Warming Earth heading for hottest year on record (Update)

Warming Earth heading for hottest year on record (Update)
This Oct. 2, 2014, file photo shows women shading themselves from the hot sun in the Chinatown section of downtown Los Angeles. It sounds like a broken record, but last month again set a new mark for global heat. And meteorologists say Earth is now on pace to tie the hottest year ever recorded, or more likely break it. (AP Photo/ Nick Ut, File)

Earth is on pace to tie or even break the mark for the hottest year on record, U.S. meteorologists say.

That's because global heat records have kept falling in 2014, with September the latest example.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Monday that last month the globe averaged 60.3 degrees Fahrenheit (15.7 degrees Celsius). That was the hottest September in 135 years of record keeping.

It was the fourth monthly record set this year, along with May, June and August.

NASA, which measures temperatures slightly differently, had already determined that September was record-warm.

The first nine months of 2014 have a global average temperature of 58.72 degrees (14.7 degrees Celsius), tying with 1998 for the warmest first nine months on record, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.

"It's pretty likely" that 2014 will break the record for hottest year, said NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden.

The reason involves El Nino, a warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that affects weather worldwide. In 1998, the year started off super-hot because of an El Nino. But then that El Nino disappeared and temperatures moderated slightly toward the end of the year.

This year has no El Nino yet, but forecasts for the rest of the year show a strong chance that one will show up, and that weather will be warmer than normal, Blunden said.

Warming Earth heading for hottest year on record (Update)
This, Sept. 15, 2014, file photo taken with a fisheye lens, shows beach goers cooling off during the Southern California heat wave, in Huntington Beach, Calif. It sounds like a broken record, but last month again set a new mark for global heat. And meteorologists say Earth is now on pace to tie the hottest year ever recorded, or more likely break it. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson, File)

If 2014 breaks the record for hottest year, that also should sound familiar: 1995, 1997, 1998, 2005 and 2010 all broke NOAA records for the hottest years since records started being kept in 1880.

"This is one of many indicators that climate change has not stopped and that it continues to be one of the most important issues facing humanity," said University of Illinois climate scientist Donald Wuebbles.

Some people, mostly non-scientists, have been claiming that the world has not warmed in 18 years, but "no one's told the globe that," Blunden said. She said NOAA records show no pause in warming.

The record-breaking heat goes back to the end of last year—November 2013 broke a record. So the 12 months from October 2013 to September 2014 are the hottest 12-month period on record, Blunden said. Earth hasn't set a monthly record for cold since December 1916, but all monthly heat records have been set after 1997.

September also marks the fifth month in a row that Earth's oceans broke monthly heat records, Blunden said.

The U.S. as a whole was warmer than normal for September, but the month was only the 25th warmest on record.

While parts of the U.S. Midwest, Russia and central Africa were slightly cool in September, it was especially hotter than normal in the U.S. West, Australia, Europe, northwestern Africa, central South America and parts of Asia. California and Nevada set records for the hottest September.

If Earth sets a record for heat in 2014 it probably won't last, said Jeff Masters, meteorology director for the private firm Weather Underground. If there is an El Nino, Masters said, "next year could well bring Earth's hottest year on record, accompanied by unprecedented regional heat waves and droughts."


Explore further

April global temperature tied for highest since 1880, NOAA reports

More information: NOAA's global analysis for September: www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2014/9

© 2014 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Citation: Warming Earth heading for hottest year on record (Update) (2014, October 20) retrieved 20 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-10-planet-hottest-september.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 20, 2014
The last 2 months actually, both September and August, have broken the record.

Oct 20, 2014
And yet the EARTH hasn't warmed in almost 20 years. It's in the IPCC report. Obama is just preparing us for his next Congress free maneuver.

Oct 20, 2014
Right JamesG... Totally... You know when you say "EARTH", you have to include the water. http://climate.na...vidence/

Oct 20, 2014
Climate is a 30 year average we have been told.

Oct 20, 2014
Climate is a 30 year average we have been told.

Yep, I believe that from 1880 to 2014 is a bit more than 30 years . . .

But keep up the denying - gives us something to respond to and helps the deniers earn their pay!

Oct 20, 2014
Am I crazy? North America just got over the coldest winter, spring, summer and fall I can remember.
I checked for quite some time on other regions, and yet, there is no news of deaths from heat waves, like many summers I can remember.

Accuweather yet states averages of 4C higher than normal in some places. Contacts in England, France and Turkey report nothing special.

Oct 20, 2014
Am I crazy? North America just got over the coldest winter, spring, summer and fall I can remember.
I checked for quite some time on other regions, and yet, there is no news of deaths from heat waves, like many summers I can remember.

Accuweather yet states averages of 4C higher than normal in some places. Contacts in England, France and Turkey report nothing special.


Alche/WP: Yes, you are crazy. The US is a small part of the globe. Your contacts do not represent a significant portion of the Earth. They, certainly, don't represent much of the Oceans. You recognize the contribution of water - and yet you are not looking at the oceans. I am not sure why you chose to do that. Can you elaborate on why, you who worships water and ice, did not consider the oceans?

