbine test center, and the law had to be changed. "
"We also criticized Danish regulation of wind turbine noise, which resulted in feature articles in Danish newspapers. I am not sure if others have been translated, but here is one example.

5) We also put together some web pages about the Danish wind regulations, which made the wind industry complain about me to the Dean (again)."
- See more at: http://www.master...re-31359
Another Dane, Lomborg, once a high priest for AGWites has been excommunicated.
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2014
lol, you're equating a Danish prof getting fired for writing about noise from windmills to being fired for claims about AGW (which he didn't write about)... in a region where windmills have existed for centuries. get a clue, and stop spamming your off topic nonsense. idiot.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2014
The research has been done. I posted the results.


Cook's research has been done. You did not post any results. Cook did his research correctly - the protocol is available to anyone who wants to duplicate it, or check the math. What is your number?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2014
" inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic. "
http://link.sprin...3-9647-9
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 15, 2014
"The Benestad (Cook, Nuccitelli) et al paper on "agnotology", a bizarre concoction that tried to refute just about every sceptic paper ever written has been rejected by Earth System Dynamics

Based on the reviews and my own reading of the original and revised paper, I am rejecting the paper in its current form. The submission is laudable in its stated goals and in making the R source code available, but little else about the paper works as a scientific contribution to ESD. "
http://wattsupwit...-errors/

"Schulte (2008) reviewed 539 papers in the three years following the period studied by Oreskes, using the same search term ("global climate change") and the same definition of consensus. He found that "the proportion of papers that now explicitly or implicitly endorse the consensus has fallen from 75% to 45%.""

http://wattsupwit...nsensus/
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2014
Pssst, rygge - spammnig lie after lie is not the best way to make your point, unless you're trying to convey that you're a liar... in which case, job well done?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2014
"When faced with a powerful, threatening argument to a troubled paradigm, those in denial will first ignore. If this does not work, they will ridicule. And it this does not work, they will shout and even use hateful talk.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (7) Aug 15, 2014
"That's the conclusion only a confused idiot would arrive at."

You're two tents, runrig! (it was a joke)
strangedays
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2014
Ryggy
When faced with a powerful, threatening argument to a troubled paradigm, those in denial will first ignore. If this does not work, they will ridicule. And it this does not work, they will shout and even use hateful talk.


No hateful talk from m Ryggy - that is a straw man. You are so good at using strawman arguments - which of course shows how you have no case.

Funny thing that - I keep asking for your number - being that you dispute the 97%. The protocol is all available - so anyone could check the data. Funny thing that - lots of strawman - but no substance.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2014
""Schulte (2008) reviewed 539 papers in the three years following the period studied by Oreskes, using the same search term ("global climate change") and the same definition of consensus. He found that "the proportion of papers that now explicitly or implicitly endorse the consensus has fallen from 75% to 45%.""

http://wattsupwit...nsensus/

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2014
Your link is broken Ryggy (of course). And of course taken from your trolling the denailist web site wattsup - typical.

Here is a link to the Oreskes paper that your denialist troll site is referring to - http://www.scienc...686.full

And here is a follow up article that looked at 12,000 articles - and found that 98% supported the consensus.

http://skepticals...013.html

Any more strawmen there Ryggy?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2014

" In the present review, 31
papers
(6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject
the consensus. Though Oreskes
said that 75% of
the papers in her sample endorsed the consensus,
fewer
than half now endorse it. Only 6
% do so
explicitly.
O
nly one paper refers to
"catastrophic" climate change, but without
offering evidence
.
There appears to be little
evidence
in the
l
earn
ed journals to justify the
climate
-
change alarm that
now harms
patients."

http://scienceand...omat.pdf
24volts
1 / 5 (5) Aug 15, 2014
I'm still wondering how much the 400 billion or so watts of 98 degree heat energy that 7+ billion people put out every hour is having on the climate. Is that calculated into these computer models too? It's got to be having some effect.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2014
"I analysed all abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") as the Oreskes study. Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 included abstracts (130 listed only titles, author(s)' details and keywords). The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes (#1-6), plus two categories which I added (# 7, 8):

explicit endorsement of the consensus position
evaluation of impacts
mitigation proposals
methods
paleoclimate analysis
rejection of the consensus position.
natural factors of global climate change
unrelated to the question of recent global climate change

RESULTS

The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study:

Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'."
http://motls.blog...ata.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2014
"The influential Russian Academy of Sciences called the theories underlying the Kyoto protocol "a scientifically unfounded nonsense". They said that the decision to sign the protocol was "purely political" and "it had no scientific justification". At least one half of my colleague physicists - which of course mostly includes liberals - agree with me that compared to physics, climate science is very shaky and uncertain. And it is just not possible for a scientist to approve something that she or he has not verified. Let me say a couple of trivial observations about the scientific statements: "
http://motls.blog...ing.html
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 15, 2014
Ryggy
Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'


You have to be kidding us right Ryggy? - only 0.1% endorse the consensus view? You don't even read your own crappy links do you? This from the same link - "•322 abstracts (or 29%) implicitly accept the 'consensus view' but mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change."

Do you see what total crap you put out????
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (8) Aug 15, 2014
@24Volts
That's the kind of thinking that is absent here. It is good to see, thank you. They are all too busy arguing over things they've been arguing about for 30+ years now.
In my analysis, absolutely. CO2 contributes nothing until about 40 its current concentration. Temperature... what does it even mean for it to change?

Now addition of heat to the environs, this allows prediction of climate change. The Earth is buffered with heat reservoirs. Like the deep ocean and glaciers. The addition of heat has the most prominent effect of melting global ice. Not changing temperature, at least not as a primary or non-local effect
alanrlight
5 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2014
The photograph is mislabeled - either that is not the Antarctic ice sheet, or that is not a "fisherman" - as fishing is prohibited in Antarctica. It might *possibly* be a researcher on his way to capture fish for research, but most people would not consider that a "fisherman" in the traditional sense.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
The Alchemist got his idea of science somewhat skewed with
In my analysis, absolutely. CO2 contributes nothing until about 40 its current concentration.
Well its now 400ppm & still rising not a mere 40 but, hey you DID an analysis - please show us !!!

How did u factor in re-radiation and the fact that adding a greenhouse gas increases resistivity to heat flow ?

The Alchemist went on with odd language
..The Earth is buffered with heat reservoirs.
These should be heat SINKS.

The Alchemist continued suggesting he is unaware of properties of water
Not changing temperature, at least not as a primary or non-local effect
Surely you must have looked at the massive effect melting ice has on absorbing massive heat without changing temperature.

Have you noticed there is decreased ocean salinity & receding glaciers ?

However, your 'analysis' that adding a resistor to heat flow doesn't increase temperature is of great interest & look forward to your addressing contradictions ?
EnricM
4.9 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2014
First of all: I am love me some coal rolling and I open carry an RPG-7 and an M-16 all the time, for the case that there were any doubt about my political affiliation.

I do however not completely understand what this article says: It seems to call victory for us Anti Climate Rebels but if you read it correctly it isn't. At least this is what is seems to me so that I kindly ask for your help to understand this.

My limited intelligence understands this:

When watching the data from the 10000 (ten thousand?) last years we see that the temperatures have been falling, since 10000 years ago, but they are now rising.

Wouldn't this mean that it's even worse than these alarmist tell us? If it was supposed to be cooling but is now rising? And why has this summer been declared the hottest on record if he temperatures are falling? And how can it be that they have data from 10000 years if the world was created 6000 years ago?

Thanks folks.
EnricM
5 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
"The influential Russian Academy of Sciences called the theories underlying the Kyoto protocol "a scientifically unfounded nonsense".


Greetings brother, the "source" that you mention only produces one hit in Google, that's to the blog itself and a few links to completely unrelated commecial products. Can you be more sepcific on citing a source? Not that I disbelieve you: We all trust the Russian, specially when they say that they didn't fire a ground-to-air missile killing nearly 200 of my Dutch countrypeople. Thanks.
EnricM
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2014
Ryggy
Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (or 0.1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'
Do you see what total crap you put out????


Oh NOES!! Are you saying that we can't believe the Russian Academy of Arts? This makes me so sad :_(
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
EnricM offered great satire & implication the anti-AGW crowd are really bad thinkers confused about religion with
And how can it be that they have data from 10000 years if the world was created 6000 years ago?..
Thanks EnricM great comment,

For those plebes that have emotional attachment to religions & have not addressed any sort of the logic/history of provenance, this might be worthy of some consideration:-

Pity all claimed deities are:-
1 Created by men (& arguably the most emotionally feeble & insecure)
2 Can't relate well to women & marginalise them
3 Very bad & lazy communicators, nothing better than human attempts

& all religious works only describe:- Status, Punishment & Authority - ie No education !

It seems we are but lonely means to explore all permutations of universal arrangements and argue basic physics eg That CO2 has well known demonstrable thermal properties !
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
Corporations are fully behind AGWism
@rygtard
ya got that backwards: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

http://wattsupwit...-errors/
this is an OPINION site, not a credible peer review of a publication

please feel free to show us a peer reviewed study refuting Cook's work, which is what was produced to you

similar evidence for proof.... this is why you are an epic failure, rygtard. you think an OPINION site is a legitimate refute to EMPIRICAL DATA
If this does not work, they will ridicule. ... shout and even use hateful talk
it is not ridicule or hateful to point out a blatant lie in use, especially when said LIE is not supported by empirical data or evidence of the same type as the opponent (which in this case is a peer reviewed study)

The ridicule is not ridicule if it is simply pointing out the flaw of the argument

you FEEL it is ridicule because you KNOW you are wrong
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
Hey cap'n stunty, was that peer or pal review.
http://blogs.tele...-review/
Mike_Massen
4.9 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
antigoracle muttered laconically
Hey cap'n stunty, was that peer or pal review.
http://blogs.tele...-review/
hmmm surprise, an opinion.

Where is the actual peer reviewed study showing just how ADDING a greenhouse gas such as CO2 with known & proven thermal re-radiation properties does NOT increase heat retention & therefore temperature increase WHILST addressing massive capacity of oceans to absorb the bulk of this heat.

Do deniers not understand physics ?

Do deniers not understand ADDITION ?

What mechanism is there which results in SUBTRACTION - something actually plausible ?

One might be sympathetic to deniers hand-waving "..well there must be other feedback mechanisms..", Really ?

Have we missed them ? maybe, ok fine, where are they & are the existing feedback mechanisms under assault, any sign of:-

a. Greater heat emission to space &
b. More reflection of sun's heat

Where ?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
Formerly Alchemist
@Mike,
400 ppm. How lame.
Here is a CO2 experiment we can all do:
Set your AC to equal outside temperature. Notice how warm or cool it feels in the house, believe it or not, your skin is very sensitive. See how much heat you can feel from the stove at distances. The CO2 in your home is probably over 1000ppm, up to about 3000ppm. 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 little bit, to 60% max, maybe. You can also notice no difference by letting the CO2 drop with the open windows, and then turning the HVAC back on, then returning.
A 3-10x reduction in CO2 to 400ppm, and a slight increase in H2O results in a dramatic and uncomfortable change to our sensible environ, a warming, which would be more, not less impressive were you to measure it. More.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2014
What mechanism is there which results in SUBTRACTION

Radiation.
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2014
Mike I agree that man is responsible for some small increase in global temperatures over what they would normally be. Do you agree that food and water should not be sold if it contains poisons and carcinogens?
jackjump
1 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2014
Re. the Holocene Conundrum: are the models right (indicating warming during the Holocene) or are the data observations correct (indicating cooling during the Holocene). That could only be a conundrum for those who love their models more than reality. Maybe they need to broaden their observations base. There have been more than one interglacial. If you look at the last five interglacials, four of them start off at their maximum and then began slipping back into glaciation, slowly at first then faster. The fifth interglacial peaked about in the middle of the interglacial, but still, from the peak it was all downhill. Why would these researchers think it should be all uphill throughout the Holocene? Sure maybe we're heating things up in the last hundred years or so but the Holocene is over 10,000 years old. They need to rethink their model.

http://www.global..._Rev.png
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2014
@Mike
Errr... the corrections to my post as the Alchemist.
Those were exactly what I was saying. Heat not temperature, and I don't know where you took your thermo., but reservoir vs sink: Reservoir would be someplace in the system that is so large it doesn't change significantly due to the experiment, hot or cold, a sink or source is a more like a black box. They are occasionally used interchangeably.
You're actually saying what I am saying, but trying to make it sound wrong.(?)
If you add heat to a glass of water mixed with ice, the temperature doesn't change, if the heat is added near equilibrium, except "locally" like where the heat source is physically placed, and since the TEMPERATURE of the Earth is still an argument among you folks, that is a good approximation. Again you're agreeing with me.(?)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
Where is the actual peer reviewed study..blah..blah...

Was that peer or pal review.
http://blogs.tele...-review/
Mike_Massen
4.9 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
Water_Prophet claims
Formerly Alchemist...
Here is a CO2 experiment we can all do
NOT quantitative at all !

Merely an exercise in confirmational bias as a setup.

You Water_Prophet, need to stop using words like 'feel', 'probably' (3 times) if you want any sort of credibility - instead learn Science such as "experimental methods" that is NOT qualitative !

Its amazing how this stuff is obviously not taught in high schools in some places as is evidence here Water_Prophet that you can't construct a proper experiment :-(

Same time look up properties of water, how melting ice absorbs tremendous amounts of heat whilst not increasing temperature (Prophet ha!)

Look at that Oceans have 1000x the heat capacity of water

Education is so important, please get one before wasting everyone's time

@MR166
It all depends on the dose, look up Paracelsus

@ryggesogn2
Learn how to construct a full sentence that explains how INCREASING resistivity in heat flow can possibly REDUCE temperature ???
Mike_Massen
4.9 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
Water_Prophet (sigh)
Those were exactly what I was saying. Heat not temperature, and I don't know where you took your thermo..
When you understand specific heat AND integration that you can talk thermo, obviously you havent you are ignorant of quantitative experimental methods !

A reservoir is traditionally a reserve. A sink is where heat is absorbed, these should NOT be used interchangeably in Science - you are asking for trouble - you should KNOW this if you had any sort of Science education.

Water_Prophet mumbled
...since the TEMPERATURE of the Earth is still an argument among you folks,
Not an argument at all, well not amongst those that know Integration, ie. Calculus, Heat flow resistivity, thermo

Your postings are not properly worded to lend you any sort of technical/scientific credibility & your attempt at an experiment is a joke.

If you know any thermo (at all):-

"How can ADDING a gas with known thermal properties NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

?????
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
jackjump offered
Re. the Holocene Conundrum: ... Sure maybe we're heating things up in the last hundred years or so but the Holocene is over 10,000 years old. They need to rethink their model.
http://www.global..._Rev.png
IIRC, these temps are based on ice core samples re gases with isotopic differentials. it 'might' be indicative of local temperature changes - where it is collected to a degree but, I can't see how it can be indicative of heat content or global integration of temperatures. During these periods how can we also be sure of insolation & other factors such as axis wobble, orbital issues - though hopefully minor.

The point about current dilemma is rapid rise of CO2 with indisputable evidence of thermal properties of re-radiation - some back to Earth. Physics shows this MUST increase heat flow resistivity, without something comparable to counter it then temperatures rise, most heat goes to Oceans & so far melting ice...

:-(
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
without something comparable to counter it

Radiation into space.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
Where is the actual peer reviewed study showing just how ADDING a greenhouse gas such as CO2 with known & proven thermal re-radiation properties does NOT increase heat retention & therefore temperature increase..blah..blah

Perhaps your pal reviewed studies could explain the HIGH CO2 and LOW temperatures during the Carboniferous Period.
http://www.geocra...ate.html
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2014
@24Volts
That's the kind of thinking that is absent here. It is good to see, thank you. They are all too busy arguing over things they've been arguing about for 30+ years now.
In my analysis, absolutely. CO2 contributes nothing until about 40 its current concentration. Temperature... what does it even mean for it to change?

Now addition of heat to the environs, this allows prediction of climate change. The Earth is buffered with heat reservoirs. Like the deep ocean and glaciers. The addition of heat has the most prominent effect of melting global ice. Not changing temperature, at least not as a primary or non-local effect

Anthroprogenic waste heat is around 1% of the excess GHG heating ....
It's effect is negligible.....

http://www.cgd.uc...tss/ahf/
runrig
4.8 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2014
Hey cap'n stunty, was that peer or pal review.
http://blogs.tele...-review/


It's expert review sunshine .... whatever you want to call it.

Perhaps you advocate dragging in random people off the street to spend the odd few minutes reviewing the relevant science.

Now that makes sense eh?
FFS
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
Sorry Mike, I've understood chemistry and Calculus for 30 or so years now and been using it professionally since 1991.
Let splain what you don't understand. With practice, your fingers can distinguish the weight between playing cards based on the amount of ink, the nose is the most sensitive detector of ammonia, and so on. You may not be able to ascribe units, but you can definitely distinguish between nothing with concentrations that are supposed to melt the planet.

It is funny you are trying to discredit an experiment that allows people to make their own, verily, SEMI-quantitative judgments. But it does allow anyone to see CO2 is not a factor. Think about it this way 400ppm IS 0.4%, and the change is 0.1%. Water is a far more powerful GHG, and there is far more of it; oceans ~150x as much, land average ~100x as much.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2014
.....
Set your AC to equal outside temperature. Notice how warm or cool it feels in the house, believe it or not, your skin is very sensitive. See how much heat you can feel from the stove at distances. The CO2 in your home is probably over 1000ppm, up to about 3000ppm. 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 little bit, to 60% max, maybe. You can also notice no difference by letting the CO2 drop with the open windows, and then turning the HVAC back on, then returning.
A 3-10x reduction in CO2 to 400ppm, and a slight increase in H2O results in a dramatic and uncomfortable change to our sensible environ, a warming, which would be more, not less impressive were you to measure it. ...


Is it just me .... or does this make NO sense at all??
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2014
What mechanism is there which results in SUBTRACTION

Radiation.

I'll keep telling you while ever I'm around ryggy.... You don't do science.
I suggest you best stay away from it and continue your blogged quote mining bollocks.
Now there's a good spammer.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
antigoracle
Perhaps your pal reviewed studies could explain the HIGH CO2 and LOW temperatures during the Carboniferous Period.


If you were really interested in learning stuff - you would learn to use google - and do a bit of research. See - the way we know that there was high C02, and low temps - during PART of the carboniferous period - is cuz the really smart scientists have spent many thousands of hours studying the period. So it is pretty stupid of you - to use the information that the really smart scientists have worked so hard to bring us - but then to discount the conclusions that said scientists have reached.

Here is a start for you if you want to try to get a late education.

http://www.geocra...ate.html
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
To answer your surprising relevant question about adding something that is known to have a physical effect, not having it: At very low concentrations, that change with the substance is non linear, it grows exponentially until it has the understood effect. But until that point, it is pretty negligible, despite the growth. In the lab, I have found you need many experiments to even determine the effect, it is dramatically biased by impurities and other variables.
CO2 effect is pretty small, and the atmosphere has many impurities. So you see a large change in %, but practically nothing in the atmospheric "solution."
Water has gone up 2.2%. As you see above, 2.2% of H2O dwarfs in physical properties and amount, CO2.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2014
Where is the actual peer reviewed study showing just how ADDING a greenhouse gas such as CO2 with known & proven thermal re-radiation properties does NOT increase heat retention & therefore temperature increase..blah..blah

Perhaps your pal reviewed studies could explain the HIGH CO2 and LOW temperatures during the Carboniferous Period.
http://www.geocra...ate.html


So you are suggesting (again) that the Earth 360m years ago is an analog for the present? FFS ryggy - grow a critical brain will you.
For the neutrals look her to see how different a planet it was then....

http://en.wikiped...niferous
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
@runrig,
I'll walk you through it.
1. It is an experiment you can do.
2. Make the temp in your home equal to the outside, with the thermostat.

Let me know where you're getting lost from there.

I know, you are losing something precious to you, but CO2 has been a red herring from the start, as evidenced by no one proving anything conclusively, and don't tell me it's proven, because there are people on this site who can argue with you, with just a spurious facts.

That experiment allows anyone to prove it with their own senses. If you want to invest in CO2 meters and IR sensors, you can prove it quantitatively. But your senses are sufficient.
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
antigoracle just doesnt understand with this lurch
Perhaps your pal reviewed studies could explain the HIGH CO2 and LOW temperatures during the Carboniferous Period.
http://www.geocra...ate.html
Are you claiming this is an entry in a peer review journal - if so then where is the review ?

Although nicely crafted, has negligible evidence and does not address several imponderables.

See my earlier postings please antigoracle approx 2 hrs before (do you READ) - try to understand, then you can work it out, if of course you have some actual training in Science & not just a superficial smattering that makes you blurt unconnected ideas...!
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
Alche sockpuppet said:
That experiment allows anyone to prove it with their own senses. If you want to invest in CO2 meters and IR sensors, you can prove it quantitatively. But your senses are sufficient.


WaterDolt: The only thing this experiment proves is that you are incompetent and you have no sense. Your senses are not sufficient.

Look at the Beer-Lambert law and you will see that you have to have a few hundred meters of 400 ppm CO2 to have a measurable effect.

http://en.wikiped...bert_law

You are saying that you don't feel an effect and that goes right along with the concentration of CO2 you imbecile.

It is also easy to see why you thought Captain Stumpy and I were the same person considering you have a sockpuppet. We aren't the same, but you have at least two accounts. How many more do you have you shill?
Mike_Massen
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
Water_Prophet lied openly with
Sorry Mike, I've understood chemistry and Calculus for 30 or so years now and been using it professionally since 1991.
Obviously NOT because your language & logic is totally inconsistent with its application !

Or maybe you have read the words & think that is enough to understand Integration - its Not !

Your preoccupation with "feel" is not only open to placebo & idiocy, it has no credibility & zero chance of duplication with any sense of certainty hence not reliable.

CO2 thermal properties have been studied for over 100 years and well known & duplicable in properly constructed experiments - your bias re "feel" Water_Prophet is not reliable.