Oct 20, 2014
http://www.forbes...is-year/
Only the ignorant Chicken Littles in the AGW Cult would fall for these lies from NOAA.

Oct 20, 2014
Ok the earths temperature hasn't risen in last 20 years, US had a very cold winter several years in a row, arctic ice rebounded, deep sea temperatures haven't risen. But NOAA says that September was the hottest?

My guess is that some bureaucrat at NOAA wanted to get a bonus so s/he spewed without facts DNC facts that Obama wanted to hear.

NASA after 6 years of democrat rule.... main mission make Muslim countries feel important
DOE after 6 years of democrat rule.... main mission to feed kids spinach
IRS after 6 years of democrat rule... main mission to target Conservatives for audits and have computer hard drives crash.
DOD after 6 years of democrat rule.... main mission is now to resupply ISIL and catch EBOLA to bring to the USA.
DOJ after 6 years of democrat rule.... main mission supply guns to Mexican cartels.
I could go on... but the point is made

A vote for a democrat is a vote for corruption and incompetence.

Oct 20, 2014
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/06/13/doctored-data-not-u-s-temperatures-set-a-record-this-year/
Only the ignorant Chicken Littles in the AGW Cult would fall for these lies from NOAA.


From June 2012 and a right wing rag.

Oct 20, 2014
Yet we still have the Deniers.

I think they do it for attention.

Oct 20, 2014
AntiScience says:
http://www.forbes...is-year/
Only the ignorant Chicken Littles in the AGW Cult would fall for these lies from NOAA.


Only an incompetent like you would choose to quote an old article from Forbes written by an editor from the Heartland Institute who majored in Government from Dartmouth.

Oct 20, 2014
The average global temperature hasn't risen since 1998.

Oct 20, 2014
Somebody tell mntmn3 to look up the ten hottest years in history and get back to us.

Oct 20, 2014
Do any of you warming earth scaremongers have any integrity?
A lie is a lie is a lie no matter how many times it is repeated.

Oct 20, 2014
Do any of you warming earth scaremongers have any integrity?
A lie is a lie is a lie no matter how many times it is repeated.


mrmortgage:

Why don't you enlighten us by telling us what you consider to be a lie?

Please give us references to the lies that you seem to think are being repeated here?

Oct 20, 2014
A businessman (mrmortgage), is going to challenge a scientist on ethics and credibility??

Oct 20, 2014
@thermostumpy, that's funny, someone who only recently started looking at the ocean and pointing your finger to it as the solution to all the inconvenient facts you can't explain, telling me, who has had my fingers on the "hydrodynamic pulse" for 30 years and been living, breathing and using it to explain the change, (and fighting people like you)?

Do you simply not understand the effect of land on weather, or to avoid argument, climate? The Northern Hemisphere is 40% land.

Let me put that in terms even you can understand: With the seasons reversing at the equator, 40% land-surface means... nope it can't be done.

Does anyone else need the explanation? No? Isn't that ironic. Only one person needing any explanation, and crayons don't work through the web.

Oct 20, 2014
And Alche/WaterPuppet makes up whatever he wants to say:
@thermostumpy, that's funny, someone who only recently started looking at the ocean and pointing your finger to it as the solution to all the inconvenient facts you can't explain, telling me, who has had my fingers on the "hydrodynamic pulse" for 30 years and been living, breathing and using it to explain the change, (and fighting people like you)?

Do you simply not understand the effect of land on weather, or to avoid argument, climate? The Northern Hemisphere is 40% land.


So, who reading this do you think will give you credit for being a forward looking scientist and who will recognize that you just make up whatever you want. Please tell us how your brass bowl of water with ice in it and a candle on the bottom is a valid model of the earth's climate. Please explain again how it is not the effect of GHGs but rather the sensible and latent heat released by combustion. Give us another laugh.

Oct 20, 2014
Warming Earth heading for hottest year on record!

Globally average temperatures for Sept 2014 where off the carts. And yet the shifty cunning denier's will claim "yet the EARTH hasn't warmed in almost 20 years." That doesn't make logical sense does it? Not when Aug and Sept where the hottest ever recorded by man.

Denier's just give it up. You lost the debate years ago and now all you do is look stupid. You too @R2.

Oct 20, 2014
Here is a plot straight from NOAA website:
http://www.ncdc.n...980-2014

Oct 20, 2014
Here is a plot straight from NOAA website:
http://www.ncdc.n...980-2014


And, what are you saying this plot shows?

Oct 20, 2014
NOAA disagrees, follow the link below and select your time-frame (I chose 1900 to 2014), enter the month (I chose September Maximum) and you will see that the assertion: " it was especially hotter than normal in the U.S.", is not supported by the record as provided.

The answer I want to hear is why was it said if it is blatantly not true?

http://www.ncdc.n...;month=9

The McKitrick et al 2014 showed that the warming of the past 26 years has not been statistically different from 0.00C. Why is this information not being reported?

In the context of all the data, and all information available this constant parroting of "This was the hottest XXXXXX ever" is irrelevant and ethically repugnant.

Oct 20, 2014
To all of those who tout the "It's the hottest XXXXX EVER!" Please explain to those of us who remain skeptical how after so many years that the global temps have just kept rising 'through the roof' that the global net increase since "pre-industrial" times is still 0.76C according to all of those bastions of "settled science": IPCC, Nature, AGU, UCS, FSF, Nat Geo, etc., etc.

Here's another mystery: after being told repeatedly ad nauseum that sea level rise is accelerating and irreversible by study after study after study and billions of dollars spent on windmills and PV has not ANYONE planned or built a sea-wall...anywhere? I mean if they are SO convinced why are we still doing studies? Really?

And don't tell me it's because "deniers" have blocked the way. We have entered into numerous wars where the general public was notified only after the fact, with or without the blessing of congress.

What gives?

Oct 20, 2014
NOAA disagrees, follow the link below and select your time-frame (I chose 1900 to 2014), enter the month (I chose September Maximum) and you will see that the assertion: " it was especially hotter than normal in the U.S.", is not supported by the record as provided.

The answer I want to hear is why was it said if it is blatantly not true?

http://www.ncdc.n...;month=9

The McKitrick et al 2014 showed that the warming of the past 26 years has not been statistically different from 0.00C. Why is this information not being reported?


Do you really not know you linked to the US when the article is talking about the Globe?

Reread McKitrick et al and notice that they are not discussing the oceans of the world with their comments. Those have been shown to be hotter.

Oct 20, 2014
@thermodynamics
Please read the following:
Global warming is not "hiding in the deep ocean"
http://judithcurr...cooling/
http://www.nature...389.html
http://dx.doi.org...-00319.1
http://www.scienc...13002397
http://www.jcronl...-00157.1
http://www.nature...387.html
"Oct. 6, 2014: The cold waters of Earth's deep ocean have not warmed measurably since 2005, according to a new NASA study, leaving unsolved the mystery of why global warming appears to have slowed in recent years."
http://science.na...t_abyss/

The McKitrick paper was global in scope thank you, or quote from and post link.

Oct 20, 2014
@thermodynamics
Did you really not see the specific quote from the article that I was addressing?

Oct 20, 2014

Here's another mystery: after being told repeatedly ad nauseum that sea level rise is accelerating and irreversible by study after study after study and billions of dollars spent on windmills and PV has not ANYONE planned or built a sea-wall...anywhere? I mean if they are SO convinced why are we still doing studies? Really?


1. The sea level rise is still slow at this point. It won't really become serious until the mid-century or so. It doesn't make a lot of sense (to me, at least) for most countries to have done them yet.
2. Who says no one has planned or built a sea wall? Netherlands increased theirs to account for global warming. Maldives I think has built one. Several US cities have sea walls (or other things) to help control storm surges, many increased to account for sea level rise. I'm sure there's others planned or built - that was just a quick check.

Oct 20, 2014
@zz5555
Please cite sources and links to a factual report. I am very interested in finding one.

Oct 20, 2014
To all of those who tout the "It's the hottest XXXXX EVER!" Please explain to those of us who remain skeptical how after so many years that the global temps have just kept rising 'through the roof' that the global net increase since "pre-industrial" times is still 0.76C according to all of those bastions of "settled science": IPCC, Nature, AGU, UCS, FSF, Nat Geo, etc., etc.

What gives?


I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume that your question is real and not just rhetorical. I will try to give you the best answer to your questions I can and you can ask if there is more I can add. This might take a while.

First, let me describe the fundamentals of AGW theory. Basically, it is saying that the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere has enabled the earth to retain more heat. That is based on chemical, physical, and optical knowledge that has been known for more than 100 years. Continued

Oct 20, 2014

http://www.nature...389.html


This link indicates that the ocean has warmed more than previously thought. How does this agree with your claim that "Global warming is not "hiding in the deep ocean""? Doesn't your link imply that more of the warming has gone into the ocean?

Oct 20, 2014
NOAA disagrees, follow the link below and select your time-frame (I chose 1900 to 2014), enter the month (I chose September Maximum) and you will see that the assertion: " it was especially hotter than normal in the U.S.", is not supported by the record as provided.

The answer I want to hear is why was it said if it is blatantly not true?

http://www.ncdc.n...;month=9

The McKitrick et al 2014 showed that the warming of the past 26 years has not been statistically different from 0.00C. Why is this information not being reported?

In the context of all the data, and all information available this constant parroting of "This was the hottest XXXXXX ever" is irrelevant and ethically repugnant.


As are you. Do the plot with average temperature anomaly over a twelve month scale and you can (I hope)

cont..

Oct 20, 2014
@zz5555
Please cite sources and links to a factual report. I am very interested in finding one.


Seriously? You couldn't bother to google "sea wall global warming" before making your claim? Shouldn't you be just a bit embarrassed by that? Don't you want to know things rather than just make knee jerk statements? I find your attitude very strange.