Learn some Science & try to understand basic psychology & placebo effect along with confirmational bias.

You have still failed to explain how ADDING a gas with known thermal re-radiation properties should NOT increase thermal resistivity.

Please try to understand the term "linear" in terms of mathematics..
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
What mechanism is there which results in SUBTRACTION

Radiation.

I'll keep telling you while ever I'm around ryggy.... You don't do science.
I suggest you best stay away from it and continue your blogged quote mining bollocks.
Now there's a good spammer.

Radiation is the only way heat can escape the earth.
Porgie
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
The problem is, its getting colder where we are not measuring. Several reports of glaciers that are not popular or routinely visited sights are expanding. Lake Erie froze over last year, first time in 20 years. The global warmies better get out the razor blades and buckets.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2014
The problem is, its getting colder where we are not measuring. Several reports of glaciers that are not popular or routinely visited sights are expanding. Lake Erie froze over last year, first time in 20 years. The global warmies better get out the razor blades and buckets.


And, can you give us a reference that shows which glaciers are expanding and how those compare with the number that are contracting? A few expanding are regional. The global loss of ice in the sum of all glaciers is "global."

As for cold in the great lakes region, that is weather and regional not global climate.

And, for my final observation. If "its getting colder where we are not measuring." Then how do you know it is getting colder since we are not measuring? Do you have a magic 8-ball that tells you where it is warm and cold where we are not measuring?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
And apparently climate change is not global.
http://phys.org/n...bal.html
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
So you are suggesting (again) that the Earth 360m years ago is an analog for the present?

runrig, I'm presenting factual evidence that contradict your cult's climate models, which you preach as analogs for the present.
strangedays
5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2014
runrig, I'm presenting factual evidence that contradict your cult's climate models, which you preach as analogs for the present.


No you are not. You are presenting evidence of your cults complete lack of understanding of science - but need to spam the internet with sloppy comments.
runrig
4.9 / 5 (7) Aug 16, 2014
@runrig,
I'll walk you through it.
1. It is an experiment you can do.
2. Make the temp in your home equal to the outside, with the thermostat.

Let me know where you're getting lost from there.

I know, you are losing something precious to you, but CO2 has been a red herring from the start, as evidenced by no one proving anything conclusively, and don't tell me it's proven, because there are people on this site who can argue with you, with just a spurious facts.

That experiment allows anyone to prove it with their own senses. If you want to invest in CO2 meters and IR sensors, you can prove it quantitatively. But your senses are sufficient.


Fraid you haven't .... walked me through it , that is.

What you are trying to say is a complete mystery to me, sorry.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
It's becoming quite obvious that not only does the AGW Cult's peanut gallery share a lone neuron, but that senility has set in. There is no longer any doubt that these morons cannot read far less comprehend.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 16, 2014
It's becoming quite obvious that not only does the AGW Cult's peanut gallery share a lone neuron, but that senility has set in. There is no longer any doubt that these morons cannot read far less comprehend.

A totally worthless post my friend.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
There is no longer any doubt that these morons cannot read far less comprehend.


Smile - the point on the table at the moment - is that pointing out that there have been times in geological history - in which C02 levels have been higher - and yet temperatures have been lower - is stating the obvious. Scientists know this - because they are the ones who figured it out. So using this factoid as some kind of support for an attack on science (the science that gave us the information in the first place) makes you the cult member - who is not capable of understanding science.

Not only is your point worthless - as runrig points out - it informs us of your complete incompetence in terms of understanding very simple logic.
phprof
1 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
That's what they get for jumping to conclusions before they understood the full system.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
phprof said:
That's what they get for jumping to conclusions before they understood the full system.


References please?

1) What conclusions?
2) Who jumped to them?
3) What part of what system is not understood and how did that make anyone jump to a conclusion?

Welcome aboard. Please add reference links when you make a statement that pertains to the science involved. Otherwise we can't follow your reasoning. You might have information we have not seen before.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
Strangedays is correct. You have to hunt for unbiased references, such as look for correlations between insect size and CO2/O2, but you find from these, which are, I assume, unbiased, that there is no correlation between Earth CO2 and temperature.

On the other hand, there are many studying the effect of CO2 on temp., which say different.

@Mike, you are just wrong here. Any applied scientist can tell you senses are better metrics than many tools for a few applications.

But by all means keep criticizing an experiment ANYONE can perform, it makes you look so smart.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (10) Aug 16, 2014
@runrig
By setting temperature inside equal to outside, you are eliminating a variable.
Now you can compare insulating effects of CO2 vs. H2O.
Your basic Air Conditioner reduces humidity to 40%. This serves as your other baseline. If you don't have an IR thermometer, your skin is plenty sensitive.
When your home is closed up, like when you run your AC, the CO2 goes up, and so the GHG effect in your home. You think 400ppm is heating up the Earth, it should do the same in your home. Your home has 3-10x that amount, enough to notice. You don't stay warmer though.
Now when you open the windows, CO2 drops, to 400ppm or so, humidity increases. You notice it feels warmer. This is just a bit of humidity.

The feeling is perfectly valid, it is how much heat is escaping from you, it is surprisingly accurate because it is tied to survival. Be mindful if humidity is causing condensation or you're sweating.
Other than that, counter arguments have been a new breed of denier.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 16, 2014
Alche/WaterDupe sockpuppet: You have no idea why you are wrong on this experiment do you?

You are trying to compare an absorption distance of a few meters with the height of the atmosphere. You are absurd.

I told you to go through and just do the arithmetic using the Beer-Lambert law. It is not even calculus, just arithmetic. If you do that you can see that you need more than a hundred meters to be able to see a difference and at that distance you wouldn't be able to feel the radiant heat transfer anyway.

Do you really not see that a few meters is not enough?

All you are feeling for a difference is the change in evaporation off your skin.

Please just go back and do a little arithmetic to check your basic assumptions.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
By setting temperature inside equal to outside, you are eliminating a variable.
Now you can compare insulating effects of CO2 vs. H2O
@alkie/waterboy
are you REALLY still trying to push this fallacy?
this is proof positive that you are a complete idiot, you know... 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
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
Your basic Air Conditioner reduces humidity to 40%. This serves as your other baseline. If you don't have an IR thermometer
@waterbaby
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...

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

http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

you really should be listening to Thermo and Runrig on this one
your body can be fooled regarding temps and the reality of hot and cold

http://www.netpla...cold.htm

Mike_Massen
4.9 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
ryggesogn2 finally said something approaching plausibility though not entirely complete
Radiation is the only way heat can escape the earth.
Now stay with this ryggesogn2 you are almost there but, as before your statements show you never got a degree in Physics...!

"How can ADDING a greenhouse gas like CO2 with proven thermal properties of re-radiation in some way NOT add resistivity to heat flow ?"

When you have formed a sentence on that question please get back to us with some Science, until then go back to vague boring politics that has no place here and which wastes all our time - ie Post Science re my question or go away please.

MR166 should on this occasion listen to ryggesogn2 :-)
runrig
4.9 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
By setting temperature inside equal to outside, you are eliminating a variable.
Now you can compare insulating effects of CO2 vs. H2O.

water/alchey.....

But you're not.
The atmosphere cannot be replicated in house (or a lab even easily).

Please look up Beer-Lambert law and the (vital) importance of path-length in GHG physics.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
ALL GHGs have narrow and specific infrared absorption bands.
H2O has the most broad band absorption bands due to its complex molecular nature.
CO2 has few as its molecular structure is simpler. The only IR band of interest for climate is ~15 um.
There is not that much energy in the 15 um band. There is much more energy in the IR windows between 8-12 um. Most photons in these bands radiate into space. As temperature increases, the peak of the Planck curve shifts to shorter wavelengths and the amount of energy increases into the IR window bands.
Clear, dry atmospheres radiate most heat rapidly into space. That's why temperatures over dry areas can change up to 40 deg F after sunset. Without the return of the sun every day, the temperatures would continue to drop, regardless of any increase in CO2.
strangedays
4.9 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
"Carbon dioxide has a more complex absorption spectrum with isolated peaks at about 2.6 and 4 microns and a shoulder, or complete blockout, of infrared radiation beyond about 13 microns. From this we see that carbon dioxide is a very strong absorber of infrared radiation. The plot for water vapor shows an absorption spectrum more complex even than carbon dioxide, with numerous broad peaks in the infrared region between 0.8 and 10 microns."

http://www.meteor...rum.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
complete blockout, of infrared radiation beyond about 13 microns.

No, not complete.
strong absorber of infrared

So? How much energy?
A blackbody at -80C has a peak wavelength of 15 micro-meters.
A blackbody at 300K has a peak wavelength of 9.6 um.
As an exercise for the student, how much energy per K is between 14.5um and 15.5 um as temperatures increase from 275K to 305K?
strangedays
4.9 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
No, not complete.


Source for this assertion please.

Here is a quote from a skeptic site -

"CO2 absorption is pegged at 100% at these wavelengths"

http://cosmoscon....orption/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
"I want to critique IPCC reports #1 (1990) to #5 (2013). As a so-called 'expert reviewer' I have enjoyed a unique observation platform for successive IPCC drafts. It is rather amusing that the Summaries talk about increasing certainty for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) -- while at the same time modeled temperatures increasingly diverge from those actually observed [S-2]. "
"we note that each report "Summary" is produced by a political consensus, not like the underlying scientific report."
"After severe criticism of this 'evidence', IPCC dropped the climate sensitivity to 2.5 deg by considering only the most recent decades of reported global warming as anthropogenic. The earlier warming (1910-1940) is now considered to be caused by natural forcing. "
http://americanth...ons.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
"Because of many valid criticisms, the Hockeystick argument has now been dropped by IPCC and is no longer used to claim AGW. Instead both AR4 [2007] and AR5 [2013], in their chapters on 'Attribution,' rely on very peculiar circular argument for supporting AGW.

Both reports 'curve-fit' a calculated curve to the reported temp data of the second half of the 20th century. [This can always be done by choosing a suitable value of climate sensitivity, and an assumed aerosol forcing]. After having obtained a reasonable fit, they then remove the greenhouse- gas forcing, and of course, obtain an unforced model curve that no longer shows any temp increase (see S-6). But they then claim that this gap with respect to the data is sure evidence for AGW. This claim defies logic and makes absolutely no sense. They simply modified the calculated curve and then claimed that the resultant gap proves anthropogenic warming. "
http://americanth...pcc_conc
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
Ryggy contested the information put out by Iowa State University - regarding the absorption spectrum of C02.

Ryggy was asked to provide a source for disagreeing with this information.

Ryggy provides a quote from a right wing rag - that in no way addresses the issue. Typical denier - just distract and change the subject when you are wrong.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
Ryggy contested the information

I did? What?
Here is one bit of information about atm transmission.
http://irina.eas....Lec6.pdf

"From 10 to 13 microns there is more absorption by H2O. Starting at 13 we get CO2 absorption but that wavelength corresponds to temperatures below even that of the south pole. Nowhere from 9 to 13 microns do we see appreciable absorption bands of CO2. This means the greenhouse effect is way over 95% caused by water vapor and probably less than 3% from CO2. I would say even ozone is more important due to the 9.6 band, but it's so high in the atmosphere that it probably serves more to radiate heat into space than for back-radiation to the surface. "
"not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. "
http://stevengodd...the-co2/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
No, not complete.


Source for this assertion please.

Here is a quote from a skeptic site -

"CO2 absorption is pegged at 100% at these wavelengths"

http://cosmoscon....orption/

Can't you read the chart?
The chart shows CO2 IR absorption from 13-14 um to 20 um. That's not the complete IR spectrum.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2014
"As we can see above, carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in only three narrow bands of frequencies, which correspond to wavelengths of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (µm), respectively. The percentage absorption of all three lines combined can be very generously estimated at about 8% of the whole IR spectrum, which means that 92% of the "heat" passes right through without being absorbed by CO2. In reality, the two smaller peaks don't account for much, since they lie in an energy range that is much smaller than the where the 15 micron peak sits - so 4% or 5% might be closer to reality. If the entire atmosphere were composed of nothing but CO2, i.e., was pure CO2 and nothing else, it would still only be able to absorb no more than 8% of the heat radiating from the earth."
http://www.middle...-01.html
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
Ryggy contested the information

I did? What?


Ryggy - at some point - it is OK to just recognize that you are an idiot - would you agree?

See - here is the section where I quote Iowa University - and then you contest the quote.

complete blockout, of infrared radiation beyond about 13 microns.

No, not complete.


So - if you are willing to contradict yourself in such a blatant - and absurd manner - you understand if I disengage right - and just downgrade your posts - because you clearly are a moron - and I denigrate myself by wasting time in this manner.

Here is the graph by the way - and yes I can read it.

http://www.meteor...age7.gif
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
Strangedays, you need to learn how to read an IR spectrum. Apparently, so does the person you cited. You need to look at the absorption spectrum from both the perspective of transmission and absorption, and you have to do so looking at the numbers. Your reference doesn't show the numbers (is also dated) and can be misleading because of that fact.

Go here for the NIST version of the spectrum (hoping the link survives posting):

http://webbook.ni...#IR-SPEC

Modify the variables for the chart for yourself to see transmission and absorption in wavenumber (cm-1) and wavelength (μm). You also can use reverse X or normal X for the X axis.

Notice the line along the zero for absorption and notice carefully the overall transmissibility of CO2. In only three IR wavelengths is CO2 less transmissible. In other words, most of the IR spectrum gets through easily except in three "peaks."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
most of the IR spectrum gets through easily except in three "peaks."


The other part of this is the energy that is absorbed.
The energy in ~15 um band at 300K is very low compared to the total energy.

As the IR astronomer said, they are most concerned with H2O, not CO2.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
Notice the line along the zero for absorption and notice carefully the overall transmissibility of CO2. In only three IR wavelengths is CO2 less transmissible. In other words, most of the IR spectrum gets through easily except in three "peaks."


That is not the point being debated. The point being debated is that - as quoted correctly - at the shoulder - approx 13 microns - C02 is at a peak - and blocks.

The bigger point for me is that Ryggy challenged this narrative - and then when asked to supply support for challenging the narrative - Ryggy says 'when did I do that?'. In other words - denying having done - what he/she very clearly just did.

So it is quiet appropriate for me to get frustrated at the stupid obfuscation - and to recognize that I am just making a fool of myself - by trying to pretend to have a serious conversation with someone who behaves in such a way. Ditto for antigoracle.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
@Strangedays
Get used to obfuscation, and being tempted down rabbit holes, false websites and sources, as well as real ones.
Whatever the truth maybe, and my opinion is it is too late to make a decent difference, these people do not have the fortitude to change.
Though Ryggy seems to have it right. CO2 bands are too narrow, and overlap H2O significantly, as well as being far more prevalent in the atm..
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
It is important to realize that thermo and the captain are the same person, or at least they answer on each other's accounts.

Insulation is insulation. If water is 1000x more powerful over the short range, it is far more powerful over the long.
The variations, the small changes, in humidity overwhelm and compliment to EXTINCTION any effect CO2 could have.

But run the experiment, I haven't shared all the things that will become apparent by doing it. Some are amazing, ok, at least interesting.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
ALL GHGs have narrow and specific infrared absorption bands.
H2O has the most broad band absorption bands due to its complex molecular nature.
CO2 has few as its molecular structure is simpler. The only IR band of interest for climate is ~15 um.
There is not that much energy in the 15 um band. There is much more energy in the IR windows between 8-12 um. Most photons in these bands radiate into space. As temperature increases, the peak of the Planck curve shifts to shorter wavelengths and the amount of energy increases into the IR window bands.

ryggy....
Err - experts in radiative physics know exactly what windows are present in the Earth's atmosphere, and exactly what CO2 can capture and re-emit to space.

Now if you think you know better and indeed are denying measurements via ground based spectroscopy (able to identify CO2 as the emitter) that match the modeled AGW increase in back-radiation.
Then you are due a Nobel my friend.

Until that day please shut the f**k up.
runrig
4.8 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
Clear, dry atmospheres radiate most heat rapidly into space. That's why temperatures over dry areas can change up to 40 deg F after sunset. Without the return of the sun every day, the temperatures would continue to drop, regardless of any increase in CO2.

And what pray has this to do with AGW?
What a stupid bloody pointless argument.
BTW: The equal reason temps fall quickly in a desert is the extremely dry and insulating sandy surface and calm winds along with clear skies - making for a strong surface inversion .... which then quickly heats up in early am. The whole atmospheric column doesn't cool you know.
Err, no you don't - I forgot briefly. You don't do science. Do you?
runrig
4.9 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
"not one single IR astronomer gives a rats arse about CO2. "
http://stevengodd...the-co2/


ryggy spammed the above amongst other bollocks.

Here is who Mr "Goddard" is....
surprise, surprise (not to me) nothing other than a non-expert, who, like ryggy, is ideologically challenged on AGW. Read right-wing zealot.

reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/p/who-is-steven-goddard.html
www.desmogblog.co...-goddard

strangedays
4.8 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
But run the experiment,


There is no need to 'run the experiment'

The big point is very obvious to me. When I get sick - I go to the doctor - and if the doctor prescribes cipro - I take it.

I don't go back to square one - and start doing research on bacterial infections - in order to determine for myself which antibiotic to take. That work has already been done.

I take the same approach with climate change. Millions of hours of research have gone into our current knowledge of the complex climate system. If you want to conduct some profound experiment on C02 properties - get yourself a phd in climate studies, and go through the peer review process. It is nonsense to think that you can make some grand revelation on the comments section of a web site. I need to introduce you to JVK.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
@strangedays-
You have "experts" on both sides. Both sides present falsehoods. If you can run an experiment and bring it to a conclusion, why not? Are you as afraid as everyone else who have staked their egos on mainstream misrepresentations?
These articles are arguable, as the last hundreds of posts clearly show.

If you are not open to new ideas, then why are you here?
strangedays
4.8 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
If you are not open to new ideas, then why are you here?


Here to learn - primarily from the experts who have put in the hard work of learning the complexity of the fields being studied here. What are your credentials?

I understand the old arguments that are constantly trotted out here - about how science experts are often wrong.

When there is an article about a new cancer treatment - do you propose some grand experiment that is going to prove the whole medical field wrong in their understanding of the complex questions of genetic mutations? To me - that is exactly the same as telling the body of scientists - that they don't understand something as basic as the effect of loading the atmosphere up with green house gases - but that my pop bottle experiment proves them all wrong. Pure nonsense.
runrig
4.8 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
.........
These articles are arguable, as the last hundreds of posts clearly show.
If you are not open to new ideas, then why are you here?


Only aruable by denialist idiots Alchey....
Which is NOT arguing at all. It's called spamming.
Keeping the doubt in the layman's mind in order to obsfucate things to a maximum. Meanwhile in the land above ground the knowledgeable doers of this world get on with things and *try* to get mankind to see what is happening on our planet.
What you see here is a bizarre attempt by those who have an ideological objection to their "tax dollars" being *taken", arguing black is white against empirical science. Making the world fit their ideology rather than the other way around. Claiming greater knowledge of science than the expert, only informed by biased blogs and somehow relevant climate *gods* with multiple spamming of quotes as though opinion is worth more than observation and physics.
Those that are worth a jot appreciate that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
""Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman"

"Another problem to be overcome by ground-based observatories was the absorption of infrared radiation by gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. Fortunately, in the near-infrared and mid-infrared regions, from 1 to 10μm, there are some clear atmospheric 'windows'. From observatories on high mountain peaks, astronomers are able to use these 'windows' to investigate the infrared sky at certain wavelengths."
"However, even the Mauna Kea site is not high enough to allow far-infrared observations. In order to rise above the bulk of the water vapor and the atmosphere, astronomers have turned to placing telescopes on balloons, sounding rockets or high-flying aircraft"
http://www.astro....opes.pdf
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts


So when Ryggy gets sick with cancer - he/she will not go to the doctor - because Richard Feynman made a quote. That about sums up the ignorance of Ryggy. Kind of ironic really. "I want to denigrate expertise - so I will quote from and expert - in order to do so." I want to yell at Ryggy - 'No, no - don't quote Feynman - he is an expert. Much better - quote your uncle Buba - he is much smarter than Feynman - cuz he dropped out of school in the 6th grade. Unfortunately complex irony is going to be lost.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
A few years ago, if you had a certain type of ulcer, a doctor prescribe an expensive antacid.
After Dr. Barry Marshall challenged the consensus, a doctor may now prescribe and antibiotic to kill the bacteria causing the ulcer.
Experts were ignorant of the bacteria for decades. Why?
Marshall received a Nobel for challenging the consensus.
If strange continues to trust 'modern' western medicine and the FDA regulators, he will definitely not live forever as he desires.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 17, 2014
Trust the 'experts'?
"More than 1,100 laboratory incidents involving bacteria, viruses and toxins that pose significant or bioterror risks to people and agriculture were reported to federal regulators during 2008 through 2012, government reports obtained by USA TODAY show.

More than half these incidents were serious enough that lab workers received medical evaluations or treatment, according to the reports. In five incidents, investigations confirmed that laboratory workers had been infected or sickened; all recovered."
http://www.usatod...4140483/
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
Here to learn - primarily from the experts who have put in the hard work of learning the complexity of the fields being studied here. What are your credentials?


I appreciate you asking for my credentials. Interesting you should mention cancer. I studied the thermodynamics of how Carbon Nanotubes (CNT) enter cells. It is pure E&M, btw. But, a Korean scientist took this and doped a CNT with magnetic Iron, applied it to cancer cells and turned on a CT, scrambling the cancer cells on the inside, they die, without chemo side effects. I hope we will see it soon. Cancer consult ;)
My AGW credentials are that I've studied AGW for years. I argued polar melt-long before it was popular. I developed an intuitive model that has perfectly predicted macro-weather and climate change since 1986.

Only aruable by denialist idiots Alchey....

Or you when the experts post something pro-denialism.
BTW-I am an avid pro-arthropomorphic change supporter. Don't you read any of my posts?
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
Experts were ignorant of the bacteria for decades. Why?


Because that is how science works. People are not perfect - and often resistant to change, and to new ideas.

Does Ryggy think this invalidates the process of science? Will Ryggy not go to the doctor the next time he/she is sick - because Ryggy knows of a few examples of scientists who had to fight to get heard by the science community. We all know this stuff Ryggy. We know that the scientists working for the tobacco industry lied, and distorted the evidence. But answer the question Ryggy. When you get sick with cancer, or parkinsons, or some other horrible affliction - will you go to the doctor? Of course you will - idiot - because underneath your obfuscation and denialism - you understand that science is basically a solid process - and a lot better than visiting your local shaman. As Runrig says - FFS...
strangedays
4.9 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2014
Water_Prophet - care to share links to any of your publications?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Aug 17, 2014
The big point is very obvious to me. When I get sick - I go to the doctor - and if the doctor prescribes cipro - I take it.
-- strange
And if you are still sick after taking your prescribed medicine, do you go back for more of the same?
The AGW Cult base their prophesies on failed climate models and continue to do so, purely because of a failed diagnosis; man-made CO2.
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
Marshall received a Nobel for challenging the consensus.


And Ryggy does not see the irony of using this statement - in an attack on science.

Look at this quote - "The Nobel Committee then prepares a report reflecting the advice of experts in the relevant fields."

From - http://en.wikiped...election

Did you read the quote Ryggy "reflecting the advice of experts in the field" Do you see how science works? Do you get the irony?

Sigh - of course not........
strangedays
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
And if you are still sick after taking your prescribed medicine, do you go back for more of the same?


Yes I do - what about you? See - it is possible the doctor got it wrong the first time. If you do not believe in doctors - please tell us how you would handle the situation if a tumor came up on your neck. This happened to my father - and he died. Recently (40 years after my father died) - a friend was diagnosed with stage 4 neck cancer. After some grueling rounds of radiation and chemotherapy - he is back to work - and cancer free. What would you have advised my friend to do? What will you do when it is your turn to face that decision?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 17, 2014
It is important to realize that thermo and the captain are the same person
@waterbaby/alkie
no, we are different people, and we offered you a challenge that would prove it, but you were to afraid to fail publicly YET AGAIN
or at least they answer on each other's accounts
No, we do NOT... BUT, i WILL answer posts to other people when there is obviously a great deal of stupidity going on
You have "experts" on both sides. Both sides present falsehoods
No, they present evidence that you don't LIKE... and so argue against. Like the effects of CO2
You gonna start saying I am strangedays now too?

@Strangedays
Any time you wish to know who I am, and that both Thermo and I are different, look me up on Sapo's joint or Sciforums: http://saposjoint.net/ , http://www.sciforums.com/

thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
Alche/WaterDummy seems to think that Captain Stumpy and I are the same person. I can only assume that is because Alche has, at least, two accounts. As Captain Stumpy (or was that me... or does it even matter if we are the same) said, we have offered to put up a sum of money that would be held by a neutral party to prove we are not the same person. We/I would put up $10000 for Alche/WaterDummy and he would put up $5000 and if he wins he gets the $10000 and if we win we split the $5000. For some reason Alche won't put up the money. Sounds like he doesn't want to take on this "sure thing" for some reason. Maybe we are the same person Alche/WaterDummy. Take a chance!!!
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 17, 2014
WaterDud/Alche said:
I developed an intuitive model that has perfectly predicted macro-weather and climate change since 1986.


Does anyone else consider this to be one of the most absurd claims to be seen in this comments sections?

First, what is an "intuitive model?" Alche, are you using your intuition to decide how things should change? Is this your answer instead of a mathematical model?

Second, I have never seen a perfect predictive model for anything other than trivial systems. How can anyone claim a "perfect" model of any complex system. Alche, please justify this claim.

It seems to me that Alche is drifting away from sanity with these comments.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 17, 2014
I developed an intuitive model that has perfectly predicted macro-weather and climate change since 1986
@alkie/waterboy - Hydrocephalus dork
NOT ONLY is this
one of the most absurd claims to be seen in this comments sections
But we can also state that it is likely 100% FALSE for several reasons:
1- no one but you has EVER heard or seen it
2- NO ONE can verify the accuracy of your claims
3- You had the chance to win $30,000.00 by passing this info on... and no one passes on free easy money unless they are stupid or lying their butts off
4- there is NO peer reviewed proof from any mathematical, biological, AGW, climate science , physics or OTHER science that has any indicators of said model

it is UNLIKELY that you have created this model that long ago and NO ONE ELSE in all the sciences on EARTH ever caught on to the concept in that time period

THEREFORE: we can conclude that you are full of bulls**t
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
Skepticus_Rex
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
Notice the line along the zero for absorption and notice carefully the overall transmissibility of CO2. In only three IR wavelengths is CO2 less transmissible. In other words, most of the IR spectrum gets through easily except in three "peaks."


That is not the point being debated. The point being debated is that - as quoted correctly - at the shoulder - approx 13 microns - C02 is at a peak - and blocks....


There is no "shoulder." It is nonsense based on incomplete information in the dated sources. Check the dating on his sources. You need to update. Trouble for you is, "Riggy" is right on the matter of the spectrum. Did you visit the site I linked from NIST? That is the reference you should be using when discussing the subject of the IR absorption spectrum of CO2.

And what pray has this to do with AGW?


Well, the upper atmosphere is pretty dry. From what I have seen there is a pronounced cooling effect in the stratosphere due to CO2. Think about it.
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
WaterDud/Alche said:
I developed an intuitive model that has perfectly predicted macro-weather and climate change since 1986.

Hahaha! What a knee slapper! I'm always amazed at what AGW deniers will propose to dispute the obvious.
And @R2 says;
ALL GHGs have narrow and specific infrared absorption bands.
H2O has the most broad band absorption bands due to its complex molecular nature.
CO2 has few as its molecular structure is simpler. The only IR band of interest for climate is ~15 um.
No need to repeat what is commonly known. If you somehow think you've made a new novel discovery in the physics of greenhouse gasses, you don't need to fill us with BS. As has been the case since AGW theory was proposed, deniers are wrong and science is right.
The only conundrum that exists in AGW is why are the deniers leading the world into it's own self destruction from delusional reasoning, vs trusting what science has to tell people?
All I can figure is Denier = Dim Bulb!

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
@ha ha howhot,
My model predicts change is anthropomorphicly generated. Does NO one read my posts? It just doesn't need CO2, or temperature increases to make accurate predictions. Sorry, no false dependencies = accuracy.

It predicted that glacier and polar melts would be the primary effect. Hey, it's no longer a prediction. It really never was, it was happening but nobody measured it at the time.
It predicted the change in climate in the Pacific Northwest during the 1990's, and the false recovery it is in now.
It can easily predict any region (defined here as area of similar climate) at any time you like, you'll scoff at future predictions, and you'll say anyone can predict the past, but it makes it obvious. It even demonstrates inconsistencies.

And everyone is still arguing temperature, sorry, but it does look like temperature is going down... as someone who doesn't give a rat-tooshie about temperature, it's your problem.

But as always, you are right to. Deniers = Dim bul
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
@strangedays,
In the past links to my pubs haven't done any good, they just lead to further attacks, if I were the author of this article for example, well YOU are already discrediting Liu. In any event what I did was nothing special, anyone can show that a conducting filament is driven into the potential difference across a cell, and many people came after demonstrating the moieties that attach themselves to CNTs with much better fidelity and application. I've presented evidence that is hard to come by, and since I can claim anything, that should lend some credibility.
If you like you can generate any number of thermodynamic or chemical problems that have unique/non-googlable answers, and I'll be happy to lend some time to show that, but what would really prove/disprove credibility?

Let's apply my model!
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
A few years ago, if you had a certain type of ulcer, a doctor prescribe an expensive antacid.
After Dr. Barry Marshall challenged the consensus, a doctor may now prescribe and antibiotic to kill the bacteria causing the ulcer.
Experts were ignorant of the bacteria for decades. Why?
Marshall received a Nobel for challenging the consensus.
If strange continues to trust 'modern' western medicine and the FDA regulators, he will definitely not live forever as he desires.

This is the problem with you ryggy, and all deniers. You hang on to the exception and make it the rule.
Probabilities my friend the world does not work like that.
The rule invariably, is well, the rule.
It is the psychological flaw that the denier cannot recognise.
Like the gambler who convinces himself that next time he will win, and win big.
Probabilities, and to most of us, common sense, says it won't happen.
Did I say common sense?
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2014
Skepticus
There is no "shoulder.


Yes there is. There is a spike. The graph goes way high at that point. At that point there is a block. But that is not the point. Ryggy disagreed with the article that I referenced. I asked for a reference to support said disagreement - and Ryggy denied having disagreed. That is the point. Total obfuscation. Say something - and then claim you never said it. Take the discussion around in circles - and down the rabbit hole. Obfuscate - confuse - distract. That is the point.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2014
Waterprophet
Let's apply my model!


No - that is OK - I am good. You go ahead and apply your model - write papers on the topic - and get published.

By the way - did you meet JVK? JVK knows that all the science surrounding evolution is wrong. JVK has a completely different explanation for how life ended up the way it is today. JVK wants to adjudicate the topic on the comments section of a web site. Demonstrate to the world that his understanding of life is correct - and the whole body of science is full of shit. Interesting parallels. You guys should meet up and have coffee.

In the past links to my pubs haven't done any good


Yeah - I kind of saw that one coming.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2014
hang on to the exception and make it the rule.

Unfortunately it is not the exemption.
Feynman's analysis of the Challenger disaster discovered how such a failure could occur by conducting his own research and not depending upon 'experts'.
NASA didn't listen and the same thing happened to Columbia for the same reason.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014

Feynman's analysis of the Challenger disaster discovered how such a failure could occur by conducting his own research and not depending upon 'experts'.
NASA didn't listen and the same thing happened to Columbia for the same reason.


Rygg2 has now left the planet.

Feynman pointed out that the O-ring seal between sections of the Challenger SRB was sensitive to temperature and became inflexible at the low temperatures of that launch. The Challenger failed during its launch phase (I was watching that day on TV).

http://en.wikiped...disaster

Columbia failed during the reentry phase due to the loss of a tile.

http://en.wikiped...disaster

These two failures are not related.

Yes, foam fell off from most of the launches including the Challenger boost phase but that was not considered a failure mode by Feynman.
strangedays
4.9 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
Skepticus - I yield to you on the point - that the Iowa University web site is inaccurate in saying that there is a 'shoulder' at 15 microns - and that C02 absorbs at all levels 'above' that frequency. It should read that there is a spike - and it should not use the term 'above' this frequency - but say 'at' this frequency.

However - are you and Ryggy trying to argue that the current increase in C02 in the atmosphere is not disrupting the energy balance - and causing the current warming trend?

If yes - please explain the current warming trend.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
These two failures are not related.

Yes, they are.
If you read Feynman's independent report you will find he noticed how NASA treated 'exceptions' like o-ring blow outs, they were well known. His analysis applies to the insulation breaking off of the fuel tank and hitting the tiles, well known and documented.
NASA had a bizarre way of treating 'exceptions'. Instead of getting to the root cause of o-ring failure and eliminating the risk, NASA said it hasn't caused a catastrophic failure, yet, so don't change anything. They did the same for the foam. It was known foam breaking off does damage tiles, but there was no catastrophic failure, yet.
Had the previous o-ring blowouts been correlated with the o-ring temperature at launch, it would have provided the date to support waiting. Why didn't the 'experts' think to plot o-ring blowout frequency to launch temperature?
http://www.ralent...ort.html
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2014
Rygg2, talking about Feynman, said:
His analysis applies to the insulation breaking off of the fuel tank and hitting the tiles, well known and documented.


Could you please point me to the section of his report that addresses the insulation breaking off and damaging the tiles? I went through the URL you supplied and I can't find it there. I, certainly, could have missed it, but I didn't see it. Please point us to the section that addresses the tile damage.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2014
"We have also found that certification criteria used in Flight Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness. The argument that the same risk was flown before without failure is often accepted as an argument for the safety of accepting it again. Because of this, obvious weaknesses are accepted again and again, sometimes without a sufficiently serious attempt to remedy them, or to delay a flight because of their continued presence. "
http://www.ralent...ort.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2014
"Gregory N. Katnik, a NASA engineer at Cape Canaveral, said in a report dated Dec. 23, 1997, that the Columbia had sustained damage to more than 300 tiles on a recent flight. The inspection after a Columbia mission in 1997 showed that the tiles had sustained damage that was "not normal," Mr. Katnik said.

In a number of other shuttle flights, tile damage from falling foam also caused smaller amounts of damage, but NASA decided that over all, the problem did not threaten the survival of its spacecraft."
"The report went on to speculate as to why the foam dropped off. As it turned out, to be environmentally friendly, NASA had eliminated the use of Freon in foam production, Mr. Katnik reported. The Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., later concluded that the absence of Freon led to the detachment of the foam."
http://www.nytime...RON.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 18, 2014
How many discoveries are made by individuals looking at a problem a different way than the consensus?
That's how Charon was discovered. Jim Cristy, while at the Naval Observatory looked at a photo Pluto with a slight bulge. He thought moon and set out to find it.
It's named after his wife, Sharon.
Pulling at threads leads, challenging the status quo/consensus leads to new discoveries.
Someone like strange who claims to love science and wishes for a fountain of youth is so content to run with the herd. He/she could never push for the paradigms needed to create his magic immortality pill.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
"Salby hasn't been working in a vacuum. Swedish climate scientist Pehr Björnbom has replicated his finding that temperature drives CO2 emission. University of Oslo geosciences professor Ole Humlum published a landmark 2012 paper demonstrating that changes of CO2 follow changes of temperature, implying the same cause and effect. Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist at MIT, believes that Salby is correct about the IPCC's failure to evaluate the effects of diffusion in ice cores on the proxy CO2 record and to consider sources of lighter carbon other than fossil-fuel burning. Salby is a "serious scientist" whose arguments deserve a hearing, Lindzen says."
http://www.city-j...ing.html
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
"If they adhered to the standards established three centuries ago during the Scientific Revolution, the academies would not be able to make such definitive claims. Nineteenth-century astronomer and philosopher of science John Herschel demanded that the scientist assume the role of antagonist against his own theories; the merits of a theory were proved only by its ability to withstand such attacks. Einstein welcomed attempts to disprove the theory of general relativity. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong," he is said to have declared. Because in science, the philosopher Karl Popper reasoned, we cannot be sure what is true but we can know what is false, truth is approached by discarding what is shown to be false. Popper articulated the principle of falsifiability, distinguishing scientific theory from the pseudosciences of Marx and Freud, whose followers, he noted, found corroboration wherever they looked."
City Journal
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
Rygg2, talking about Feynman, said:
His analysis applies to the insulation breaking off of the fuel tank and hitting the tiles, well known and documented.


I asked Rygg2 to show where Feynman mentioned the insulation or tiles in the report Rygg2 supplied. Rygg2 then came back with a number of random quotes from multiple sources and among them was the quote that shows Feynman never mentioned the tiles or insulation. Instead Rygg2 quoted a section of the report that said that NASA should look at everything. Consequently, Rygg2 thinks anything that happened to any space shuttle could be linked back to Feynman's findings, even though Feynman did not mention it.
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
Yes I do - what about you? See - it is possible the doctor got it wrong the first time

I concur strange, but the question I was leading to is. What would you do if he gave you the same prescription?
runrig
4.8 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
How many discoveries are made by individuals looking at a problem a different way than the consensus?
That's how Charon was discovered. Jim Cristy, while at the Naval Observatory looked at a p...

In the past quite a bit. But not now and almost certainly not in the field of climate science where empirical physics backs it up (sorry no *slayer* arguments tolerated), observation and measurement. Thousands of scientist in multiple specialties. As I said ryggy it's probability and common sense.... akin to loading a 100 shot magazine with 3 bullets missing, spinning the chamber and putting the muzzle to your temple then pulling the trigger. I know which outcome I'd bet on.
Some win the lottery.... but it wont be you or I, or anyone else reading this - by the overwhelming balance of probability.
Same with AGW - you've backed a rank outsider my friend.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
empirical physics backs it up

Again, what physics? That a small amount of extra CO2 that absorbs a small of radiation will destroy the earth?
FastEddy
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 18, 2014
Cooling or warming? ... Yes. The climate changes. It's what it does. Dairy farms in Greenland 1000 years ago.


And Greenland was actually green, and not just from the crops. So was most of Europe with mild winters, plenty of rainfall. ... Then came the plague years, colder than a well diggers shovel (an English phrase that originated ~ 1200 AD, when harsher winter weather returned).

Never in history has increasing taxes changed the weather.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
Rygg2 said:
empirical physics backs it up

Again, what physics? That a small amount of extra CO2 that absorbs a small of radiation will destroy the earth?


The physics of electromagnetic radiation that you, clearly, don't understand.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
Feynman never mentioned the tiles or insulation.

Of course he didn't.
But he did mention the root cause of the problem, bad management.
Funny how no one else had the insight to observe how NASA performed 'risk reduction':
"O-rings are almost burning through. Why? We don't know, but it didn't cause a failure. Must be ok. Let's do it again."
"Foam chunks are breaking off and hitting the tiles. Why? We don't know but it hasn't caused a failure. Must be ok. Let's do it again."
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
Rygg2 said:
empirical physics backs it up

Again, what physics? That a small amount of extra CO2 that absorbs a small of radiation will destroy the earth?


The physics of electromagnetic radiation that you, clearly, don't understand.


I have the Planck equations that show how little heat is delayed by CO2. And many references have been provide that concur.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
Rygg2 said:
empirical physics backs it up

Again, what physics? That a small amount of extra CO2 that absorbs a small of radiation will destroy the earth?


The physics of electromagnetic radiation that you, clearly, don't understand.


I have the Planck equations that show how little heat is delayed by CO2. And many references have been provide that concur.


If that is your conclusion you do not have an understanding of the interaction of GHGs and EM. That is also apparent from your quote mining. I expect a string of random quotes as your excuse for an answer to the issue.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
ryggesogn2 muttered again
I have the Planck equations that show how little heat is delayed by CO2....
Ah so you admit its delayed, we are moving forward, how much is delayed, how many J's, for how long, graphs ?

You agree ADDING CO2 increases thermal resistivity but, you say its not much, would 0.5 deg C be "not much" ?

Just where ryggesogn2 is there any mention of re-radiation ?

You keep going on about absorption but NOT re-radiation !

Isn't it obvious & logical to any of even low intelligence that a greenhouse gas at a given concentration that has known re-radiation must INCREASE re-radiation if its concentration in the atmosphere doubles ?

Or ryggesogn2 are you somehow claiming magic that INCREASING the concentration of CO2 from say 200ppm to 400ppm will NOT increase re-radiation & thus NOT be even more of a thermal blanket effect ?

How do "planck" equations show this ?

Surely instead you need to focus on re-radiation proportionality ?

Isnt that smart(er) ?

Physics !
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
antigoracle
I concur strange, but the question I was leading to is. What would you do if he gave you the same prescription?


I guess we might discuss why he/she was wanting to try the same prescription again. I have a really great doctor - and I very much trust that she has my best interest at heart. I would be very surprised if she gave me the same prescription twice - but there may be a reason why she felt it was worth a second shot.

So do you go to the doctor/dentist when you need to?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
Yeah - I kind of saw that one coming.

Sigh. So, will a nanotox pub be sufficient, statistics, chaos? And how am I going to get it to you? Not that it matters, I've gone down this road before, and no one has sufficient clout to be able to satisfy the criticism of the least idiot.
And why does everyone wet their pants when it comes to being able to predict climate change?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
...However - are you and Ryggy trying to argue that the current increase in C02 in the atmosphere is not disrupting the energy balance - and causing the current warming trend?

If yes - please explain the current warming trend.


The current warming trend was in place before any anthropogenic CO2 had any effect. The period when many agreed that anthropogenic CO2 could make any kind of difference was in the 1950s. But, the trend was already there. But, has it really warmed? Observations and instruments all "conspire" to say no. Thus, the conundrum spoken of in the above article.

In addition, there is an about 1,000-year cycle that can be seen in the data. We are right in the middle (and, perhaps, at the preceding edge of the peak (need a couple more decades to know for sure)) of one such cycle. I have linked that chart elsewhere.

And, I have never been able to get temperature to increase in experiment more than 1 degree C with CO2 except with levels in excess of 4,000 ppm.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
I wanted to clarify what I stated in the post just above. When I asked, "But, has it really warmed?" I meant during the last more than a decade.

Also, here is another representation of the same chart I linked elsewhere.

http://wattsupwit...mec1.gif

Look carefully at the major peaks and notice how each major peak is approximately 1,000 years apart, give or take. Yes, the chart I just linked came from a site I rarely visit and almost never quote, but the chart matches the one I linked elsewhere, that doesn't come from this blog site. It is the GISP2 ice core data compared with CO2 at Dome C. Look at the data on the merits and don't judge it by its present location. That would be a mistake because the chart is accurate, based on the data, and a little research would confirm it for you.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
SR said:
And, I have never been able to get temperature to increase in experiment more than 1 degree C with CO2 except with levels in excess of 4,000 ppm.


You need to get together with Alche/WaterDud and learn a bit about how IR absorption works. I suggest you start by looking up the Beer-Lambert law:

http://en.wikiped...bert_law

Using that and simple arithmetic (although a finite element approach is better) you can calculate how much temperature change you should be looking for in your experiment. My bet is that your experiment is poorly set up and can't give you a temperature rise.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
SR said:
And, I have never been able to get temperature to increase in experiment more than 1 degree C with CO2 except with levels in excess of 4,000 ppm.


You need to get together with Alche/WaterDud and learn a bit about how IR absorption works. I suggest you start by looking up the Beer-Lambert law:

http://en.wikiped...bert_law

Using that and simple arithmetic (although a finite element approach is better) you can calculate how much temperature change you should be looking for in your experiment. My bet is that your experiment is poorly set up and can't give you a temperature rise.