Oct 20, 2014
@zz5555
You're absolutely right, I filed the link improperly. This was to be filed under the, "if the data doesn't fit the model, change the data" heading:

"...we adjust the poorly constrained Southern Hemisphere observed warming estimates so that hemispheric ratios are consistent with the broad range of modelled results."

Pretty smart fellas eh?

Oct 20, 2014
cont..

clearly see the curve-fit that tells most people that the analysis is correct.

Cherry-picking will soon be done in June, if there's anyplace a cherry tree will grow except in a greenhouse with an A/C.

Report back to your masters with your failure. Accept your caning, and STFU.

Oct 20, 2014
Continued:

When I mention that the science is settled, that is exactly what I am saying we know. This is based on my background as a Professional Mechanical Engineer with a degree in physics. I use the basics of radiative heat transfer to calculate the transfer of heat from flames to boiler walls or heat from plasma to channels. In those calculations I take into consideration the composition of the flames and the emissivity of the gasses as well as their ability to absorb photons that go through them. It is the properties of gasses and their ability to emit and absorb photons that are well known.

To get a good idea of how the atmosphere works is simple for clear skies but becomes complicated when clouds (or particles) are added and when heat can be transmitted to other fluids (oceans) or change phase as in melting ice. Continued

Oct 20, 2014
NOAA disagrees, follow the link below and select your time-frame (I chose 1900 to 2014), enter the month (I chose September Maximum) and you will see that the assertion: " it was especially hotter than normal in the U.S.", is not supported by the record as provided.


GSK2000 asked if I really didn't see this quote in the article. No, I did not. Instead, copying from the article I saw this: "While parts of the U.S. Midwest, Russia and central Africa were slightly cool in September, it was especially hotter than normal in the U.S. West, Australia, Europe, northwestern Africa, central South America and parts of Asia."

Do you see the difference in what you said and what they said? You said "the U.S." and they said the "U.S. West,"

They are saying that the Western part of the US was hot, not the whole US. Please let me know if that is clear or not. I gave you the benefit of a doubt, but please let me know if you are just going to insist they wrote it wrong?

Oct 20, 2014
@zz5555

Did you see my comment, "I'm very interested in finding one"? You couldn't infer that if' I couldn't find one' I have been looking.

Yes, I did your search and many others, it's why I made the comment to begin with. I do not consider the Dutch sea walls as a valid reference as they have been in place for hundreds of years, and have been added to repeatedly to protect from storms. Just because someone takes the opportunity to propagandize something relatively commonplace, at a location WELL below sea-level is pretty thin...disingenuous even.

I would like a valid factual reference to plans for a sea wall in any of the major metro areas we have been shown in 3d graphics under 30 feet of water: Manhattan, Miami, SF, etc.

Oct 20, 2014
@thermodynamics
"NOAA disagrees..."

You are correct and I was wrong. I did not see the 'West' in the article. Thank you for pointing that out, and being civil about it.

I'll be more careful when reading and responding in the future. Now if I could just find my glasses...

Oct 20, 2014
Continued from my earlier comment on the reply to GKS2000.

So, you ask about the global temperatures when you quote the global land and air temperatures. The reality is that the ocean temperatures are rising faster than the models predicted. That means that more energy is being transferred into the upper mile of the ocean. That means that when ocean oscillations move toward warmer weather it will be much warmer than the past. It is the balance of heat, not the temperature of the atmosphere that is important for determining the balance between incoming energy and leaving energy. It is that balance that some new satellites are going to be checking to help the models improve on the distribution of energy on the globe.

So, when they are talking about XXXXX being the hottest, they are considering the temperatures of all of the fluids on the earth, not just the atmosphere. The latent heat of ice is also important and is taken into consideration.

Continued

Oct 20, 2014
@thermodynamics
"NOAA disagrees..."

You are correct and I was wrong. I did not see the 'West' in the article. Thank you for pointing that out, and being civil about it.

I'll be more careful when reading and responding in the future. Now if I could just find my glasses...


I'm old enough that I have had to find my glasses all the time.

Continued.

So, when I discuss the concept of "settled science" I look at the "theory of AGW" which says more CO2, more heat.

When skeptics look at the "theory of AGW" they seem to be nit picking the distribution of heat in the fluids of the earth. That is not the theory of AGW, it is the engineering details of the hydrodynamics of the atmosphere.

There is zero evidence that the heat content of the earth has not been increasing over the past 18 years. There is overwhelming evidence that it has. If we add heat, it changes the climate.

Oct 20, 2014
GSK2000 asked:
"Here's another mystery: after being told repeatedly ad nauseum that sea level rise is accelerating and irreversible by study after study after study and billions of dollars spent on windmills and PV has not ANYONE planned or built a sea-wall...anywhere? I mean if they are SO convinced why are we still doing studies? Really?


The reason is that you have to ask where they will be building the sea walls? For instance, if you look at the country of Bangladesh, you would have to build a sea wall along their entire coast (it is low land). If you look at Florida, you would have to build sea walls around every coastal city (and most inland cities) to be able to avoid high tide as well as storms.