You would be wrong that it is poorly set up. It is based on the one commonly used in schools for elementary physics and earth science. It has multiple controls, varying levels of CO2 and water vapor, and uses materials that are IR transparent (or close thereto) in best case scenario. You get somewhat "substantial" warming but only if levels CO2 exceed 4,000 ppmv.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
@Skepticus
4000ppmv, that's about 10x current levels!
You tell 'em baby!
Fan's of the Alchemist, whoops, Water_Prophet, will note that I've always said about 10x before you notice.
Meanwhile, we have captain_stumpy, who answers using thermo's account, claiming to be a plasma engineer, but doesn't know MHD is plasma (until pointed out to him), doesn't know what or how to use Einstein coefficients, and can't provide names for plasma equations when you so much as eliminate a variable. Oh, but he can pick six variables in MHD, without mentioning the degeneracy. The things he can answer, you can google. The things he can't, well those are usually learned and earned.
Yeah, I need to study Beer's law. It is easier to derive Beer's law than to read about it, but thermostumped wouldn't know that either.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
You keep going on about absorption but NOT re-radiation !

Heat is re-radiated into space.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
How many AGWites critically think?
"Criticism, according to Victorian cultural critic Matthew Arnold, is a disinterested endeavour to learn and propagate the best that is known and thought in the world. We should all be as "bound" by that definition as he was. We need only to teach the best that is known and thought and "criticism" will take care of itself. That is a lesson from 100 years ago that every teacher should learn."
http://www.realcl...794.html
howhot2
5 / 5 (10) Aug 18, 2014
@termo, thanks for the wikipedia link. I forgot how good wiki can be on subjects like this.
If you scroll to the bottom of

http://en.wikiped...bert_law

You'll see this;

I = I_0\,\exp(-m(\tau_a+\tau_g+\tau_{RS}+\tau_{\rm NO_2}+\tau_w+\tau_{\rm O_3}+\tau_r+...)),

@Water+profit will like the fact that \tau_w is the variable for water vapor. so your taken care of waterprofit.

Here is a URL to a set of 12 Jr high school experiments showing various aspect of AGW theory in action. It show's far more than what @skepticus wants.
http://www.carboe...ents.pdf

Here is a video that demonstrates the principles old @skepticus is arguing against.
https://www.youtu...IaCKPlH4

Lol. I can just see the expressions of the global warming denier squad when they view that one. Haha.

But specifically to Skepticus, here is Myth Busters busting your myth;
https://www.youtu...d5GT0v0I

thermodynamics
4.8 / 5 (8) Aug 18, 2014
HowHot2 said:
@termo, thanks for the wikipedia link. I forgot how good wiki can be on subjects like this.


I agree. It is only trolls like Alche/WaterDud and Rygg2 who think that they can't get good information from Wikipedia. It would be refreshing if the Trolls could understand some of what is presented in a lot of the on-line sources. Instead, they use "intuition" instead of math to try to understand the natural world. We know how that is working out for them.
MR166
1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
"jtom, marietta georgia USA, 2 hours ago

It rain'd all night the day I left The weather it was dry. The sun so hot I frose to death Susanna don't you cry. Original lyrics to Oh, Susanna, by Staephan Foster, now recognized by the IPCC as the first observed example of global warming, uh, change, no, disruption - whatever."
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
Wrong again, thermostumped, I've written a few articles for wiki, and contributed to more.
It may not surprise you to know that it was I, so far as I know, who first tried to put water as a GHG into GW. It was rejected. It is there now of course, but then, the climate has changed. Do you remember the times when CO2 and methane were the only major GHGs? Water wasn't relevant then, ah halycon days for you. How did we not all freeze to death without water vapor insulating us? Or why is it we aren't all melting now? It must be so confusing for you people who can't formulate their own understanding.

Considering wiki is where you seem to get your education... maybe you should be careful when you reference it, you might be citing me.

Exit, "Vincent Price" laughter.
thermodynamics
4.9 / 5 (9) Aug 18, 2014
Wrong again, thermostumped, I've written a few articles for wiki, and contributed to more.
It may not surprise you to know that it was I, so far as I know, who first tried to put water as a GHG into GW. It was rejected. It is there now of course, but then, the climate has changed.


Of course it was rejected. You probably put forth your idea that CO2 has no effect and they probably (correctly) laughed you out of there. And it is absurd for you to think you were among the "first" to say water vapor was important.

Do you remember the times when CO2 and methane were the only major GHGs? Water wasn't relevant then, ah halycon days for you.


No, I don't remember those times. Neither does anyone else because they never existed. They have known for over a hundred years what the fractional contribution from water vapor is. If you didn't know that you just haven't understood what people were saying (which is no real surprise).
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
ryggesogn2 seems to have trouble constructing a sentence/hypothesis with
Heat is re-radiated into space.
Really ? How much ?

Are you claiming CO2 is a magic compound that only re-radiates in one direction ?

Sentence, hypothesis, physics please ryggesogn2 ?

Your one liners & tangential blurts don't help you, it appears un-intelligent !

You have already admitted heat is 'delayed' - this MUST increase thermal resistivity and that means increase in temperature as observed - physics ryggesogn2.

Why the considerable obfuscation to get to this stage - why are you wasting so much valuable time ?????

Where is your critical thinking ryggesogn2 to handle the WHOLE of the re-radiation issue ???
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
But specifically to Skepticus, here is Myth Busters busting your myth;
https://www.youtu...d5GT0v0I


Did you catch the numbers, howhot? Watch very carefully the level they brought the CO2 up to get that 1 degree C increase in temperature. The amount was at 7.351% at 1:36 in the video. That translates out to 73,510 ppm! In other words, you just made my point for me. Thanks. Please one-rank accordingly. :-)
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2014
we have captain_stumpy, who answers using thermo's account, claiming to be a plasma engineer
@waterHydrocephalus
I NEVER claimed to be a plasma engineer and I don't EVER answer from thermo's account... only from my own, moron. You've been given the chace to learn the truth... you REFUSE because you are a TROLL, and stupid to boot
your diatribe post only PROVES that you are FAR TOO STUPID to learn physics
you CHOOSE not to learn which makes you STUPID, not ignorant... at least the ignorant CAN try to learn
Exit, "Vincent Price" laughter.
that's not vincent... that is the scientific community laughing at you because you fail so epically on such easy to see and fix small things... and because you don't have a SHRED of empirical data supporting your claims. only your "intuition" and your posts here.

http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

runrig
4.8 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
But specifically to Skepticus, here is Myth Busters busting your myth;
https://www.youtu...d5GT0v0I


Did you catch the numbers, howhot? Watch very carefully the level they brought the CO2 up to get that 1 degree C increase in temperature. The amount was at 7.351% at 1:36 in the video. That translates out to 73,510 ppm! In other words, you just made my point for me. Thanks. Please one-rank accordingly. :-)

skepty:
Why would you think that the demonstration you criticise is an exact analog for the Earth's atmosphere?
Now pray tell - because it is not a mystery that it isn't if you know the physical process going on.

Energy leaving the Earth in the form of IR is analogous to those Japanese Pachinko machines where balls are interrupted in their fall. Turn this upside down and increase the path-length several 10's of thousands of times. What do you reckon will happen to the delay time on that ball (read IR photon). As has been said several times look up Beer-Lambert.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
I did not criticize the demonstration. I merely stated that it made my point for me, namely, that CO2 in excess of 4,000 ppm is necessary to get anything significant, as was shown in the demonstration. It took more than 70,000 ppm to get just under 1 degree C increase in temperature over the controls, and the IPCC claims that a doubling of preindustrial levels will give between 2 and 6 degrees C increase (depending on model).

Also, your analogy is badly flawed on several levels. CO2 in relation to temperature per 20 ppm is logarithmic not linear (in keeping with Beer-Lambert (atmospheric), etc.!). Most IR passes right by CO2 molecules, with three specific ranges of wavelengths that get absorbed. With such a low percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is considerable mixing and space between molecules of CO2. There is a cooling effect going on in the stratosphere due to CO2. Convection pushes heat into the cooler region. Laws of thermodynamics take over from there. Etc....
Mike_Massen
4.8 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
A Skepticus_Rex gem
..necessary to get anything significant
What is best definition of word "significant" & what caveats please ?

Surely it is obvious:-

CO2 has known thermal properties, some of which confirmed by Myth Busters experiment, which are consistent with properties as greenhouse gas however, question arises as to degree of effects & must bear in mind; distribution, mass & period.

It is NOT suggested that over the whole atmosphere CO2 has either NO effect or Increases heat flow to space, ryggesogn2 take note ?

For those accepting the physics of CO2 & other GHG's it must be an essential process to arrive at the mathematics of the degree of influence.

Isnt this what climate scientists are & have been labouring upon ?

Given irrefutable physics as demonstrated & history of measurements with evidence of; receding glaciers, decreased ocean salinity, increased ocean acidification surely it is sensible & essential to REDUCE CO2 output AND to collect more definitive data ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 19, 2014
this MUST increase thermal resistivity and that means increase in temperature as observed -

Depends upon the quantity of energy.
Energy in required to increase temperatures.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
Also, your analogy is badly flawed on several levels. CO2 in relation to temperature per 20 ppm is logarithmic not linear (in keeping with Beer-Lambert (atmospheric), etc.!). Most IR passes right by CO2 molecules, with three specific ranges of wavelengths that get absorbed. With such a low percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is considerable mixing and space between molecules of CO2. There is a cooling effect going on in the stratosphere due to CO2. Convection pushes heat into the cooler region. Laws of thermodynamics take over from there. Etc....

Skepty
Don't tell me that magically via convection to top of the Trop you are suggesting that CO2 cools overall?
Now, I last came across this "Slayer" argument on WUWT and even Watts abhors Slayers.
Convection happens over minutes/hours (and with advection along a frontal discontinuity - over days). Radiation is, well at the speed of light.

cont
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
ryggesogn2 again was narrow & obtuse
when Mike_Massen said
this MUST increase thermal resistivity and that means increase in temperature as observed -
Depends upon the quantity of energy.
Energy in required to increase temperatures.
Bleeding obvious ryggesogn2, some energy differential must occur for there to be ANY flow.

We know there is flow as space is colder (doh), why state the obvious ?

Surely ADDING any intermediate medium, esp a GHG MUST increase resistivity as energy flow is NOT zero.

ryggesogn2, can you be a little more intelligent, its simple logic & arithmetic?

Get it ?

Obviously zero energy flow means thermal resistivity is not relevant but, we know thats not the case as there IS energy flow !

Details ryggesogn2, science ryggesogn2

At least ryggesogn2, basic physics, please look at heat flow & temperature differentials ?

How can ADDING a GHG NOT increase thermal resistivity when there is ALREADY a temperature differential & existing energy flow ?
runrig
4.8 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
cont

My analogy is very cogent. More molecules in the way of the photon via path-length, increase the optical opacity logarithmically. Hence the empirical and observed physics at work.

OLR is a function of the temp of the absorber/emitter - there is a lapse rate in the Trop until the Tropopause and then the temp steadily rises in the Strat (UV absorption). Therefore in the Strat the cooling to space (emission) is larger than the absorption of the colder layers below. This process is amplified via increased concentration of CO2. Difficult to get your head around I concede but it comes out of the maths.
see....

http://scienceofd...cooling/

There is also a very comprehensive series or articles on BL and just what GHG physics is.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 19, 2014
More molecules in the way of the photon via path-length, increase the optical opacity logarithmically.

Only for specific wavelengths.
The atmosphere is quite transparent with some scattering of blue light and narrow blocking of some IR wavelengths.

ADDING any intermediate medium

CO2 is already there. Adding more only blocks more of the SAME wavelengths.
Even If temperatures increase, the IR windows are still there, unchanged, to allow that heat to radiate into space.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Aug 19, 2014
Typical AGWite:
"Speaking at a climate conference hosted by the American Renewable Energy Institute, Steyer said:"
"Steyer's sweeping generalization is not a new excuse made for why liberal ideas are not shared by a large swath of the electorate. Coming from a side of the political isle that prides itself on ending "hate" and precluding judgment on those that are not like them, many wealthy liberal activists have been quick to make harsh conclusions about any group of people with whom they disagree. This degree of hypocrisy is rarely topped, but Steyer's strident defense of the "super sophisticated" 0.5% of America may have reached a new summit of paternalism."
http://www.cnsnew...sticated
Now renewable energy has its own 'institute' for lobbying plunder from the ignorant masses.
No financial incentives to hype AGW?
Mike_Massen
4.8 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
ryggesogn2 claimed
..atmosphere is quite transparent with some scattering of blue light and narrow blocking of some IR..
Then you have to claim this is wrong:- http://irina.eas....all2009/Lec6.pdf]http://irina.eas....Lec6.pdf[/url]

Going to tell/report them, is it a basic mistake or something else - hey maybe its been measured ? !!

ryggesogn2 attempted obfuscation again with
CO2 is already there. Adding more only blocks more of the SAME wavelengths.
Wavelengths detailed above.

Are you ryggesogn2 claiming these wavelengths are not emitted from land - how/why ?

ryggesogn2 mumbled
..the IR windows are still there, unchanged, to allow that heat to radiate into space.
So you are saying IR only in specific wavelengths is not attenuated.

What about all the others ryggesogn2, such as in link above ?

Anything definitive & experimental to counter link provided ?

BTW: Beer-Lambert
http://irina.eas....all2009/

Did u actually read anything at university level ryggesogn2 ?
Mike_Massen
4.8 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
@ryggesogn2
Here is another link for you re my last post:-

http://www-users....here.pdf

As a previous post appears to have partially munted a link, here it is:-

http://irina.eas....Lec6.pdf

How can you claim ryggesogn2 that CO2 is not a green house gas, people who study physics & researched climate details seem to disagree with you, I have supplied information from two university links.

Do you claim their data is wrong ?

Will you ryggesogn2 contact the universities & correct what you claim are their mistakes ?

Science ryggesogn2, physics ryggesogn2 !

No more obfuscation, the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas is irrefutable, though you did claim some time ago you designed an experiment to show it wasn't. I asked you to post the details of said experiment - you never answered - where is the details of your experiment design ryggesogn2 ?
MR166
1 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
Meanwhile there was an August frost in ( I think) Wisconsin or possibly Minnisota. Yup, I know it is just weather. Huuummmm they were predicting snow in the Scottish mountains. Yup, I know it is just weather.

But lets face it, the only real "scientific" proof that CO2 does not produce warming is when the glaciers cover Washington DC. Of course, that will then prove that 97% of the climate scientists confirm that increased CO2 levels cause AGCooling.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
Meanwhile there was an August frost in ( I think) Wisconsin or possibly Minnisota. Yup, I know it is just weather. Huuummmm they were predicting snow in the Scottish mountains. Yup, I know it is just weather.

But lets face it, the only real "scientific" proof that CO2 does not produce warming is when the glaciers cover Washington DC. Of course, that will then prove that 97% of the climate scientists confirm that increased CO2 levels cause AGCooling.


Either way it's prudent to halt adding CO2 wouldn't you agree?

Glaciers are just as inhospitable as deserts.

And the air is just as polluted in either scenario.
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2014
Rock our whole lifestyle and existence depends on inexpensive energy. If we were to end CO2 emissions on a whim the results would be condemning society to a medieval existence. Do you really think that this is a plus?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2014
the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas is irrefutable,

But what is its significance?
H2O is most significant.
Mike_Massen
4.8 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2014
MR166 with 1D satire
..But lets face it, the only real "scientific" proof that CO2 does not produce warming is when the glaciers cover Washington DC.
No, potential consequence of collapse of:-
http://en.wikiped...culation

MR166 as an alarmist claimed
Rock our whole lifestyle and existence depends on inexpensive energy.
Not entirely but, maybe as the US hasn't thought far ahead. UK, Europe, Aust etc has done fine with long term more expensive petrol etc

MR166 feared
..to end CO2 emissions on a whim the results would be condemning society to a medieval existence.
Whim .NE. Evidence :-)

Are solar panels, wind, tidal & geothermal part of a medieval existence (ME) ?

ME didn't have that tech or excess manufacturing capacity able to be stimulated with renewables. Many can say ME was far more relaxed, luscious, cleaner & far less heat islands.

@MR166
Basic inflation; Energy is far cheaper in real terms now that it was 30 years ago

Come on ME :-)
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2014
ryggesogn2 going around in circles again
when I said
the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas is irrefutable,
But what is its significance?
H2O is most significant.
Great news - you accept CO2 IS a greenhouse gas, so you accept it does act as a type of thermal blanket - we are getting somewhere :-)

The significance has already been showed to you, why r u pretending to be ignorant (again).

Eg
1. Increased energy in the climate system changing weather patterns & chaotically
2. More heat absorbed by glaciers so they recede resulting in less reflection
3. Increased ocean acidification affecting crustacea & their predators

But hey ryggesogn2, you have been down this road MANY times, are you pretending to have a mental condition related to loss of memory, alzheimers, dementia etc.

Please look up your old posts where they are answered & authoritatively too ?

But, hey you ryggesogn2 claimed to have a physics degree !

So how do you ryggesogn2 look when you ask such a basic question ?
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
But lets face it, the only real "scientific" proof that CO2 does not produce warming is when the glaciers cover Washington DC. Of course, that will then prove that 97% of the climate scientists confirm that increased CO2 levels cause AGCooling.
@Mr166
try reading up on this a little so that you can understand how the WARMING can cause localised cooling... I have posted this link NUMEROUS times... but really read them this time. there is a LOT of relevant data that explains what you are addressing
http://qz.com/163...n-worse/

This video is ESPECIALLY cogent: https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs

http://www.nature...234.html

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

base your decisions on SCIENCE... not politics
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
MR166
1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
"@Mr166
try reading up on this a little so that you can understand how the WARMING can cause localised cooling..."

Only in the minds of the "True Believers" Capt.
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2014
Only in the minds of the "True Believers" Capt.
so you are willing to IGNORE the scientific evidence that PROVES something in order to protect YOUR BELIEFS and your faith?

you won't even read the links or watch that video to see what MAY be the evidence you need to understand?

even "I" have read eu crap and waded thru zeph's awt rantings to find some salient or cogent point that might prove his posts... and so i could honestly see for myself whether or not there was anything relevant or legitimate about the point being made.

that is all I needed to know.

you have just publicly described yourself as an irrelevant troll with no intentions of learning anything... just posting irrelevant inane diatribe based upon your "faith" or belief structure
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2014
Give me a break Capt! Just a few years ago they were predicting snowless winters and now all of a sudden unexpected snow or cold weather is proof of "Climate Change" which further proves the effects of increased CO2. You know what---- I am really tired of your new found religion! Why don't you stick with the old established ones?
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 19, 2014
MR166 proves unequivocally he will keep his head in the sand when Captain Stumpy gave him free links to help him
"@Mr166
try reading up on this a little so that you can understand how the WARMING can cause localised cooling..."
Only in the minds of the "True Believers" Capt.
As Captain Stumpy has observed from the dumbest of all posts you make MR166 - you are showing:-

1. You are ignorant
2. You have no interest in relative complexity
3. You are attached to maintaining ignorance

As it seems a stubborn belief in that which you do not understand has to take precedence against knowledge arising from a sound discipline that you might be able to understand.

Should we put antigoracle, Shootist, dogbert & ryggesogn2 in the same boat, the small narrow minded plebes so unwilling to learn and thus to avoid contributing to mature discussion - indeed political ?

I cannot imagine how these people can sign up to a payment for staying so ignorant :-(
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2014
MR166 tried so impotently to defend his continuing ignorance with
.. Just a few years ago they were predicting snowless winters and now all of a sudden unexpected snow or cold weather is proof of "Climate Change" which further proves the effects of increased CO2...
Who are these faceless "they" ?

Climate scientists who offer probabilities or media who hype interpretations for ratings ?

Sorry for you MR166 you didnt want to or have the chance to discriminate provenance, discipline & training ie A uni education :-( And did you miss the words "chance" or "likelihood" in most scientific contexts ?

There is still a chance, just a step at a time, you know there are community college courses in Science in the USA that are apolitical re physics - I mean the core stuff.

MR166 got skewed with idiocy
I am really tired of your new found religion! Why don't you stick with the old established ones?
Physics is evidentiary, it is based on quantitative results, wakeup NOT a religion.
rockwolf1000
4.6 / 5 (7) Aug 19, 2014
Rock our whole lifestyle and existence depends on inexpensive energy. Do you really think that this is a plus?


And what future does the current paradigm allow for our children and grand children? A future without nature. Our current society is engaged in a war of attrition with the natural world. All development eats away at a chunk of the ecosystem rarely to return.

As I have stated on numerous occasions I think the root cause of these problems is overpopulation. If the human population on earth was at a more reasonable level we wouldn't be having this discussion. If there were only 3-4 billion people we could all probably live as we desire - Eat what we please, drive muscle cars with big V-8's, have huge heated/air conditioned houses. (I really miss my pick-up truck with 350 small block - fun fun fun BTW)

Population density has reached a point where all of our actions contribute negatively to the ecosystem and cannot be mitigated naturally.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
Rock our whole lifestyle and existence depends on inexpensive energy. Do you really think that this is a plus?


I will add that we have existed in for hundreds of thousands of years without cheap energy so your claim that our existence depends on cheap energy is patently false.

Our lifestyle is a different matter of course. We 1st world inhabitants live very wasteful lives. We already have more than we need and continue to ask for more.

Greed gone wild.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
We already have more than we need and continue to ask for more.

So the rest can have theirs, too.
Rising tide lifts all boats.
Turd world nations don't have the energy, innovation or liberty to enjoy the benefits of health and comfort of the first world.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Aug 19, 2014
I am going to explain low concentrations solutions again. When you are dealing with very very low concentrations, physical properties become inconsistent. It requires several ensembles to determine a good average, and the variation are enormous, especially if you have to fight impurities. These properties increase from zero to the textbook values on an exponential curve. An example of this are those videos they showed you in high school chemistry (sorry, thermostumped-I am sure you can google it) where they reduce the density of gas to near vacuum and you can watch the distortion from the density fluctuations, as the few particles of gas gather together and disperse.
rockwolf1000
4.8 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014

So the rest can have theirs, too.
Rising tide lifts all boats.


Not if they're tightly moored to the bottom by nations and corporations.

Turd world nations don't have the energy, innovation or liberty to enjoy the benefits of health and comfort of the first world.


Turd world? Really? You are very sick in the head. Did you know that?
rockwolf1000
4.8 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
Turd world nations


It appears ignoracle and ryggysoggypants are mutual lovers. They both wish to emulate the one they admire.
Mike_Massen
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
Water_Prophet mumbled almost incoherent homeopathy type explanations
I am going to explain low concentrations solutions again.... An example of this are those videos they showed you in high school chemistry (sorry, thermostumped-I am sure you can google it) where they reduce the density of gas to near vacuum and you can watch the distortion from the density fluctuations, as the few particles of gas gather together and disperse.
You don't seem to have noticed we are not near vacuum and in any case energies can be integrated whether near vacuum or not its mathematics ie Calculus - you write as if you have never heard of integration or even this:-

http://en.wikiped...echanics

Especially look up "Thermodynamic ensembles" along with a refresher you are desperately in need of re Integration or go back to sleep & get off this forum. All the posts I have seen of yours so far have been nonsense betraying all sorts of delusions...
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas is irrefutable,

But what is its significance?
H2O is most significant.

For the nth time squared ryggy ....
CO2 lasts centuries in the atmosphere and WV ~10 days.
Get the orders of magnitude difference there, eh?
Therefore WV can ONLY follow CO2 and not lead.
So we have a massive +ve feedback to anthro produced CO2.

That is it's significance.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
"@Mr166
try reading up on this a little so that you can understand how the WARMING can cause localised cooling..."

Only in the minds of the "True Believers" Capt.


Science isn't belief - belief is what you have in the science being wrong.
The process you deny is basic meteorology and can easily be demonstrated in the lab with a rotating dish containing dyed water and having a cooled centre and heated rim. Reduce the delta T between the rim and centre and the water will describe increasingly contorted Rossby waves and cut-off Lows/Highs. - bringing greater meridional extension to both cold polar air and sub-tropical air. Whats more these "contortions" will tend to favour certain localities on the real Earth due to anchoring by Mountain ranges.
That's how warming can cause local cooling sunshine.
Not a lie, nor mysterious nor magic. It's called Meteorology. Of which I am an expert. Sorry and all that.
Water_Prophet
1.2 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
@Mike, you just seem to be being a moron here. No offense, but you are simply by-passing the point.
I have to agree with you, I can do thermodynamic ensembles for lunch, canon'micro-canon'grandcanon and the isos and that other one that relaxes volume. However, ensembles are theoretical, they generate beautiful results, but rapidly become troublesome especially when your impurities are unknowns, and what is an impurity at 400ppm?- probably at or higher than 400ppm.
As to "near vacuum," of course not, but what is the concentration of CO2? Imagine it is without surrounding gases, 400ppmv is pretty thin.
Sorry there are practical realities that show up in real chemistry that may not even be worth solving, things like solutions with negative pH, random dirt, and the example above. There is no real way to use the phenomenon, and the explanation is imperfection.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
Therefore WV can ONLY follow CO2 and not lead.

Not according to the data.
howhot2
5 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
I'm always so disappointed with the fantasy science that deniers will make up or use in their continuing waste of time dispute with global warming. I thought the Myth Busters video was kind of fun. It showed that green houses with CO2 or Methane where ~1C above the two controls. It demonstrated the Beer-Lambert law in principle and AGW in principle. Yet the deniers just can't seem to extrapolate these principles to the atmosphere. Unlike the Myth busters, the Earth has a much more powerful light source, so a 1C global change from a 120ppm rise in CO2 should not be a surprise. And it has risen about 1.2C since 1900s. And do not forget that CO2 will linger in the atmosphere for more than 1000 years. So 500ppm now = 500ppm in year 3014. So in other words deniers, you add 1.2C to planet by CO2 now, in 3014 it will still be there.

Here is a really fascinating read from Wikipedia that goes to the heart of AGW
http://en.wikiped...mosphere
howhot2
5 / 5 (10) Aug 19, 2014
Generalizing, for every 50ppm CO2 increases, there will be a rise in global average temperatures of close to or better than 1C. That is what is extrapolated from data. I would like the deniers to disprove that.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
@howhot, you dissapoint:

The exponent of 0+sigma is still pretty equal to the exponent of 0. If you want it linear, you loose worse. It is actually linear.

I did a model with an exponential dependence, and it was still too weak.

But if we apply Beer's law to water, well its (integrated broad spectrum) coefficient is 40x stronger and it is what, more than a hundred times more prevalent? It also has more mechanisms, evaporation and condensation.

What is the clincher? Water absorbs about 4% at CO2 important wavelength, but with Beers law for concentration, 4% is much much more than CO2's 60-70%.

What are the arguments against?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
@howhot, and for Pete's sake, CO2 is insulation. It does not generate heat or temperature. It can't.

So will insulating your house make it warmer? Come on, you're one of the smarter folks on here...

Insulation should moderate climate, warmer yes, but it should also be less extreme. Do you not agree?
But weather, or macro-weather, is more extreme. This doesn't fit the data.

Climate is changing, but based on what we observe, what ARE the possible drivers? Insulation? No there is an active driver.

You are a modeler right, instead of adding CO2, why don't you solve backwards? Look at effects and reverse-characterize the change?
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 19, 2014
Alkie/WaterDummy said:
As to "near vacuum," of course not, but what is the concentration of CO2? Imagine it is without surrounding gases, 400ppmv is pretty thin.


But it is not "without surrounding" gas.

In fact, the fact that the other gases are bouncing into it make your comment of:
An example of this are those videos they showed you in high school chemistry (sorry, thermostumped-I am sure you can google it) where they reduce the density of gas to near vacuum and you can watch the distortion from the density fluctuations, as the few particles of gas gather together and disperse.


Where do you get these absurd views? You are, vainly, trying to figure out how statistical mechanics works. And, you got it all wrong. You don't get large fluctuations in systems with the number of molecules you see in the atmosphere at sea level. You don't see gas particles sticking together from Van DerWalls forces at atmospheric pressure. Amazing ignorance.
strangedays
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2014
rockwolf
Turd world? Really? You are very sick in the head. Did you know that?


Ryggy is absolutely a hateful little racist - and every now and then let's it slip for the world to see.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2014
Skepty
Don't tell me that magically via convection to top of the Trop you are suggesting that CO2 cools overall?
Now, I last came across this "Slayer" argument on WUWT and even Watts abhors Slayers.
Convection happens over minutes/hours (and with advection along a frontal discontinuity - over days). Radiation is, well at the speed of light.


No, I am not saying that it has an overall cooling effect but that there is a cooling effect in the upper atmosphere that is due to CO2. Convection isn't magic. It happens a lot more than we realized. You were aware of satellite data showing that heat is transported through the tops of clouds during certain kinds of storms, weren't you? That is heat that gets up into a cooling stratosphere. It is an offset (don't often hear a whole lot of discussion among climate scientists about that one, either, except to discount it). Put something warm into something cooler and...well...you know the laws of thermodynamics, don't you? Physics 101.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2014
My analogy is very cogent. More molecules in the way of the photon via path-length, increase the optical opacity logarithmically. Hence the empirical and observed physics at work....


Unfortunately for you, heating causes the molecules to push further apart, opening larger gaps than those already present. Remember, CO2 at present only is just under 0.04% of atmosphere on earth. And, increasing opacity to three specific wavelengths logarithmically isn't the same as linearly. All the rest of the longwave radiation gets through CO2 no matter how much the opacity increases--unless you have in excess of 70,000 ppm, which is never going to happen as a result from humanity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2014
Give me a break Capt! Just a few years ago they were predicting snowless winters and now all of a sudden unexpected snow or cold weather is proof of "Climate Change"
@Mr166
lets take a look at this objectively. the prediction included error bars as any good science study will, especially with predictions of highly complex systems... and what you are angry about is the sensationalism of the MEDIA over some of the more dire possibilities!

I am posting PROOF and showing you DATA THAT WAS PREDICTED a FEW YEARS AGO by Prof. Jennifer Francis and is being vindicated now in study AND observation, but your reply was
Only in the minds of the "True Believers" Capt.
Now, you did NOT read the links (because you would have seen that she has been pushing this for YEARS) NOR did you watch the video which was VERY good... HOW am i TRULY supposed to categorize your response considering that?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Aug 20, 2014
mr166 cont'd
and then you pop off with
You know what---- I am really tired of your new found religion! Why don't you stick with the old established ones?
well BELIEVE IT OR NOT when I first started reading at PO i was ALSO a HUGE SKEPTIC... but then i started READING THE STUDIES that people like Runrig were posting... NOT the blog crap! not things that are simply opinion... the LINKS BACKED BY HARD DATA AND EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

I learned that there is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and that no matter WHAT you call it... religion or whatever... YOU CANNOT REFUTE EMPIRICAL DATA and that has convinced me that the info is correct

IF YOU CAN PROVE OTHERWISE... then i suggest you start publishing your findings. otherwise you will simply be labeled a TROLL and ignored, you know.

TAKE A GOOD LOOK at those links I left
REFUTE THE SCIENCE IN THEM
USE LEGIT EMPIRICAL DATA
then i will listen
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2014
Generalizing, for every 50ppm CO2 increases, there will be a rise in global average temperatures of close to or better than 1C. That is what is extrapolated from data. I would like the deniers to disprove that.


And, yet, in the Mythbusters video it took over 70,000 ppmv added CO2 to get just under 1 degree increase in temperature over the controls. I think the Mythbusters crew did a pretty good job of debunking that one on television (although I am sure that wasn't their intent). We are never going to get CO2 levels that high even if we burned all organic material on the planet at the same time.

By the way, the actual increase most agreed on that I have seen in the various reports is between 0.76-0.85 degree from 1880-2012, globally. Worse for your claim, we have gone to about 120 ppm already over the pre-industrial levels and haven't seen a 2 degree C increase in global average temperature over pre-industrial temperatures other than over the LIA anomaly. Cause for pause?
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2014
Therefore WV can ONLY follow CO2 and not lead.

Not according to the data.


Which is pray?
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2014
My analogy is very cogent. More molecules in the way of the photon via path-length, increase the optical opacity logarithmically. Hence the empirical and observed physics at work....


Unfortunately for you, heating causes the molecules to push further apart, opening larger gaps than those already present. Remember, CO2 at present only is just under 0.04% of atmosphere on earth. And, increasing opacity to three specific wavelengths logarithmically isn't the same as linearly. All the rest of the longwave radiation gets through CO2 no matter how much the opacity increases--unless you have in excess of 70,000 ppm, which is never going to happen as a result from humanity.

Yes, that's called thermal expansion and is beyond negligible in the atmosphere.
We know exactly what wavelengths CO2 molecules absorbs/re-emits and putting more of them in the way linearly is why the lab experiment does not emulate the atmosphere's response to "just" 0.04% CO2.
Mike_Massen
4.9 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2014
Skepticus_Rex seems to have made up a mathematical relationship with
.. no matter how much the opacity increases--unless you have in excess of 70,000 ppm,...
Where is there any maths or physics for this ?

ie. How does any such discontinuity possibly arise at 70,000ppm ?

How is it Skepticus_Rex you didn't notice the Myth Busters experiment is run for television so concentrations must be artificially set higher for a much faster result,
ie Not months or decades ?

How can you reconcile your idea/interpretation with the Science on this link from howhot2:-
http://en.wikiped...mosphere

There doesnt seem to be a discontinuity of any sort anywhere near your claimed figure of 70,000ppm, please clarify the source of this idea & any evidence for it ?

Any chance you might even become skeptical of your own logic, interpretations & writings ;-)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2014
Yes, that's called thermal expansion and is beyond negligible in the atmosphere.
We know exactly what wavelengths CO2 molecules absorbs/re-emits and putting more of them in the way linearly is why the lab experiment does not emulate the atmosphere's response to "just" 0.04% CO2.


And, yet, the effects of CO2 aren't linear. Yes, we know exactly which wavelengths are involved. Take a good look at which wavelengths are transmissible and which aren't. Thermal longwaves (the ones that generally can be felt) are in the range of 8 to 14 microns. Human bodies radiate IR at 10 microns, for example. CO2 only absorbs the IR wavelengths that count at ~14-15 microns (NASA climate scientists add the 15 micron but others set the cutoff point at 14 microns for thermal IR). And, these are not equal and the rest irrelevant. Most of the thermal IR spectrum gets through with virtually no impedance. And, if we set thermal cutoff at 14 microns, even the 15 micron peak of CO2 is less relevant.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2014
...There doesnt seem to be a discontinuity of any sort anywhere near your claimed figure of 70,000ppm, please clarify the source of this idea & any evidence for it ?

Any chance you might even become skeptical of your own logic, interpretations & writings ;-)


I'm skeptical of just about everything, including what I write. If I see enough incontrovertible evidence I can and do change my mind. Trouble is, I haven't seen such evidence as of yet, on either side of the debate.

As to the issue of the amounts in excess of 70,000 ppm and so forth, I base that on observational data. Even the Mythbusters video can be added to that observational data. It took over 70,000 ppm to give just under a 1 degree C increase of temperature over the controls. That is how much CO2 they added to the chamber to get that result. The high point at 1:36 in the video was 7.351%. 7.351 x 10000 = 73,510 ppm. You always could do such an experiment for yourself, with varying levels of atmospheric CO2, etc.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2014
rockwolf
Turd world? Really? You are very sick in the head. Did you know that?


Ryggy is absolutely a hateful little racist - and every now and then let's it slip for the world to see.

I am hateful for wanting all people around the world to have clean, running water, flush toilets, housing, food, transportation, opportunities, and liberty?
I am hateful for opposing AGWites and Ehrlich disciples for wanting to cripple world economies that would help all people around the world to have clean, running water, flush toilets, housing, food, transportation, opportunities, and liberty?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2014
Skepticus_Rex proves he cannot interpret/analyse experiments with
As to the issue of the amounts in excess of 70,000 ppm and so forth, I base that on observational data. Even the Mythbusters video can be added to that observational data. It took over 70,000 ppm to give just under a 1 degree C increase of temperature over the controls. That is how much CO2 they added to the chamber to get that result. The high point at 1:36 in the video was 7.351%. 7.351 x 10000 = 73,510 ppm. You always could do such an experiment for yourself, with varying levels of atmospheric CO2,
There are so many things wrong with your view in conjunction with your claim re "unless you have in excess of 70,000 ppm".

Can't you see claiming nothing happens below 70,000ppm on TV is not proven & false ?

Don't you understand the TV has TIME constraints & what it shows & incomplete re range ?

Please get an education in Experimental Methods, oh and add physics & maths too !
runrig
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2014
As to the issue of the amounts in excess of 70,000 ppm and so forth, I base that on observational data. Even the Mythbusters video can be added to that observational data. It took over 70,000 ppm to give just under a 1 degree C increase of temperature over the controls. That is how much CO2 they added to the chamber to get that result. The high point at 1:36 in the video was 7.351%. 7.351 x 10000 = 73,510 ppm. You always could do such an experiment for yourself, with varying levels of atmospheric CO2, etc.

Skepty:
You keep missing the point......
In the experiment you have to have ridiculous concentrations of CO2 as there is no path-length. The atmosphere has ~10km of it to provide the collisions necessary to back radiate terrestrial IR.
If you genuinely are skeptical - then this has the best explanation I know of, of ...

"The Amazing Case of "Back-Radiation" (Pts I, II, III)

www.scienceofdoom...diation/

Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2014
Can't you see claiming nothing happens below 70,000ppm on TV is not proven & false ?

Don't you understand the TV has TIME constraints & what it shows & incomplete re range ?

Please get an education in Experimental Methods, oh and add physics & maths too !


Putting words into my mouth is the best you've got? I've done the experimentation, with varying amounts of CO2 and multiple controls, as well. In fact, I used to work with CO2 and monitored its levels. I no longer do that since forced retirement but I've been there, done that and got the t-shirt. You don't know me or anything about me so don't make stupid assumptions as you are wont to do with those with whom you disagree. Do the experiments for yourself if you don't believe what I have stated. It's not all that hard and you can even do it with inexpensive items (soda bottles, for example) if you are less interested in precision or unable to afford the pricier and more necessary laboratory-grade items.
saposjoint
5 / 5 (5) Aug 20, 2014
Runrig, sorry I downvoted you.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2014
...If you genuinely are skeptical - then this has the best explanation I know of, of ...

"The Amazing Case of "Back-Radiation" (Pts I, II, III)

http://www.scienc...diation/


I have never stated that there is no DLR. So, why you bring this up seems ridiculous to me. But, fact is, satellites don't measure DLR at surface levels and cannot do so at present. Even your link states that. (Your link also states that the atmosphere is transparent to IR at 8-12 microns.) So, how do we quantify what it is that you are trying to say without so much speculation? I want hard data not speculation and analogy.
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2014
Skepticus_Rex claimed
Putting words into my mouth is the best you've got?
No.
YOU said it yourself some 13hrs ago & I quote:-
All the rest of the longwave radiation gets through CO2 no matter how much the opacity increases--unless you have in excess of 70,000 ppm,
Were you:-
1. In error
2. Imprecise
3. Bad choice of language, wrong use of "unless" ??

Which of above ?

Skepticus_Rex further claimed
I've done the experimentation, with varying amounts of CO2 and multiple controls, as well.
Good, I am looking forward to the report & analysis of experimental method & in particular some means of addressing runrig's post where he states & I quote
In the experiment you have to have ridiculous concentrations of CO2 as there is no path-length. The atmosphere has ~10km of it to provide the collisions necessary to back radiate terrestrial IR.
Re Your experiments Skepticus_Rex;

a. What concentration CO2 ?
b. What chamber size ?

ie. All the variables so you are not misled ?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2014
As to my earlier statement 13 hours ago, there is no imprecision. It is a fact. You just misread what I stated because you don't understand what's going on. Except for three ranges of wavelengths (two of which are rather insignificant) "ALL THE REST of the longwave radiation gets through CO2 no matter how much opacity increases." Remember, even your link above states that the atmosphere is transparent at between 8 and 12 microns. And, that source at your link is correct about that. It is. Which means that the rest of it gets through CO2, exactly.

Concentrations of CO2 = varying and measured to within less than a tenth of a degree.
Chamber size = variable but all the same size depending on modality. They have ranged from between two meters high to soda bottles to smaller vessels of IR transparent glass. Multiple controls each experiment.

The 1000-character limit precludes being thoroughly detailed and you know it (at least, if you have worked in the sciences, you know it).
MR166
1 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2014
Quick send some CO2 to Canada.

http://www.thebla...-canada/
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2014
@thermostuped
I love your last comment, it convinces me you really are also Maggnus, aka "mole... what is a mole," it was idiotic.
Thanks!
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2014
Do the experiments for yourself if you don't believe what I have stated. It's not all that hard and you can even do it with inexpensive items (soda bottles, for example)........

Skepty:
What is it about the concept of distance traveled by the aforementioned back-radiated IR photon that you fail to conceive as relevant to the terrestrial environment?... of which any lab experiment cannot replicate.

No, a serious question, as it is either me or you that is being obtuse here.
There are 2 ways of producing a back-scattered effect of EM radiation.
1) put a lot of obscurity in a small volume (your 7%)
2) put a small amount (per m3) in a very much larger volume (Earth's 0.04%)

Both will get the photons back to you.

So you also deny that GHG's are lifting the ave temp of Earth to a balmy 15C, instead of the grey body temp of -18C?
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Aug 20, 2014
Nothing "Green" works out as it was first presented.

http://hockeyscht...nts.html

It always costs more and does less than promised.
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2014
Skepticus_Rex seems to be losing it with
You just misread what I stated because you don't understand what's going on.
How can I misread your use of the word "unless" ?

Skepticus_Rex
.. Except for three ranges of wavelengths..
Sure, confirm the amount of energy re-radiated (DLR)

Skepticus_Rex say WOT?
..atmosphere is transparent at between 8 and 12 microns... Which means that the rest of it gets through CO2, exactly.
Huh ? So u say ALL goes through, surely you meant some is NOT transparent ?

Skepticus_Rex got mixed up
Concentrations of CO2 = varying and measured to within less than a tenth of a degree.
No. CO2 is measured in ppm or %.

Skepticus_Rex
They have ranged from between two meters high to soda bottles to smaller vessels of IR transparent glass. Multiple controls each experiment.
:-(
So no detail of experimental method then ?

No consideration of how to deal with issue runrig knows about ?

Your claimed experiment is on very thin ground, tut tut :-(
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2014
MR166 offered
..send some CO2 to Canada.
http://www.thebla...-canada/
Which goes to show ice acts is as a type of insulator, where density is not homogenous hence one can understand that being unable to measure across large swathes of ice flow the nooks & crannies of density fluctuations affecting heat transfer do affect input to the modelling process...

Plus these density variations are not static, they are bound to shift as stress is relieved, water flows through cavities, impurities affect thawing etc.

Yet all the deniers I have read about have never accepted that these types of issues need to be wrestled with !

It confirms no model can be 100% certain at all times - as the medium included in the model cannot be known with 100% certainty.

MR166, can you see why the observation all models are probabilistic & asymptotic is valid & that is the basis on which trained scientists operate ?
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 20, 2014
@runrig
Issue you describe well for Skepticus_Rex with:-
1) put a lot of obscurity in a small volume (your 7%)
2) put a small amount (per m3) in a very much larger volume (Earth's 0.04%)
Occurs it might be able to craft a formula somehow linking the two situations even if widely non-linear but nonetheless testable (the formula that is) at various intermediate points.