In the country of Indonesia, they already are having tides overrun their sea side power plant in Jakarta due to changes in the sea level in the past 30 years.

The questions of how many and how large are still open. They will be built.

Oct 20, 2014
Climate is a 30 year average we have been told
@rygtard
no, the 30 year average is what is usually used as a minimum length for a TREND in climate
Am I crazy? North America just got over the coldest winter, spring, summer and fall I can remember
@alche/crybaby
no. you are stupid
i already posted empirical evidence and studies showing you why N AM would have cold winters due to the warming climate
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
would you like me to find you something simpler to explain it?
there are video's where Francis actually explains this using graphics and neat pictures, which seem to be more your speed

Why do you continually make stuff up as you go and then assume that it will not be researched by anyone?

Oct 20, 2014
@thermodynamics
Please read the following:
Global warming is not "hiding in the deep ocean"
http://judithcurr...cooling/


I have read all of these in the past. Please note that in my reply to you I specifically mentioned the top mile of the oceans. That is not what they consider the deep ocean in these articles. Specifically, they are referring to the waters below 2000m as "deep ocean." Please correct me if I missed something. We are cross posting since we both have a lot to say. I appreciate your interest in a discussion. Thank you for the civility. Most of us are not used to civil discussion on these threads.

Oct 21, 2014
GSK2000 asked
@zz5555
Please cite sources and links to a factual report. I am very interested in finding one.


I just did a Google search on "sea wall global warming" and got a number of articles on the subject. It is interesting there seems to be a lot of discussion, but little action. Just like all other responses to AGW.

Oct 21, 2014
Do any of you warming earth scaremongers have any integrity?
A lie is a lie is a lie no matter how many times it is repeated.
@mrmortgage
that is why we are supposed to be arguing with the science and empirical evidence, like this:
http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
I didn't see any empirical evidence in your post.. only conjecture
feel free to refute the study with empirical evidence of a similar nature (peer reviewed from a reputable source which has an impact in the subject at hand)
valid factual reference

@GSK2000
judith curry links are not considered empirical evidence unless there are specific references to studies in the link... and if that is the case, it would be better to make the argument and use those studies for support than link to a fringe or other type site
it is good to ask for evidence, but you must also provide a refute with the same caliber of evidence
Something to consider when making an argument

Oct 21, 2014
@thermodynamics
Please read the following
@GSK2000
One important lesson is references and facts
Anyone can make a claim on the internet (see above)
Therefore, it is imperative to have a means to separate the pseudoscience from the real science (or reality)
there are people trying to undermine the science http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
There is a lot of science supporting AGW http://iopscience.../article
follow the science and forget about politics
http://arstechnic...nformed/
and forget about conspiracy too http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
Just follow the science
you will learn

P.S. @alche/crybaby
thermo and i answering at the same time from different accounts
there goes your "same person"BS right out the window

Oct 21, 2014
Warming Earth heading for hottest year on record (Update)
Oh brother, more ridiculous hysteria from the NOAA. "It's the hottest ______ ever!" (fill in the blank)

Why is it, they're the only ones tooting this horn? Is it because they use their own internal, and highly manipulated data set, whereas all the other major global temperature data sets state otherwise? Naw, that couldn't be it... could it?

http://wattsupwit...records/

Oct 21, 2014
Warming Earth heading for hottest year on record (Update)
Oh brother, more ridiculous hysteria from the NOAA. "It's the hottest ______ ever!" (fill in the blank)

Why is it, they're the only ones tooting this horn? Is it because they use their own internal, and highly manipulated data set, whereas all the other major global temperature data sets state otherwise? Naw, that couldn't be it... could it?


from the article

"NASA, which measures temperatures slightly differently, had already determined that September was record-warm."


Oct 21, 2014
Warming Earth heading for hottest year on record (Update)
Oh brother, more ridiculous hysteria from the NOAA. "It's the hottest ______ ever!" (fill in the blank)

Why is it, they're the only ones tooting this horn? Is it because they use their own internal, and highly manipulated data set, whereas all the other major global temperature data sets state otherwise? Naw, that couldn't be it... could it?


from the article

"NASA, which measures temperatures slightly differently, had already determined that September was record-warm."
Funny, i didn't know September was a stand in for the entire year... oh wait, it's not.

According to satellite data, here is what is really happening with global temperatures:

http://woodfortre....7/trend

Oh look! 2014 doesn't look particularly hot, all of a sudden.

Oct 21, 2014
Why is it, they're the only ones tooting this horn? Is it because they use their own internal, and highly manipulated data set, whereas all the other major global temperature data sets state otherwise? Naw, that couldn't be it... could it?


Ignoring the fact that if you had read the article you would know this not to be true (as you have in your last post), your arguments would require a massive global conspiracy involving thousands of people.

Is that what you believe?

Oct 21, 2014
JamesG claims
And yet the EARTH hasn't warmed in almost 20 years. It's in the IPCC report.
Why are you specifically excluding the oceans, haven't you dont maths ?

NOAA confirm oceans have warmed & oceans are about 70% of earths surface & have 4000x the heat capacity of atmosphere.