Eg.
Say choose a volume of 1km^3 in a suitable region of the earth which is more or less stable weather wise & for long enough - could an experiment be constructed to get ^some^ useful data to plot in conjunction with the formula derived could thus be further extrapolated to a small volume of 1m^3 ?

Reminds me of issue in Electro Magnetic Compliance (EMC) where one cannot have an Initially reliable test if the radio frequency screened chamber is less than a certain size.

Sure there is data but it is not linear or seen liability as reliable to be used for approvals.

Could an "indicative" formula have use/validity ?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (8) Aug 20, 2014
@runrig
Issue you describe well for Skepticus_Rex with:- 1) put a lot of obscurity in a small volume (your 7%)
2) put a small amount (per m3) in a very much larger volume (Earth's 0.04%) Occurs it might be able to craft a formula somehow linking the two situations even if widely non-linear but nonetheless testable (the formula that is) at various intermediate points.

Eg.
Say choose a volume of 1km^3 in a suitable region of the earth which is more or less stable weather wise & for long enough - could an experiment be constructed to get ^some^ useful data to plot in conjunction with the formula derived could thus be further extrapolated to a small volume of 1m^3 ?


Beer-Lambert law looks at both concentration and path length:

http://en.wikiped...bert_law

Spectroscopy is the application of this

http://en.wikiped...troscopy

howhot2
4.9 / 5 (9) Aug 20, 2014
@Skepticus; 70,000ppm ,.. What if the 7.31% was a percent difference. That is the percentage difference from when the experiment began until it finished. You made me go back an slow-mo the video skep and there is a scale on the right. 300.00 is what it looks like. Short of asking the Myth Busters, I think your myth is busted!

Regardless, the point being made is that additional CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a larger heat trapping effect. If you admit that, then you've taken step one on the road to recovery.

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2014
Nothing "Green" works out as it was first presented.
It always costs more and does less than promised.
@mr166
and how are you taking cost into consideration?
is it just the initial costs or the overall costs (meaning over time, especially long term)?
or just commercial costs?
what?

and linking a BLOG is not evidence unless there is a link in that blog to a scientific study will peer reviewed empirical data

perhaps if you were to find some data from a peer reviewed reputable journal with an impact in the area in question we could further this discourse more cogently and with alacrity ?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (7) Aug 21, 2014
@Skepticus; 70,000ppm ,.. What if the 7.31% was a percent difference. That is the percentage difference from when the experiment began until it finished. You made me go back an slow-mo the video skep and there is a scale on the right. 300.00 is what it looks like. Short of asking the Myth Busters, I think your myth is busted!

Regardless, the point being made is that additional CO2 to the atmosphere will cause a larger heat trapping effect. If you admit that, then you've taken step one on the road to recovery.


Ridiculous! Why would they conduct the experiment with only 300 ppm in the chamber??? They could have used ambient air--oh, wait...they did in the control chambers. It isn't the percentage difference and that number isn't 300. Look carefully at the decimal point location. It is in the thousands, but what it is isn't labeled. The upper label, however, clearly states that percentage of CO2 in the chamber at the high point was 7.351%, which is 73,510 ppm.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2014
The word "unless" applied to the experiment done by Mythbusters. They could not get about 1 degree C of increase UNLESS they pushed up the CO2 to over 70,000 ppm.

Huh ? So u say ALL goes through, surely you meant some is NOT transparent ?


No, I wrote "all the rest" not "all" gets through.

Skepticus_Rex got mixed up

No. CO2 is measured in ppm or %.


Yes, you found a typo caused by my being in a hurry and failing to complete the actual thought, which complete thought should have been:

"Concentrations of CO2 = varying and measured, with temperatures measured to within less than a tenth of a degree."

So no detail of experimental method then ?


Not possible here except cursorily, unless I violate rules and circumvent the system, which will get me banned. Not happening. I have posted enough details elsewhere on this site to get you started. There is nothing stopping you from conducting your own experiments with varying levels of CO2 to confirm what I have stated.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2014
I here repeat my post of yesterday....

Skepty:
What is it about the concept of distance traveled by the aforementioned back-radiated IR photon that you fail to conceive as relevant to the terrestrial environment?... of which any lab experiment cannot replicate.

No, a serious question, as it is either me or you that is being obtuse here.
There are 2 ways of producing a back-scattered effect of EM radiation.
1) put a lot of obscurity in a small volume (your 7%)
2) put a small amount (per m3) in a very much larger volume (Earth's 0.04%)

Both will get the photons back to you.

So you also deny that GHG's are lifting the ave temp of Earth to a balmy 15C, instead of the grey body temp of -18C?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2014
So you also deny that GHG's are lifting the ave temp of Earth to a balmy 15C, instead of the grey body temp of -18C?


@runrig, Atmospheric mixing in the Homosphere is the primary driver of this increase. Something like 90% of it.

So you have the Sun driving us from 2.7K to about 260K, if memory serves. Atmospheric mixing in the homosphere, like using a fan in your home to homogenize the air, bringing us up to close to ambient. Water brings us up A small fraction of that, and CO2, is a fraction of a fraction of that. Yet another intuitive way to point out that CO2 effects are made up and the points don't matter.

I'd get the facts, but I've posted them before, and as usual, I post nothing controversial, just well established properties.
howhot2
5 / 5 (9) Aug 21, 2014
Well, @Skepticus, it does say 7.xx% CO2 in the video but I'm very certain you are misinterpreting that number. If you look at the video at 1.34 you will see the methane measurement graph decreasing with time. CO2 which has a narrower window is bouncing all over the place at the 300ppm scale. What they have done is pulsed CO2 and methane shots into the boxes, and are plotting it while the concentrations reach equilibrium.

Given that; Mythbuster's is just trying to make the point. The point being your wrong and science has it right.
.
howhot2
5 / 5 (8) Aug 21, 2014
You know @Water_Prophet, one of the predictions from climate scientists is that global warming will evaporate more ocean waters (from the higher average global temps). That will result in heavy rain storms, more frequent flash flooding and more clouds. One additional effect of global warming has to do with Humidity + 100C temperatures. It's been projected that high water humidity combined with unbearably high temperatures could make any outdoor activity life threatening.

It will be interesting to see how we build structures in the future give the heat.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (9) Aug 22, 2014
Alche/WaterDud: I thought I had wasted all of my time putting together that finite element model of the troposphere. I was wrong, you learned what "the Homosphere" is. I'm proud of you. Now you need to go back to the references to realize you don't quite have it right when you say:
Atmospheric mixing in the Homosphere is the primary driver of this increase. Something like 90% of it.


There are two important characteristics of the homosphere you, apparently, don't recall.

The first is lapse rates for temperature and H2O are both important.

The second is that CO2 does not have a lapse rate in the troposphere and therefore the influence of H2O falls off at high altitudes while CO2 does not.

You don't seem to remember those. That is OK though since you can try again and just put those facts in with your memory of the homosphere and you will, incrementally, get closer to right. So far you aren't there.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2014
So you also deny that GHG's are lifting the ave temp of Earth to a balmy 15C, instead of the grey body temp of -18C?


@runrig, Atmospheric mixing in the Homosphere is the primary driver of this increase. Something like 90% of it.

So you have the Sun driving us from 2.7K to about 260K, if memory serves. Atmospheric mixing in the homosphere, like using a fan in your home to homogenize the air, bringing us up to close to ambient. Water brings us up A small fraction of that, and CO2, is a fraction of a fraction of that. Yet another intuitive way to point out that CO2 effects are made up and the points don't matter.

I'd get the facts, but I've posted them before, and as usual, I post nothing controversial, just well established properties.

alchey/water...
Suffice to say I/empirical science totally disagree with you.
Mixing in the "Homosphere" cannot create heat.
The grey body temp of Earth is 255K.
The extra 33K is provided by GHG's (including WV).
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
@mr166

Quick send some CO2 to Canada.

http://www.thebla...-canada/


Thanks for that little tidbit. That you think that is relevant only serves to demonstrate the depth of your gullibility and the simple-mindedness of your thought processes.

No further proof is required of the enormity of your ignorance. You have provided more than enough.

Thanks again!
MR166
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
If the coming winter is anything like the last we, in the US, will have tremendous natural gas shortages due to the forced closing of coal generating plants. When the blackouts begin it will be fun to watch the climate scientists and tree huggers blame all of the economic and social damage that these policies created on "Corporate Greed". After all, the progressive mantra is "It's not my fault.".
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Aug 22, 2014
You know @Water_Prophet, one of the predictions from climate scientists is that global warming will evaporate more ocean waters (from the higher average global temps). That will result in heavy rain storms, more frequent flash flooding and more clouds. ...with unbearably high temperatures could make any outdoor activity life threatening.

It will be interesting to see how we build structures in the future give the heat.

Well, heat an temperature are related. My model predicts some of the same effects. One overlap is because melting ice raises sea levels, and hydrostatic pressure increases flooding in an intuitive and dramatic way. A difference in heat vs temperature is where rain and flooding will occur. One is based on evaporation, mine is based on heat transfer, aka prevailing weather patterns. @howhot, you can predict the differences be tween the two premises, I am certain, think about it a bit.
Which approach yields better agreement with reality?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
Alche/WaterDud:
There ... characteristics of the homosphere you, apparently, don't recall.
The first is lapse rates for temperature and H2O are both important.
The second is that CO2 does... CO2 does not.

Well first of all, I was all about the lapse rate, I calculated it for you, don't you recall. Somehow that calculation never made it.
Second, CO2 was insignificant on Earth as it is in heaven. YOU widened is absorption characteristics ridiculously, let it absorb far too much, and then were so busy receiving congratulations from your team of brown nosers, that you did see you still failed by several orders of magnitude.
And in case you didn't notice, the Homospere does what it does. Warms the Earth by mixing, just like you use a fan to mix the air in your home.
The Earth is warmed rom -270C to -18C by the Sun.
from -18C to (getting hazy) 14C by the homosphere.
90% of what remains is evaporation/condensation.
Officially 70% of the balance is GH H2O, a tiny amount.
howhot2
5 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
My model predicts some of the same effects
You know @Water_Profit if your model follows understood physics, then you might be right. I would love to know what your model is and what it says. Just post your rough draft paper somewhere and say where to get it.

There is a very good chance though that it's already been covered in some paper somewhere. Physics people are like that, publish and leave no stone un-turned.

So yeah, if you want to experience global warming, just walk out into a global warming enhanced water storm. where it rains so hard you have to pull your car off the road, and the temperature is 90+F and everything is a sauna steam bath. All from water profit's theory.

Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2014
Water_Prophet claimed on Aug 17, 2014
I developed an intuitive model that has perfectly predicted macro-weather and climate change since 1986.
Yet on Aug 23, 2014 Water_Prophet stated
My model predicts some of the same effects.
Which must mean it is not perfect or your language is not english and/or your logical interpretation is flawed. This & your choice of language in many of your posts raise several questions, some are:-

a. What effects does it not predict ?
b. How do you reconcile this significant contradiction ?
c. Did you amend your model in any way since 1986 ?
d. If so what factors compelled you to amend it and if not amended then I'm guessing it doesn't include any calculus such as integration - does it include any calculus at all ?
e. Does your model include any mathematics such as addition, subtraction & multiplication ?

:-)
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
My model predicts some of the same effects
You know @Water_Profit if your model follows understood physics, then you might be right. I would love to know what your model is and what it says. Just post your rough draft paper somewhere and say where to get it.

There is a very good chance though that it's already been covered in some paper somewhere. Physics people are like that, publish and leave no stone un-turned.

So yeah, if you want to experience global warming, just walk out into a global warming enhanced water storm. where it rains so hard you have to pull your car off the road, and the temperature is 90+F and everything is a sauna steam bath. All from water profit's theory.


HowHot: As far as I can tell Alche/WaterDud's model is a brass bowl filled with water and a few ice cubes. He then puts a candle under it and predicts the weather of the earth. Seriously, that was what he had the last time I looked. He can't understand why I find it ridiculous
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2014
Skepticus_Rex on Aug 20, 2014 stated
.atmosphere is.sparent at between 8 and 12 microns. And, that source at your link is correct about that. It is. Which means that the rest of it gets through CO2,
The language implies that transparency between 8-12 means all gets through, then you say 'the rest of it gets through', which suggests nothing is attenuated, do you see your choice of language is not helpful ?

When I asked you about experiment details you claimed
Not possible here except cursorily,
Where then ?

There are plenty of sites that will post/publish for free, you can use ftp into your own web area, are you not with an ISP that offers some free webspace ?

How did you factor in the path length as asked by runrig ?

Did you do physics at university, approximately when and which specialisation please ?
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
Unprecedented Arctic eh!

http://trove.nla....33724270

It is amazing how climate science disregards/rewrites history when it suits their needs.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
@Mike,
You're cherry picking, and out of context. Heat and temperature are related, if your predict warming, there are going to effects similar to adding heat, without raising temperature.
@thermo-my model is not a weather model. An the first iteration, the brass bowl, shows the average temperature of Earth won't change significantly.
And now for some non-trivial discourse:
@howhot: Obviously I have been following the phenomenon, journals and studies for years, and honestly I have not seen it before. Have you?

The principle, to phrase it yet another way, and (for the ankle-biters out there) not to contradict myself:

Have you, howhot, ever seen the approach of adding waste heat to the Earth in a near equilibrium?

Heat has advantages over insulation. The Earth's climate is not changing as if it were being insulated.
It is responding as if excess energy is being added.

Very simple, please let me know.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
Unprecedented Arctic eh!

http://trove.nla....33724270

It is amazing how climate science disregards/rewrites history when it suits their needs.


Mr:
Could you please link to the gentleman's peer-reviewed paper and it's observations, measurements and conclusions, otherwise this is just hearsay and opinion and not science.
Thankyou
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2014
"peer-reviewed paper" is another big laugh. One hand washes the other in the climate science community. Dissenters are severely punished and their careers are threatened. At least toilet paper serves an honest purpose.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (5) Aug 23, 2014
"peer-reviewed paper" is another big laugh. One hand washes the other in the climate science community. Dissenters are severely punished and their careers are threatened. At least toilet paper serves an honest purpose.
@mr166
so you claim a GLOBAL CONSPIRACY as a refute...
with NO EVIDENCE
how nice
is there at least EVIDENCE of this global conspiracy?

given that most countries cannot even get along on the BASIC points like human rights... what makes you think that they will all agree on something so complex as Global warming or climate science?

IOW - your reply is really because of a FALLACY due to stupidity and conspiracy beliefs

you mock peer review because you KNOW there is no evidence supporting your conjecture, and the only way to distract from that is to blame the system
Sorry mr, that is how it is.
reality sucks
either live with it or continue to rail against it and be thought a conspiracy nut and pseudoscience troll
Whydening Gyre
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2014
Okay, water dude. What does your intuitive , predictive model predict for Chicago for the next week? Be specific as I will be comparing it to the actualities of it.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2014
"peer-reviewed paper" is another big laugh. One hand washes the other in the climate science community. Dissenters are severely punished and their careers are threatened. At least toilet paper serves an honest purpose.


Mr:
No one is saying it's perfect .... but, do you have a better way?
Peer-review by people dragged in off the street perhaps.

Why do you not see that it is all we have otherwise it's as you link to...
Anecdotes and opinion/assertion.
thermodynamics
4.8 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2014
Okay, water dude. What does your intuitive , predictive model predict for Chicago for the next week? Be specific as I will be comparing it to the actualities of it.


Whyd: You have come quite a distance in the past few months. You may be an artist, but you are paying attention and learning some science. I want to tell you that you are exactly the reason that people like Run, TCStumpy, and I hang out around here. If we can help you understand what the likes of WaterDupe and others are saying I feel great about spending the time. The importance to my grandchildren is the reason I spend the time here and seeing you learn a lot helps make me continue. I greatly appreciate your effort at sifting the data that flies through here and making my time worth while. Thank you for your effort.
Whydening Gyre
4.7 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
Wow, Thermo. Didn't see that one coming...:-)
Thank you!

Chuck Geier
(per the johanprins rave-out in another thread)
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2014
Peer-review by people dragged in off the street perhaps.

Reviewed by statistics experts.
Reviewed by known skeptics.
Reviewed by those who don't depend upon the authors for grants.
No one is saying it's perfect

Some here are saying just that as that is all they will accept, pal reviewed papers.
strangedays
4.9 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2014
MR166
It is amazing how climate science disregards/rewrites history when it suits their needs


I am not sure what you are suggesting MR166. Are you suggesting that the Arctic was melting faster in the first half of the 20th century than the second half? What information exactly do you think that scientists are ignoring? Surely you understand that our resources for understanding quantities such as the rate of Arctic ice loss during the early 20th Century are very crude. There were no satellites. Expeditions to the arctic were very rare, and they did not have tools for precisely measuring complex things such as annual ice extent, and volume.

I did a little bit of googling on the subject - and it seems we are fairly sure that arctic ice has been declining for more than 100 years, but data is very sparse. What exactly does your newspaper clip prove?
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
Some here are saying just that as that is all they will accept, pal reviewed papers.


That is correct - it is called science. The alternative - is that you go to the internet - and believe what every you want.

Here is a neat site for you. They have hundreds of free energy devices. You can make yourself a millionaire - producing energy for free - what's not to like. Knock yourself out - who needs peer review right. Just go to the internet - make shit up - get yourself a magnetic motor that uses no energy - step right up - come see the bearded lady - every one is a winner!!!!

http://pesn.com/
strangedays
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
MR166 - ryggy et al. I found a great site for your edification. The videos are really awesome. Here is a quote from the site

"I'm launching a ~weekly broadcast along spiritual lines to help the awakening that seems to be pre-requisite to the emergence of exotic free energy technologies"

enjoy.

http://pesn.com/2...Remnant/
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
It is time to realize that CO2 levels are at best a minor component of any temperature change. New low temperature records are being set at the South Pole.

"Willie Soon, Professor of astrophysics and geosciences at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, says, "The South Pole is in sharp contradiction against the CO2 global warming scenarios which were supposed to melt most of the ice masses of the world." So much so, Soon says, that "it is still being denied by some professional scientists". Soon says that the freezing of the South Pole is "one fact that shows how much more we need to understand about how the Earth climate system can vary naturally and how different regions are inter-related to each other rather than insisting that all changes and variations must be caused by rising atmospheric CO2 alone.""
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
Here is a neat site for you. They have hundreds of free energy devices.

In a free market, what's real and effective will emerge.
No gate keepers or central planners required.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 24, 2014
Whyd: You have come quite a distance in the past few months... I greatly appreciate your effort at sifting the data that flies through here and making my time worth while. Thank you for your effort.

Was no effort...:-) You guys do all the work, I just read it and try to fit into the context of my own worldview (which does include a few "out there" thoughts on stuff, BTW..:-).
Thanks for providing the data to sift through!
Just a thought... You guys might not want to be so tuff on Zeph. His thought process seems to be a step or two (sometimes 3) ahead of (and sometimes off) the "curve", but he does provide some interesting comparison points of reference...:-)
And ya GOTTA give him some points for his zeal and persistence - right or wrong...:-)
But then, I also realize that just might be the dynamic that has developed after years of conversing with him...
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
@Water_profit wrote:
@howhot: Obviously I have been following the phenomenon, journals and studies for years, and honestly I have not seen it before. Have you?

The principle, to phrase it yet another way, and (for the ankle-biters out there) not to contradict myself:

Have you, howhot, ever seen the approach of adding waste heat to the Earth in a near equilibrium?

Heat has advantages over insulation. The Earth's climate is not changing as if it were being insulated.
Interesting point of view. So you can look at the atmosphere as an insulator that is trapping waste heat. Is that it in summary? I think your ignoring the solar input into the system. Here is a diagram explaining what I mean;
http://en.wikiped...fect.svg
That is just the physics principle of atmospheric greenhouse gas trapping heat. Depending on the GHG mixture and concentration, CO2+methane+NO2+Water+... the numbers very,
Add in fossil fuels exhausts
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
MR166 seems to have unfortunately not been able to study specific relationship between heat & temperature
It is time to realize that CO2 levels are at best a minor component of any temperature change. New low temperature records are being set at the South Pole.
No. A most false understanding. Here's a simple thought experiment.

Which would u rather hold in your hand for 15 minutes:-

a. Sewing pin of 500 deg C ?
b. 1Kg iron block of 150 deg C ?

You are allowed only to blow on the item but, not drop it.

Temperatures can only indicate approximate level of heat in an open system WHEN you KNOW the "specific heat" of the item(s), their relationship ie Contact/distance, temperatures of each etc

A temperature measurement (by itself) tells very little. It must be understood in context with specific heat & whole gamut of physics.

Unfortunately this simple level of complexity is beyond most, they are simpletons & comfortable with simple (static) narrow ideas = vast bulk of deniers !
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
@Water_profit; Then end result is something like this;
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aKuSjzaGkv0/UsoTyejEfUI/AAAAAAAAMbk/bekEfC3jWpk/s1600/FIGUR10A.JPG
So in the end Oceans are taking up most of the energy from global warming. What is new is from this grand experiment mankind has called global warming is that we've just now discovered how much the Atlantic ocean is absorbing heat. It appears to be very significant and reduced the pace at which temperatures where rising in the atmosphere and land. From the same blog here is a distribution of where the heat goes;
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LlNzHqk0mRg/UsoT-6E2udI/AAAAAAAAMbs/LKlno4ohKYQ/s1600/FIGUR10B.JPG
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Aug 24, 2014
"Temperatures can only indicate approximate level of heat in an open system WHEN you KNOW the "specific heat" of the item(s), their relationship ie Contact/distance, temperatures of each etc

A temperature measurement (by itself) tells very little. It must be understood in context with specific heat & whole gamut of physics."

Yup Mike just keep you head in the sand or in the ice as in this case. I get it, temperature records just don't matter unless they are new highs. BTW the specific heat of ice is second only to water just in case you don't know. I heard that there might be a considerable amount of ice at the South Pole but that is only a rumor. Perhaps there is a peer reviewed paper" about that.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
Fun question, Mike.
Which would u rather hold in your hand for 15 minutes:-

a. Sewing pin of 500 deg C ?
b. 1Kg iron block of 150 deg C ?