Don't you know JamesG about "specific heat" ?

Oct 21, 2014
Water_Prophet offered an idea
Am I crazy?
Very likely yes as you utter rubbish so often that proves you could not have achieved your claimed degree in physical chemistry & here is more rubbish to boot.

Water_Prophet[q/]North America just got over the coldest winter, spring, summer and fall I can remember. Why didnt the skill in your claimed degree in physical chemistry tell you or at least allow you to observe NA is ONLY about 2% of the globe ?

Water_Prophet uttered
Accuweather yet states averages of 4C higher than normal in some places. Contacts in England, France and Turkey report nothing special.
Yet again this Proves you couldn't have got that claimed degree in physical chemistry. Pre-requisites are the maths of integration & physics re properties of materials such as "specific heat".

Why doesn't a claimed physical chemist not know these most important items from uni ?

- Area (US ~2%)
- Specific Heat
- Integration

Education !

Oct 21, 2014
freethinking proves he is free of understanding
Ok the earths temperature hasn't risen in last 20 years, US had a very cold winter several years in a row, arctic ice rebounded, deep sea temperatures haven't risen. But NOAA says that September was the hottest?
Why do you imagine the earth doesn't include the oceans ?

Why doesn't freethinking get a basic education ?

True to call freethinking:-
"free from education"
"free from investigation"
"free from study"

Yet freethinking, has been told before the earth has to include the oceans so why is he/she/it repeating rubbish ?

How much is freethinking paid to spread lies ?

Does it affect freethinking's integrity ?

Oct 21, 2014
mntmn3 claimed
The average global temperature hasn't risen since 1998.
What is your source of idea ?

How about some actual detail, eg land based data found here:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

Now add to that the figures for the oceans, can you bother to find them mntmn3 ?

Oct 21, 2014
mrmortgage claimed
Do any of you warming earth scaremongers have any integrity?
I know this is hard for you to understand that often integrity is keenly assisted by education.

In respect of the fundamentals of climate one needs to learn about physics & mathematics, such as:-

- calculus
- specific heat
- thermal properties of CO2

a. The integrity of those that are educated but ignore these fundamentals is obvious.
b. The integrity of those who claim without education is also just as obvious.

mrmortgage muttered
A lie is a lie is a lie no matter how many times it is repeated.
Indeed and one wonders why people such as you just make idle claims, where is your evidence that for example CO2 does not have thermal properties of re-radiation confirmed it is a greenhouse gas ?

Oct 21, 2014
Water_Prophet proves yet AGAIN he cannot have achieved his claimed degree in physical chemistry with this
Do you simply not understand the effect of land on weather, or to avoid argument, climate? The Northern Hemisphere is 40% land.
Your claimed training should have easily told you the oceans have ~4000x the heat capacity of the atmosphere.

Why didn't u Water_Prophet, learn that at uni ?

Water_Prophet clearly needs an education
Does anyone else need the explanation? No? Isn't that ironic. Only one person needing any explanation, and crayons don't work through the web.
You desperately need to understand properties of materials, ie comparative specific heat of land vs water & especially in relation to the immense complexity of winds across those surfaces at all altitudes.

Students at uni learn this "combinatorial complexity" in 1st year physics, an essential pre-requisite for chemistry at virtually all universities !

Water_Prophet needs an education.

Oct 21, 2014
Let's wait 30 years to see what the climate was.

Oct 21, 2014
ubavontuba claimed
According to satellite data, here is what is really happening with global temperatures:
http://woodfortre....7/trend
Oh look! 2014 doesn't look particularly hot.
misled again ubavontuba, you SHOULD recall you have been caught before cherry picking ranges to fabricate misleading impressions.

ubavontuba SHOULD avail himself of the notes offered by the group he relies upon for constructing this plot & can be found from this chain:-

http://woodfortre.../credits
leads to
http://www.remss....eratures
it states end of para 1

"..denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope"

We KNOW of short term variances so longer term of human influence obviously much more reliable !

Oct 21, 2014
Wow, after reading these comments, I am convinced we are destined to become an extinct species.

Ignorance, and putting your head in the sand is the best solution to collected data which proves a heating trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean??? I've lost faith in humanity.

What is the benefit of ignorance in this case? Nothing.
What is the benefit of taking action to observed heating trends? Possibly saving future generations?

Hmmmm....

Oct 21, 2014
Just fodder for the ignorant AGW Chicken Littles
http://dailycalle...-record/

Oct 21, 2014
Please read the following
@GSK2000
One important lesson is references and facts
Anyone can make a claim on the internet (see above)
Therefore, it is imperative to have a means to separate the pseudoscience from the real science (or reality)
there are people trying to undermine the science http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

............and the king of Copy & Paste strikes again "pinging" his way down Internet Road on his firetruck.

Oct 21, 2014
According to satellite data, here is what is really happening with global temperatures:

http://woodfortre....7/trend

Oh look! 2014 doesn't look particularly hot, all of a sudden.


I like how the fake skeptics always complain about the models until it comes to satellite data. Satellites don't even measure the surface temperature - they measure light and use a model to convert that to a temperature. Models are very useful when there are no other options (as modelers say, all models are wrong, some are useful), but when I have actual measured data, I'm going to trust that more.

However, it is good to know that ubavontuba is now in favor of the climate models ;).

Oct 21, 2014
...I like how the fake skeptics always complain about the models until it comes to satellite data. Satellites don't even measure the surface temperature - they measure light and use a model to convert that to a temperature...


Do you fail to notice the difference between computer modelling of extremely complex atmospheric process with myriad of assumptions, on one hand, and pretty straightforward conversion of radiance to temperature, on the other?

Oct 21, 2014
The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 plus years, melting the glaciers that covered the most of the northern hemisphere.

Oct 21, 2014
As usual Mike proclaims loudly both his ignorance and and having nothing better to do with his life than to generate hours of false conclusions about things that were not even inferred. I mean look at that, pages dedicated to someone he desperately needs to discredit.

Why so concerned about my credentials, is it because you are so clearly ignorant of basic phenomenon you invoke?

Before I stopped counting, but you clearly misapplied 10 basic effects. Since I was not incorrect about any of the the assertions I made above, the books you published about them are making you look pretty silly. I am not going to read them.

Oct 21, 2014
@thermostumpy, remember those halcyon days when all you AGW-ers had to complain about was CO2 and temperature increases and because the issue was still debatable it solved all your problems?
Now things aren't quite adding up for you and you invoke sea temperature, and heat. Wow, those things I've been saying since I got on the board:

It is not the temperature it's the heat, and though it is true that I've always cited polar and glacial melt (6 cm of it has raised the oceans, with an obvious heat sinking corollary) the ocean has always been a consideration, though with 333x less buffering power.

You may feel free to worship at the altar of the Water Prophet my converted heathen. The truth has set you free from some of your media induced mythconceptions. I'll keep at it, though you will still deny me.

(That's how you know your endeavor is holy. People deny you though you have led them to the truth.)

Oct 21, 2014
How can modeling the Earth-Sun system as a Sun, candle, and a bowl with water and ice in it, predict climate change?

1. Melting icecaps (ice cubes).
2. Temperature stability (no not flat-lining, just not a +4C increase).
3. Localized effects (where the flame meets the bowl).
4. "Climate" (OK it's a bowl, use your imagination) change from ice recession and increase of localized effects.
Less direct, but predictable:
5. Rise of the Earth's oceans.
6. Increase in number, but not necessarily intensity of Hurricanes. (More energy in the system.)
7. More dynamic weather.
8. More, this is a primitive model!

Now contrast this with CO2, or insulating the planet. Not the same.

The question is will ice melting in a brass bowl make these predictions?
Absolutely.

Is this what we have observed?
Yes.

To make better climate predictions simply add fidelity. Make it an ice-capped planet, give it land, mountains, prevailing currents/winds etc.. It is amazing to the open mind.

Oct 21, 2014
So, Alche, why are you "against" "global warming?" Just because teh evul sciencetis cunspirasy discovered it? Just like relativity?

Oct 21, 2014
It's the AGWite that is against global warming.
Do they prefer the ice age?
Human history show that minor dips in temperatures for decades leads to poverty, disease and unrest.
Funny, just like now. Climate is cooling, socialists are destroying economies and diseases are spreading.
BTW, we can thank cold climate for Frankenstein. Shelly wrote the book during the 'summer that never was'.
"1816 was part of a mini ice age that lasted from 1400 to around 1860. During this time lower solar output produced harsh winters, shorter growing seasons and drier climates which were blamed for a host of human suffering and crop failures such as the Irish Potato Famine. "
http://www.erh.no...r_lf.htm
http://www.keats-...ine-1816

Oct 21, 2014
From the article, NOAA climate scientist Jessica Blunden. says "It's pretty likely" that 2014 will break the record for hottest year. "The first nine months of 2014 have a global average temperature of 58.72 degrees (14.7 degrees Celsius), tying with 1998 for the warmest first nine months on record." And what do the deniers say? @R2 says "Let's wait 30 years to see what the climate was.", Or how about this BOZO; "Funny, i didn't know September was a stand in for the entire year... oh wait, it's not." counter claiming NOAA's report that Aug-Sept were the hotest global temps measured.
Deniers, you should just give up. There is no point arguing what is now and obvious fact being AGW. Buy a Prius and join the fix-it revolution instead of being such dicks.




Oct 21, 2014
@Da-
For so many reasons: The climate is changing, but media has got concerned peoples arguing about red herrings; CO2 and temperature.
When it is really about oil and the released heat.

You are certainly aware you can't prove a lie. This is why people have been arguing about CO2 and temperature for years, you can't come to conclusions using spurious variables.

Now, you probably mock my model, but higher fidelity iterations of it have predicted climate change for 30 years.

Pick a climate-region (Cali, Pacific NW, England, E. China, etc.), understand prevailing conditions, understand how far the glaciers/polar ice is away, consider topographic effects, and you know what will happen because of mankind's introduction of heat to the environs. An it is how climate has changed, AND temperature increases are a secondary, not primary effect.