You are allowed only to blow on the item but, not drop it.

Anything over 180 (F) is gonna burn ya any way, so...
Pin surface contact area quite small (less burned skin)
pin density vs pin surface area allows for faster dissipation of heat (by the blowing on it)...
which then means the time exposed to skin-burning heat is much shorter...

You know -
I'll take the pin at 500, Alex...
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2014
Peer-review by people dragged in off the street perhaps.

Reviewed by statistics experts.
Reviewed by known skeptics.
Reviewed by those who don't depend upon the authors for grants.
No one is saying it's perfect

Some here are saying just that as that is all they will accept, pal reviewed papers.

ryggy baby .... it's the same system used for decades and for all other sciences.
No objections to anything other than the bits that go against you and your peer group's ideological objection to the circumstances/implications of climate science's findings.
Name me some science that has barked entirely up the wrong tree this ~30 years (and NOT evolved).

Known skeptics BTW are decidedly disavowed of a chance to peer-review. You would remove an allegation of bias with a stated one. Science needs a neutral and objective stance and NOT a biased one. If you mean genuine skeptics, OK, but there's not that many of them, and they'd be overloaded with work.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2014
It is time to realize that CO2 levels are at best a minor component of any temperature change. New low temperature records are being set at the South Pole.

And they will be set for a few decades to come my friend.
I'm not relisting the things that make Antarctica incredibly unique on this planet for extremes of cold.
Please provide evidence for your hand-waving "at best a minor component of any temperature change" - so that I may show others the error of your ways.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
Here is a neat site for you. They have hundreds of free energy devices.

In a free market, what's real and effective will emerge.
No gate keepers or central planners required.


Which is why that would be a recipe for anarchy.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
Please provide evidence for your hand-waving "at best a minor component of any temperature change" - so that I may show others the error of your ways.

@runrig, please show us the error of our ways.
CO2 is at a growing peak, the Sun is at a local max, explain to us why we're not boiling.

(You are not allowed to cite hydro-enthalpic effects, that's MY territory.)
howhot2
5 / 5 (8) Aug 24, 2014
Fun question, Mike.
Which would u rather hold in your hand for 15 minutes:-

a. Sewing pin of 500 deg C ?
b. 1Kg iron block of 150 deg C ?

You are allowed only to blow on the item but, not drop it.

Anything over 180 (F) is gonna burn ya any way, so...
Pin surface contact area quite small (less burned skin)
pin density vs pin surface area allows for faster dissipation of heat (by the blowing on it)...
which then means the time exposed to skin-burning heat is much shorter...

You know -
I'll take the pin at 500, Alex...
I'm with you on that one @Whydening Gyre.
I'll take pin for 800, Alex. It will hurt like heck for a small area, but it won't do the damage that 150C 1Kg block will do.

It's very similar to the question asked in the article; the global temperature conundrum from a cooling climate. Regardless of the press, it was always assumed to oceans would take the burden of the temperature increase. What was unexpected was the way the Atlantic ocean did it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 24, 2014
"The question is, 'Who is right?'" says Liu. "Or, maybe none of us is completely right. It could be partly a data problem, since some of the data in last year's study contradicts itself. It could partly be a model problem because of some missing physical mechanisms."

That statement from the article pretty well sums it up, I think...

And, Howhot - We can only hope that was the answer the judges were looking for...:-)
And - he didn't say we couldn't bobble it around tween hands like a hot potato...
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Aug 24, 2014
MR166 intentionally wants to show us he CANNOT read or UNDERSTAND simple ideas with this simplistic blurt
Yup Mike just keep you head in the sand or in the ice as in this case. I get it, temperature records just don't matter unless they are new highs
No. Read what I said, didn't you understand 'by itself' ?
Why did you purposely ignore "must be understood in context with specific heat" ?
Sorry you didn't get an education re calculus Eg Integration, then you would'nt make the type of dumb statements you have (sigh)

MR166 just might start to appreciate but, we will see with
BTW the specific heat of ice is second only to water just in case you don't know
If you had read my posts you would know I have raised issue of specific heat of water long ago

Why don't you see how significant melting ice is, specific heat is ~150 times ice & ~75 times water ?

Glacial ice mass is reducing.

Same heat that melts ice, if directed to water raises its temp by 75 deg C !

Get it !

????
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2014
"Why don't you see how significant melting ice is, specific heat is ~150 times ice & ~75 times water ?"

Mike why don't you at least use the proper terms when describing the phase changes of water.

Useful information:
heat of fusion of water = 334 J/g
heat of vaporization of water = 2257 J/g
specific heat of ice = 2.09 J/g·°C
specific heat of water = 4.18 J/g·°C
specific heat of steam = 2.09 J/g·°C

Please be so kind as to explain to me what the above information has to do with the validity and importance of new temperature lows when no phase change is taking place.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2014
MR166 complains but hasn't read my earlier posts
Mike why don't you at least use the proper terms when describing the phase changes of water.
Have previously used "the proper terms" but, it must have been over your head, so offered it dumbed down layman style for you.. (snipped) R u a 'layman' ?

MR166 claimed
..when no phase change is taking place.
Ah so you aren't aware & didnt notice any reports of the massive amount of melt (phase change) off Greenland & other glaciers as they recede ?

You aren't also aware ocean/air currents have perturbation exposing more ice & melt water to air at different locations then earlier possible evaporative equilibriums ?

Simple experiment, add variances, Water_Prophet take note !

Large bowl of water at say 20 deg C
Place & fix piece of ice at one side part in & out of water
Blow air in tube but, measure outlet when deflected & when directed over:-
-Water at one end vs
-Ice at other vs
-Interface where ice melts to water
-Variances

Report
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2014
Mike, am I correct, your position is that melting ice in Greenland is causing new lows to be recorded at the South Pole???
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2014
MR166 might be ill with this rambling
Mike, am I correct, your position is that melting ice in Greenland is causing new lows to be recorded at the South Pole???
FFS. No. Where in the heck did I ever come even a bit close to anything like that ?

Why do you insist on making stuff up so you originate a really bad 'stuff-up' wasting time ?

Is this a tactic to diverge any important discussion to avoid issues ?

Are you misled by what experiment might show - it is the temperature of the deflected air - did you not understand that ?

If air is Eg 32 (all in deg C) or close from say breath then, temperature of AIR deflected off:-

1.Water @ 20 will be between 20 & 32 & water warms
2.Ice will be between ice temp & 32 & ice warms
3.Melting ice will be between 0 & 32 & more faster melting

All variance depends on humidity of breath of course.

Note: Air loses heat in all cases Eg the 'pause'

Thermodynamics doesnt lie, what's hard for simplistic thinkers is vast interaction complexity.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2014
Ran out of space to qualify this in my last post
3.Melting ice will be between 0 & 32 & more faster melting
The precise delineation between ice that is about to melt and water that is on the cusp of leaving the melted ice is tricky. It is still true to report that ice at zero deg C does not become warmer it just turns into water at zero deg C - that is difficult to see even in a small scale illustration as in the experiment described. It is helpful to have a very narrow field thermal sensor of the IR type as a contact type probe has its own issue re thermal mass and interfering with the process to a degree - pun *grin*

Skepticus_Rex, Water_Prophet & MR166, waiting for your reports. Hey skepticus, put it in a chamber of CO2 and you may well notice something to add the results you won't show us about your own claimed CO2 experiment ;-)
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2014
Garbage in equals garbage out. How can climate science be relevant when the data that is uses is biased?

http://dailycalle...re-data/
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2014
Garbage in equals garbage out. How can climate science be relevant when the data that it uses is biased?

I half to do better poof reading!!!!!!!!!!!!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2014
Garbage in equals garbage out. How can climate science be relevant when the data that it uses is biased?

I half to do better poof reading!!!!!!!!!!!!

Including your own comments...
Have, not half..
And poof is magic, not proof...
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2014
Garbage in equals garbage out. How can climate science be relevant when the data that is uses is biased?

http://dailycalle...re-data/


http://www.desmog...e-denier
http://en.wikiped...y_Caller

Irrelevant bollocks from a rabid right-wing denialist mouthpiece my friend.

Do you have anything relevant?
Does the denialist creed, indeed, have anything relevant?
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2014
"Irrelevant bollocks from a rabid right-wing denialist mouthpiece my friend.

Do you have anything relevant?
Does the denialist creed, indeed, have anything relevant?"

Yup Run that is defiantly the problem, anyone who doubts the left wing warming mantra is unreasonable and irreverent.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2014
anyone who doubts the left wing warming mantra is unreasonable and irreverent.
@mr166
anyone who doubts the SCIENCE is unreasonable and irreverent

AND likely stupid

there is a big difference between not KNOWING the science, and IGNORING the SCIENCE because it conflicts with your worldview, faith, dogma or peer group (etc)

MR166
1 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2014
You see Capt. you are part of the problem! There can be no "Science" without unbiased data.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2014
You see Capt. you are part of the problem! There can be no "Science" without unbiased data.
@mr166
actually, YOU are the problem
ALL of science is unbiased data proving certain specific points.

you ASSUME there is bias and flaws because YOU have bias and flaws, and you cannot comprehend how to generate an experiment without said bias in it.

Try going here for some education on how the scientific method works:
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

when you learn a little about it, you will understand a little more where we are coming from

until then, there is a strong correlation between further commenting and sitting in a tree with a bag over your head refusing to see reality and flinging poo, much like a monkey at a zoo
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2014
"ALL of science is unbiased data proving certain specific points."

WOW!!!!! How could I have been that stupid not to realize that.

I suppose that the data proving that cigarettes did not help produce lung cancer was also "unbiased data proving certain specific points.".
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2014
@Water_profit; Then end result is something like this;
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-aKuSjzaGkv0/UsoTyejEfUI/AAAAAAAAMbk/bekEfC3jWpk/s1600/FIGUR10A.JPG
So in the end Oceans are taking up most of the energy from global warming. What is new is from this grand experiment mankind has called global warming is that we've just now discovered how much the Atlantic ocean is absorbing heat. It appears to be very significant and reduced the pace at which temperatures where rising in the atmosphere and land. From the same blog here is a distribution of where the heat goes;
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-LlNzHqk0mRg/UsoT-6E2udI/AAAAAAAAMbs/LKlno4ohKYQ/s1600/FIGUR10B.JPG

What's funny, is you telling me this; ice first, but then water taking up heat has been my mantra for 30 years, AND certainly since I got on the site.

No CO2 required.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Aug 27, 2014
@howhot
No, I don't ignore the insulating effects of the atmosphere. But we must concentrate on germane variables...
The Homosphere brings the Earth from -40C I keep forgetting what.
Evaporation/condensation raises it somewhat more.
GHG's raise temperature insignificantly on top of this.

HAS anyone taken this simple approach? I think not, answers too many qs to quickly. No drama, no money, points the finger square at the guilty.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2014
WaterProphet claim
..GHG's raise temperature insignificantly on top of this.
Really ?
Please articulate your definition of the term 'insignificantly'; 0.5degC ?

You seem to have structural problem with Science, you claim to be a 'P' chemist - what does the Pee stand for, Phosphorous, Pathetic, it cant be 'Practical' as not only is that far too wide a field but, you have shown zero aspect of practicalities, ie NO quantification ?

& each time you make claims there is no quantification, just models which can't make seasonal predictions (ie ~when), there is no maths & your 'analogy' has NO logic, you therefore appear to have NO understanding of the scientific process at all !

Frankly I think you have lied about having a degree in Chemistry, what is the Pee please ?

Water_Prophet definitely betrayed his thinking level with
HAS anyone taken this simple approach?
What in hell makes you think this whole issue is simple ?

Please answer with Scientific terms & quantification ?
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2014
Climate Science's real agenda is social not scientific.

http://dailycalle...f-color/
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2014
Climate Science's real agenda is social not scientific.

http://dailycalle...f-color/

" Bowers told The Huffington Post he hopes to convey "the humanity and vulnerability of the scientists" through his work. "That they are as individuals concerned by climate change, separate from the scientific realm." The artist also had his daughter in mind while creating the series, hoping to use his artwork to create hope for a brighter future. "I constantly hear the word 'wealth' and the importance of passing this on. I'm inspired to pass on a better, more sustainable future," he explained.

Wow! Just wow!

Linger over these photographs. Feel the tears run down your face. And try not to die laughing."
http://www.breitb...e-change
MR166
1 / 5 (8) Aug 28, 2014
http://notalotofp...cooling/

Mike despite the fact that a 1 kg block of 150C iron contains more heat than a 500C straight pin, it seems that Antarctica really is cooling.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2014
.......Mike despite the fact that a 1 kg block of 150C iron contains more heat than a 500C straight pin, it seems that Antarctica really is cooling.

From the full paper...
" We argue here that interhemispheric asymmetries in the mean ocean circulation, with sinking in the northern North Atlantic and upwelling around Antarctica, strongly influence the sea-surface temperature (SST) response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) forcing, accelerating warming in the Arctic while delaying it in the Antarctic. Furthermore, while the amplitude of GHG forcing has been similar at the poles, significant ozone depletion only occurs over Antarctica. We suggest that the initial response of SST around Antarctica to ozone depletion is one of cooling and only later adds to the GHG-induced warming trend as upwelling of sub-surface warm water associated with stronger surface westerlies impacts surface properties"
In other words the O3 hole is having a sig cooling effect in this isolated place.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2014
Linger over these photographs. Feel the tears run down your face. And try not to die laughing."
http://www.breitb...e-change


ryggy baby - you link to a right wing mouthpiece.
I don't have to look at it to know it's likely contents.
In case you haven't heard this is a science site.
(wish I'd had a Pound for every time I've said that to you).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2014
this is a science site.

So you say.
Why are 'scientists' doing this? Not very scientific.

"Photographer Captures Scientists' Frightened Responses To Climate Change Discussions"
http://www.huffin...p_ref=tw

"VOTE for change.
Nearly every scientist interviewed for this project said voting for greener policies and supporting green initiatives
is even more important than recycling. If we're to drastically decrease emissions and create a sustainable and safe future,
change must come from the top and it must come now. It's our job to put pressure on governments and on big business.
Always, consider businesses and parties with greener solutions."

http://www.scared...sts.com/
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2014
"In other words the O3 hole is having a sig cooling effect in this isolated place."

So Rig are you trying to tell me that banning Freon12 has contributed to global warming? After all that was the cause of the ozone hole which in now cooling part of the earth.
runrig
5 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2014
this is a science site.

So you say.
Why are 'scientists' doing this? Not very scientific.

"Photographer Captures Scientists' Frightened Responses To Climate Change Discussions"
http://www.huffin...p_ref=tw


I said, this is a science site so your persistent quote mining from right-wing media carries no truck sunshine.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Aug 28, 2014
"In other words the O3 hole is having a sig cooling effect in this isolated place."

So Rig are you trying to tell me that banning Freon12 has contributed to global warming? After all that was the cause of the ozone hole which in now cooling part of the earth.


If you mean me - no, banning CFC's will, hopefully, eventually plug the O3 hole.
It is CFC's that are destroying O3 and not creating it.
O3 is a GHG and a hole in it means that there is LESS greenhouse effect.
Which will be particularly/peculiarly effective in Antarctica due to it height and proximity to the hole (pressure altitude) of the stuff is lower due the extreme cold(density) of the air-mass.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2014
quote mining from right-wing media

Posting links about frightened climate 'scientists' from a left wing site is ok? 'Scientists' who are explicitly acting un-scientific?
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Aug 28, 2014
The @R2 says
Posting links about frightened climate 'scientists' from a left wing site is ok? 'Scientists' who are explicitly acting un-scientific?
Really who is the fool here?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2014
MR166 being obtuse & irrational yet again with
Mike despite the fact that a 1 kg block of 150C iron contains more heat than a 500C straight pin, it seems that Antarctica really is cooling.
You are feebly attempting to link heat in some obtuse way. They are unrelated.
I'm sorry you never wanted to or had the chance to gain a high school education or uni in respect of heat, specific heat, statistical mechanics or the most important tools of calculus, probability & statistics or debate.

Since you have momentum looking for issues re Antarctica, please do another 5% at least & find a thermograph of the continent & how it changes year to year.

Article you linked to, tah, indicates 'mainly', so there are areas warmer. You should know from posts here immense difficulty obtaining disparate data over a wide area. The article also states arctic warming much more.

Please get exercise with Integration ie Summing significant arctic warming with negligible antarctic cooling & which regions...
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2014
ryggesogn2 being stupid yet again with
..Why are 'scientists' doing this? Not very scientific.

"Photographer Captures Scientists' Frightened Responses To Climate Change Discussions"
http://www.huffin...p_ref=tw
Are you ryggesogn2 implying or even perhaps ordering that all scientists are not allowed to:-

1. Experience emotion & art
2. Express emotion & art
3. Communicate emotion & art

Do you ryggesogn2, claim all scientists must be robotic 24/7 in narrow science disciplines & especially so during any personal explorations.

Where is the physics degree ryggesogn2, you claimed you received ?

Where is the actual science re this article re the 'conundrum'

Why are you wasting time again ryggesogn2 & trying yet again to marginalise some scientists who are concerned with the planet & human's future ?

Why are you wasting what limited time you have left ryggesogn2 ?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2014
MR166 does seem to know how to do basic information gathering & research with
"In other words the O3 hole is having a sig cooling effect in this isolated place."

So Rig are you trying to tell me that banning Freon12 has contributed to global warming? After all that was the cause of the ozone hole which in now cooling part of the earth.
Please avail yourself of the resources the internet offers:-

Both CFC's & Ozone are GHGs
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Greenhouse_gases

Please articulate the definition of the term 'sig' ie For 'significant' in your above sentence ?

What context/scale please ?

If you ever find that perhaps you might want to include that in the Integration exercise suggested which you & others really need to do to make some incremental sense of the issue !
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 29, 2014
quote mining from right-wing media

Posting links about frightened climate 'scientists' from a left wing site is ok? 'Scientists' who are explicitly acting un-scientific?


No - there are some frightening consequences of AGW (way) down the line and science has rightly talked of them - which journalists (rightly) pick up on.
Media with a right-wing agenda pounce on said scenarios (way in the future) and scream *doom/gloom*, "frightening my kids" etc.
Look, if there are serious issues to befall man later this century because of *our* (read a certain "my tax dollars", selfish types spamming this site) myopic continued denial of CO2 pollution as a serious problem - then it needs saying.
What do you propose then? Ignore the really *bad* bits. and let our kids think that all that'll happen is they'll miss making a snowman in the garden in winter.
FFS
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2014
http://hockeyscht...-to.html

For a "Settled" science there seems to be an awful lot of revised data coming out.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2014
if there are serious issues

IF?
How is this 'science'?
AGWites don't whine about non-science as long as the non-science is hyping the latest doomsday scenario promulgated by the big IF.
Science or hype. Can't have both and be taken seriously (unless one is an AGWite).
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2014
MR166 again ignores his own acceptances & adds a blog
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/08/new-paper-shows-ice-mass-stable-to.html
For a "Settled" science there seems to be an awful lot of revised data coming out.
Why would blog spot claims mean anything without some form of Integration ?

Why r u proving you cannot or will not read ?

'Stable' does not automatically mean increasing.

Are you ill or pretending to be dumb, you are succeeding at that - at least ?

Is that an outcome you want, where is your talent, your creative zeal, your inspiration, your contribution to a wholesome future - why are you trying to look like a dick ?

Why r your posts so much like ryggesogn2 ?

The correlations are staggering :-)

Do you have a disability, why did you not read & understand posts eg of ~11hrs previous & others ?

@ryggesogn2/MR166 obviously (shakes head)

As that is the only thing that has given the human race an advance ?

Please stop wasting time & space, do something useful !
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2014
I agree that there's been plenty of hype thrown around by those who accept AGW, far too much and to serious detriment. I'm not blaming the scientists (in all cases), but rather the "PR branch" and they're incessant crying wolf and then no wolf turns up. Be clear, this does NOT mean that there is no wolf, it's just that incompetents (a very fair characterization), and policy pushers have had the microphone on this issue far too long and been abusing the hell out of it.

I personally know people who used to be, what can only fairly called fanatical about the issue of global warming. And while most of them still think it's a serious issue the wind has seriously been taken out of their sails over the past few years (which is nice because we can change the subject every now and then).

I'm sure it's been said before, but I wish scientists, with their more careful parsing of language would take the lead in this and restore some damaged credibility.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Aug 29, 2014
I'm not blaming the scientists

I would.
It is their own credibility they refuse to defend.
But then how many lawyers are disbarred by the ABA or how many MD are sanctioned by the AMA?

howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2014
@R2 you are just making up excuses to *try* to defend your own credibility. Haha, the problem is your foundation is weak. It's WEAK on facts, reason, and truthfulness. You could add in concern for your fellow man, or any other idea that has compassion for his fellow human being.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Aug 29, 2014
defend your own credibility.

Why does Mann have us a court of law to defend his credibility? Not very scientific.
Many real scientists, who no longer need grants and 'peer' review are speaking up and speaking out about the AGW scam.
A few coverages scientists in the field are speaking up an out challenging AGW hype. Why only so few?
How credible do you find scientists who have sad photos taken of them to appeal to emotion, not logic?
concern for your fellow man,

I respect my fellow man. I respect his property, his rights to life, liberty, opportunity. I respect his right to keep his wealth and I won't support hiring a gang to plunder that wealth from him. All I ask is reciprocity.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2014
ryggesogn2 with this dumb comment clearly hasn't thought through
I would.
It is their own credibility they refuse to defend.
that the vast bulk of Scientists stand on foundations of those that have gone before AND base their activities on well known principles AND properties of materials.

I know its hard ryggesogn2, regarding climatology but, try to read & understand this:-

1. Properties of GHG's well know, proven & irrefutable
2. Specific heats of GHGs & water (as in 1)
3. Principles of thermodynamics well know & proven - did u do statistical mechanics ?
4. Others, Eg energy & mass balances, 1st year uni stuff, consensus amoungst world's
universities all heat properties must be taught & tested on etc

Do you ryggesogn2, really expect any AGW deniers would accept scientists waving their degrees to prove they are qualified ?

Are any of your meanderings based on the claim of a degree (which u have never proven) or basic physics ?

Do you expect scientists to do PR ?

Wakeup !
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2014
ryggesogn2 contradictory/inconsistent AGAIN
I respect my fellow man. I respect his property, his rights to life, liberty, opportunity.
Yet you DONT respect scientists as human first & that has the right (liberty) to express concern. You claim unscientific, so what, are humans first - do you claim they're inhuman ?

ryggesogn2 hit nail for once
I respect his right to keep his wealth and I won't support hiring a gang to plunder that wealth from him. All I ask is reciprocity.
If even that claim of yours is a LITTLE bit true then you must have realised long ago you are wasting your time here.

Politics is OBVIOUSLY where you should be putting efforts re reciprocity !

You don't seem to know that scientists, in scale of all bulk political systems are messengers.

Many idiots in business & politics have misinterpreted those messages & by way of listening to uneducated media & their unscientific admin.

Education is important ryggesogn2.

Go away now mate, go to politics PLEASE !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2014
wasting your time here.

Socialists who need to control the lives of others are difficult to reach. But when they respond with insults, I know I am making progress.
Especially socialist scientists who think they what is best for the rest of us.
base their activities on well known principles AND properties of materials.

Not AGWites.
Their activities concentrate on THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL to predict how the climate interacts. THE MODEL has not been doing too to well lately at predictions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2014
"The fact that scientific research identifies a problem does not specify what policies should be adopted to address it. Mitigating global warming by reducing carbon dioxide emissions is certainly one possible policy, but so, too, is favoring increased economic growth and technological progress as a way to enable people to adapt to future climate challenges. What about buidling nuclear power plants as a way to cut carbon dioxide emissions? Which is better? Science does not say. It is not at all surprising that Individualists are highly suspicious when carbon rationing proposals just happen to fit the cultural values and policy preferences of Egalitarian/Communitarians. "
"modern science only became possible once liberal institutions like private property, the rule of law, and free markets came into existence."
http://reason.com...ral-enem
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2014
Ivanpa is yet another taxpayer funded huge green lie.

http://hockeyscht...ant.html
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2014
"Yet you DONT respect scientists as human first & that has the right (liberty) to express concern. You claim unscientific, so what, are humans first - do you claim they're inhuman ?"

When they use their education and position to present personal and political opinions as scientific fact they deserve all of the criticism they get. Tampered data and half truths have no place in science or public policy.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2014
When they use their education and position to present personal and political opinions as scientific fact


AND when they want to use the power of the state to plunder my wealth and the wealth of others, I have zero respect.
What's even worse, too many 'scientists' support and promote socialism, a system which creates misery and has been demonstrated to be anti-science by Popper.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Aug 30, 2014
Here is the real purpose of "Climate Science".

http://csas.ei.co...s-march/
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2014

Not AGWites.
Their activities concentrate on THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL to predict how the climate interacts. THE MODEL has not been doing too to well lately at predictions.

ryggy baby:
The models have been doing fine thanks.
As climate science knows. They do what the can do very well. Climate cycles that take a clairvoyant to forecast are not one of them. You have seen articles on here stating this very thing. They deal with the basic too much in vs not enough out equation, integrated over time. The denier clan does not want to understand this because AGW, it's causes, issues and cures do not sit with your ideology. There are plenty of things out there that people do not agree with, but only the deluded seek to make the facts fit them, make the world fit their warped opinions. Empirical science is not up for argument my friend. Sorry and all that.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 30, 2014
The models have been doing fine thanks.

"Causes and implications of the
growing divergence between climate
model simulations and observations"
http://curryja.fi...urry.pdf
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2014
ryggesogn2 deserves thanks
"Causes and implications of the
growing divergence between climate
model simulations and observations"
http://curryja.fi...urry.pdf
Thanks ryggesogn2, you again proved you are a complete dill & are not in the habit of reading ALL of what you post.

Bear in mind (told you this before, why don't you GET it!).

1. Models are probabilistic & asymptotic
2. They havent been around long in conjunction with breadth of data
3. They show remarkable converge in many respects

It is clear ryggesogn2, you are not suited to Science as you have never understand (at least) item 1 above.

Go away, Science is not your forte' please do that which you claim - follow the politics & stop wasting time, oh and take your sock puppet MR166 with you, he is just the same - exhausts a physics line of inquiry then posts a mined quote along with a claim and data that has nothing to do with the topic, how pathetic.

ryggesogn2 should be banned.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2014
They havent been around long in conjunction with breadth of data

1) THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL has never been validated and there is no motivation to do so.
2) AGWites use THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL to justify their control of the world economy to 'save the planet'.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Aug 31, 2014
ryggesogn2 being the village idiot again with
1) THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL has never been validated and there is no motivation to do so.
You would ONLY say this if you had never studied physics - where is the physics degree you claim you received, which university ?

The foundations are physics & mathematics, since you are STILL wasting everyones time & NOT following your aim to delve into politics then:-

What validation & with what error bars SHOULD any climate model be differentially, analysed & compared with & how should such model be (incrementally) adjusted ?

Spit it out man, show your integrity !

ryggesogn2 went on with another political rant
2) AGWites use THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL to justify their control of the world economy to 'save the planet'.
This is a Science site ryggesogn2 - where is your Science ?

Can someone please ban ryggesogn2 he has already stated he is into politics not Science.
MR166
1 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2014
"You would ONLY say this if you had never studied physics - where is the physics degree you claim you received, which university?"

Mike if you think that some CO2 in a bottle is a fair representation of Earths climate then it is you who has no idea of Physics and science in general.

In Physics or any real science, when a model fails, the honest answer is not to "Wait to 2100 and you will see that I am right". People who disprove theories in Physics are given high praise. People who disprove popular climate models and theories are exiled.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2014
THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL is software code subject to the limits of ALL computer models and the the challenges of using the correct algorithms and knowing all the variables.
The Club of Rome created Models of Doom which were wrong.
THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL has not been validated and the authors have no intention to validate THE MODEL.

"The primary value of models is heuristic."
http://www.likbez...skes.pdf
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Aug 31, 2014
MR166 with sock puppet idiocy
Mike if you think that some CO2 in a bottle is a fair representation of Earths climate then it is you who has no idea of Physics and science in general.
You are a f..king d..k, I have NEVER said that !

Liar MR166 !

Look at my posts, try to learn.

Look at rygg's post - there is convergence
In Physics or any real science, when a model fails,
Get to know Science you waste of time, what is the error bar on the top 5 best models and how long have they been operating with what error bar behaviour ?

MR166 with more idiocy
the honest answer is not to "Wait to 2100 and you will see that I am right".
I have never said that, read my posts.

MR166 again off tangent with
People who disprove theories in Physics are given high praise. People who disprove popular climate models and theories are exiled.
Where are any of the physics foundations of any climate model 'disproved' ?

Do you not understand STILL models are probabilistic & asymptotic !
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2014
"We find evidence that scientists' perceptions of the policy process do play a role in shaping their scientific practices. In particular, many of our respondents expressed a preference for keeping discussion of the issue of flux adjustments within the climate modeling community, apparently fearing that climate contrarians would exploit the issue in the public domain. While this may be true, we point to the risk that such an approach may backfire. We also identify assumptions and cultural commitments lying at a deeper level which play at least as important a role as perceptions of the policy process in shaping scientific practices. This leads us to identify two groups of scientists, 'pragmatists' and 'purists', who have different implicit standards for model adequacy, and correspondingly are or are not willing to use flux adjustments."
http://link.sprin...74102591
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2014
"We find evidence that scientists' perceptions of the policy process do play a role in shaping their scientific practices. In particular, many of our respondents expressed a preference for keeping discussion of the issue of flux adjustments within the climate modeling community, apparently fearing that climate contrarians would exploit the issue in the public domain. While this may be true, we point to the risk that such an approach may backfire. We also identify assumptions and cultural commitments lying at a deeper level which play at least as important a role as perceptions of the policy process in shaping scientific practices. This leads us to identify two groups of scientists, 'pragmatists' and 'purists', who have different implicit standards for model adequacy, and correspondingly are or are not willing to use flux adjustments."
http://link.sprin...74102591


Worthless quote-mining.
runrig
5 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2014
Mike if you think that some CO2 in a bottle is a fair representation of Earths climate then it is you who has no idea of Physics and science in general.

Well done MR - it is NOT a fair representation of the Earth's climate.
Beer-Lambert Law has a term for path-length in it.
The path-length in a bottle is a tad deficient when compared with the atmosphere.
You see - that is why you should leave science to the scientists
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2014
MR166 said:
In Physics or any real science, when a model fails, the honest answer is not to "Wait to 2100 and you will see that I am right".


Great job of trying to confuse the situation. Let me try to make this clear (not that you will be able to understand).

The physics has been proven multiple times over the past 100 years. That is not in contention. The models are right in their interpretation of the physics and that is shown in the steady increase in enthalpy of the earth.

The comment about 50 or 100 years is for "catastrophic" events to manifest. The ocean is rising slowly and the impact on coastal land will take a while to become visible. That doesn't mean that things are not changing now. They are changing now. Just not quickly.

Just so you are told (not that you will understand) but things will continue to change for 200, 300, 1000 years and longer. You just can't understand anything that takes longer than your next tax return.
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Aug 31, 2014
"Well done MR - it is NOT a fair representation of the Earth's climate.
Beer-Lambert Law has a term for path-length in it.
The path-length in a bottle is a tad deficient when compared with the atmosphere.
You see - that is why you should leave science to the scientists."

Runrig if I had a dollar for every time a true believer referenced the CO2 in a bottle experiment as proof that man is responsible for ALL of the temperature change since the 70s I would be a lot richer.

When climate science can quantify man's contribution to temperature change and the REAL harm that the change has done we can have a fact based discussion. Until then this is nothing more than political science.
howhot2
5 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2014
When climate science can quantify man's contribution to temperature change and the REAL harm that the change has done we can have a fact based discussion. Until then this is nothing more than political science.
@MR166, for a moment there I thought you found a credible argument but I see you just one of the Koch Brother ball scratchers that love to kiss them climate denier nuts, all day long.

The @Runrig answered you fairly with detail and you reply with the weak claim
this is nothing more than political science.
Your exercise in brain cell function is really lacking in facts you can provide that really support you thoughts. The reason you can't find supporting facts is there aren't any! You and just about every other climate denier needs to realize that global warming is here, it's real and it's proven in excruciating detail from the physics to the biological responses.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2014
Mr166 said:
Runrig if I had a dollar for every time a true believer referenced the CO2 in a bottle experiment as proof that man is responsible for ALL of the temperature change since the 70s I would be a lot richer.


Are you able to give us some examples of all the times the "true believers" have referenced the CO2 in a bottle experiment? Are you considering some uneducated bloggers making comments just like you are? We know your comments are ignorant and I am sure there are some proponents of AGW who are also ignorant.

I am also interested in which of the "CO2 bottle experiments" you are talking about?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Aug 31, 2014
Wow... this discussion is really getting "heated"...
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (5) Sep 01, 2014
MR166 again, showing he cannot tell idle claims from Science with
..a true believer referenced the CO2 in a bottle experiment as proof that man is responsible for ALL of the temperature change since the 70s..
All it shows is you are easily led by the uneducated, what does that say about you ?

When you have high-school/uni training in statistical mechanics, heat, properties of gases etc then you won't be so easily misled, until then leave Science to the Scientists & TRY to learn (eg temperature vs specific heat) without bickering over idle propaganda & political quote mining - often showing up a sustained low IQ

It is not about belief, it is about evidence & unfortunately for the uneducated the evidence is clouded by chaotic phenomena with a previously less than compelling breadth of data.

As I said before neither you or your intimate cousin have refuted the basics, the physics foundations for the discussed climate models is sound. Eg GHG's have known Proven thermal properties !
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2014
MR166 proves he has no understanding of temperature vs specific heat
When climate science can quantify man's contribution to temperature change...
This is easily done, all discussed climate models are based on sound & proven physics. There is a DIRECT relationship between temperature & specific heat. There are lots of materials with different specific heats - thats very difficult for the uneducated. Its not comparatively hard for physics graduates, impossible for ryggesogn2 !

MR166 muttered the following when he should already know
and the REAL harm that the change has done we can have a fact based discussion. Until then this is nothing more than political science.
Then STOP mining propaganda & political opinion.

Can't you see there is harm already ?

Eg
Start with Rising sea levels, eg Tuvalu - factor in storm surges - have u seen it happen elsewhere ?

What of Crop management, ie insurance actuarials - they HAVE to deal with risk, that risk assessment costs real money !
MR166
1 / 5 (6) Sep 01, 2014
"Eg
Start with Rising sea levels, eg Tuvalu - factor in storm surges - have u seen it happen elsewhere ?"

Thanks Mike for making my point. Sea level rise caused exclusively by man is a prime example of propaganda passed off as science. The sea has been rising since the glaciers started receding. The few mm of this rise that man may have contributed is meaningless.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2014
MR166 being 1 dimensional, ignorant & ignoring timescale
Thanks Mike for making my point. Sea level rise caused exclusively by man is a prime example of propaganda passed off as science.
Never said it was exclusive, sure levels can rise but, much much slower than humans when burning 230,000 Litres petrol/sec adding tremendous amounts of GHG's (incl water) & additional heat. Get your data straight, your dumb claims prove you are the propagandist & should NOT be here!

Show, from empirical data:-
1. Sea level rise rate up to start of industrial revolution, ~last 200 yrs
2. Comparative sea level rise of last 100 yrs

MR166 didnt know what he said
The sea has been rising since the glaciers started receding
The fastest receding is in the last ~60 yrs, correlated with rising CO2, obviously you prove my point, doh.

MR166 proves ignorance with
The few mm of this rise that man may have contributed is meaningless.
Wakeup, timescale ! & not just one area. Get an education fast !
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Sep 01, 2014
Hey err @Mike...
If you don't know what P chem is it pretty well tells me, and the rest of the world, your lack of qualifications.
It is a common colloquialism this side of a freshman year. Heck, you put p chem into google it comes up.
It's physical chemistry, and you can keep saying I don't understand my thermo, but it is pretty apparent your judgment in the matter is for squat.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2014
Interesting article in one of "Those" sites.

http://hockeyscht...was.html

The reality is that today's climate and sea levels are normal for an interglacial period. In fact, the sea levels are still low and Greenland is still cold.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2014
Some scientists make a living from cherry picked data and kill millions doing so.

http://market-tic...t=229366
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2014
MR166 showing he's a waste of time, just like his 'cousin'
Interesting article in one of "Those" sites.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fears-of-faster-rising-global-sea-levels-as-stable-greenland-ice-sheet-starts-to-melt-9195769.html
&
http://sciencenor...-out-sea

MR166 THE liar & idiot he is Again with
The reality is that today's climate and sea levels are normal for an interglacial period. In fact, the sea levels are still low and Greenland is still cold.
Reality ?

Word 'cold' & all it implies show you are pathetic waste of time = NO quantification.

Factor in the billions of tonnes of ice melting off Greenland in relation to 'specific heat' which is 75 times that of water & you get MASSIVE heat increase.

MR166, what does tangential quote mining get you, proof you are ONLY here to disrupt !

Do you ever care what our grandchildren might have to deal with when oceans can rise 75+ deg C in regions ?

Education MR166, NOW !!!!
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2014
Water_Prophet can't read OR understand
If you don't know what P chem is it pretty well tells me, and the rest of the world, your lack of qualifications.
You didn't see I stated "Practical", I also stated a wide field. My qualifications in Electronics, Mechanics, Food Science/Microbiology, not specialist areas of physical/practical chemistry ?

Water_Prophet U are showing futile idiocy & inability to communicate effectively.

U Water_Prophet again show bad thinking
It is a common colloquialism this side of a freshman year. Heck, you put p chem into google it comes up.
Have no reason to resort to wasting time with you except when it shows you are so far off the money in all respects re climate, communication & trying to score weak political points.

Water_Prophet with
keep saying I don't understand my thermo, but it is pretty apparent your judgment in the matter is for squat.
Obviously I am correct.

Your 'prefect' model cant distinguish 1986-97 warm vs 1998-2014 pause.
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2014
"Do you ever care what our grandchildren might have to deal with when oceans can rise 75+ deg C in regions ?"

Why stop at 75C Mike. Go for the full 100 and we will not have to cook our fish before eating them.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2014
Do you ever care what our grandchildren might have to deal with when oceans can rise 75+ deg C in regions ?


Do you ever care if your grandchildren will be living in dirt poor poverty because of socialist central planning and govts spending more wealth than they can plunder?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Sep 02, 2014
@Mike-
Obviously, you are not only ignorant, but your only talent seems to be to tap-dance around it. My model works to a T. Your assertions about are based on your imagination and obstinacy.

I seem to recall be all over the current pause and as to the rest, of course you're talking without comprehending-mixing up the world and regions.

Your loss. It is simple enough even you can understand.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Sep 02, 2014
MR166 lumbered with
..stop at 75C Mike. Go for the full 100 and we will not have to cook our fish before eating them
Was hoping you would notice 75C is the ~ specific heat of melting ice divided by that of water, obviously you are in desperate need of basic education in specific heat.

ryggesogn2 the propagandist Again
Do you ever care if your grandchildren will be living in dirt poor poverty because of socialist central planning and govts spending more wealth than they can plunder?
No evidence lowering CO2 emissions ever produced poverty, it obviously doesn't have to - a basic education in physics, engineering & economics will show that. Why don't you start with physics ?

Water_Prophet claims r lies[q ..I seem to recall be all over the current pause and as to the rest ZERO evidence your analogy is any sort of real model !
You seem to be unable to show how 'global' temps in your 'model' rise from 86-98 & then pause from 98-2014.

U 3 are all a pathetic joke wasting time !
MR166
1 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2014
"Was hoping you would notice 75C is the ~ specific heat of melting ice divided by that of water, obviously you are in desperate need of basic education in specific heat."

Mike that is a ludicrous statement. How can 80 cal/gram divided by 1 cal/gram equal this statement by you?

"Do you ever care what our grandchildren might have to deal with when oceans can rise 75+ deg C in regions ?"
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Sep 03, 2014
No evidence lowering CO2 emissions ever produced poverty, i

When the state must plunder wealth and artificially increase the cost of energy, poverty results.
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (3) Sep 03, 2014
MR166 desperately needs an education to understand heat flow & ability to multiply & divide
Mike that is a ludicrous statement. How can 80 cal/gram divided by 1 cal/gram equal this statement by you?
Gosh - its even worse than I thought its 80 deg C !!!

(I stand corrected) it takes ~80 times more heat to melt ice at zero deg to produce water at zero degrees than it does to warm water by one degree C.

So doing the math. For each 320 or so Joules that it took to melt one gram of ice from zero degrees to make water at zero - were applied to water at zero then, according to physics of specific heat that water Must raise the temperature by 80 deg C - all else being equal !

Of course this basic physics and its consequences are ameliorated by combinatorial heat flows.

ryggesogn2 barks Without any evidence
When the state must plunder wealth and artificially increase the cost of energy, poverty results.
Rather than many businesses artificially increasing costs to gouge profit ?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Sep 04, 2014
Rather than many businesses artificially increasing costs to gouge profit ?

Who can do that without protection, by the state, from competition?
Mike_Massen
5 / 5 (4) Sep 04, 2014
ryggesogn2 got himself in hot water with
Who can do that without protection, by the state, from competition?
Such as Enron:-
http://en.wikiped...ki/Enron

Presided over by consecutive republican presidents Reagan/Bush:-
http://en.wikiped...d_States

R U claiming republican's protected Enron during their formative years by setting up legislation to support them ?

Does this support the view Republicans in association with Enron were plundering the wealth of the poor Americans via artificially raising power price trading ?

Surely ryggesogn2, you would agree the already rich have every right to become richer at the expense of the poor to plunder wealth of those poor paying for energy ;-)

Politics ryggesogn2, also doesn't seem to be your forte', just become a tired old man muttering over a beer or cup of coffee at the local diner & do nothing useful like learning Science such as - to alleviate the suffering of your neighbors - tut tut !
MR166
1 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2014
Mike you would have to be a total idiot to think that Republicans invented or have a monopoly on crony capitalism. Communism is founded in crony capitalism. If you doubt that why did so many billionaires suddenly appear when Russia abandoned pure communism?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
Enron was a crony business that needed the state.
Ken Lay pushed GHW Bush to go to Rio so Enron could profit from Kyoto with carbon trading and gas pipelines.
Lay also lobbied Clinton/Gore whey they were elected.
Enron depended upon the state for protection from competition.
The Road to Serfdom was dedicated to socialists from both parties.
saposjoint
5 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2014
Are you stupid or something? Crooks don't care whether they're labeled "socialists".

You'd be damned boring as a musical instrument, too: Only one loud, offensive note.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Sep 05, 2014
Crooks don't care whether they're labeled "socialists".

Self-righteous socialists don't seem to like being called crooks, though.
Most criminals are honest criminals. They know they are breaking the law when they plunder their victims.
Dishonest criminals, socialists, create laws to legalize the plunder of their victims.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Sep 06, 2014
Most criminals are honest criminals.
@rygtard
1- this has never been true
2- Criminals may have a code of conduct individually, but there is no overall code
3- all criminals currently incarcerated with rare exception are innocent... just ask them how they were railroaded with all that planted forensic evidence and doctored video's from multiple sources
4- you've likely not dealt with criminals in the real world if you can make this assumption and believe it
Actually, I would assert that you've not dealt with the real world period

I would ask for empirical evidence from a reputable peer reviewed source but you will only troll/spam the comments with more of your rhetoric and delusional beliefs

i had to laugh at your post though
it is almost the stupidest thing I have ever seen on PO to date

if you don't believe me
go live in a state or federal Pen