Global Warming, not so much.
Global Heating, Global Melting, better.
Climate Change, accurate, but climate changes without man.

Oct 21, 2014
@Da, Actually, you bring up a good point, I am the first to successfully parameterize it, I should get to name it right?

Since it's mostly about waste heat being released from burning fossil fuels (which are like releasing extra sunshine stored eons ago) melting polar ice/glaciers, and now, since those have receded, the ocean is warming dramatically-well, I'll take suggestions from posterity.

What should man made climate change be called?
No, not BS, that covers the media fiasco.
Anyone?
Anthropomorphic climate change is accurate, but definitely not catchy.

Oct 21, 2014
For so many reasons: The climate is changing, but media has got concerned peoples arguing about red herrings; CO2 and temperature.
When it is really about oil and the released heat.
No, it's about coal (mostly) and trapped heat. Oil adds at most a fraction, and it doesn't matter how much heat the human race makes; it's spit in the ocean compared to the incoming solar heating.

You are certainly aware you can't prove a lie. This is why people have been arguing about CO2 and temperature for years, you can't come to conclusions using spurious variables.
Actually it's all because a bunch of companies decided to try propaganda to avoid having to account for the pollution they're making. It's been going on since forever, when miners didn't want to pay for the crops their pollution killed.

Just like the cigarette companies tried to.

contd

Oct 21, 2014
In fact, many of the same people were involved in denying climate change as were involved in denying cancer and heart disease from cigarettes.

Now, you probably mock my model, but higher fidelity iterations of it have predicted climate change for 30 years.
LOL, right and I have a quantum gravity theory, and no one will publish it. Snicker. You got no model; it's another scam. That's why you're denying.

you know what will happen because of mankind's introduction of heat to the environs.
This is silliness. The amount of heat that comes to Earth from the Sun is so many orders of magnitude greater than the human heat contribution that it's not even worth considering human endeavors. Truly spit in the ocean.

Oct 21, 2014
BTW, we can thank cold climate for Frankenstein. Shelly wrote the book during the 'summer that never was'.
LOL, Frankenstein was a character in a novel, and you've confused that character with another character, Frankenstein's Monster. Two at one blunder, rggy, heh.

So you think libruls and soshalusts are responsible for fictional characters?

Riotous. ROFL.

Oct 21, 2014
ryggesogn2 again being ignorant
The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 plus years, melting the glaciers that covered the most of the northern hemisphere.
You have forgotten AGAIN, it is rate which is important.

You ryggesogn2 are just like Water_Prophet, claimed degree but never writes like that.

Water_prophet should KNOW a bowl of ice & water can ONLY model one tiny part of one aspect of ice & water interaction, it CANNOT model circulation, especially not tidal forces,

Why are you going to so much trouble to prove again you couldn't have achieved any training in physics as pre-requisite for physical chemistry.

You clearly are like ryggesogn2 having trouble with comprehension, I am not interested in your claimed qualification, I am reporting that based on the way you write & the naive views you have you couldnt have got one !

Why can't U articulate your claim of at least ONE of the 10 items I am supposed to have failed in offering ?

Oct 22, 2014
The reason involves El Nino, a warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that affects weather worldwide. In 1998, the year started off super-hot because of an El Nino. But then that El Nino disappeared and temperatures moderated slightly toward the end of the year.


That is truly laughable. El Nino affected the weather patterns worldwide, then disappeared (and somehow still affected the patterns enough to make a return soon) and now they are trying to use it as a cause rather than the effect it is. This is the Polar Vortex BS all over again. Good ol' New Speak.

Oct 22, 2014
Rygg,

In case you haven't see this.

http://www.nation...ohn-fund

Democrats openly committing voter fraud as we speak......


Oct 22, 2014
Do you think the Deniers have the character to admit to their kids and grandchildren they were part of the problem, the reason we did not save the Earth?

Probably not. All the Bush Voters disappeared, and now we only have Tea Folk, who apparently had nothing to do with Bush, his wars, his torture of those unable to resist, the Police State, or the Great Republican Economic Meltdown.

Oct 22, 2014
All the Obama voters have disappeared and want nothing to do with Obama's wars in North Africa and the Middle East, or his economy, or his preference for non-citizens.
And Obama denies the science, from the govt he is supposedly leading, stating the Keystone pipeline should be built.
6 years of Obama and 'liberals' can't stop blaming Bush.

Deception and fraud are the only way 'liberals' can win. That is the entire purpose of the IPCC, deception and fraud.

Oct 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 22, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 22, 2014
Shouldn't we be asking ourselves why the two Satellite sets don't agree with this article, why radiosonde data doesn't agree, why NONE of the other data sets that include SST agree with NOAA? Even NASA where they share the data doesn't show the same warming.

Does this sound like settled science, or should we only use one data set, NOAA and throw away all others to force public policy?

And yes CO2 is a GHG and yes it does cause warming. How much? We are uncertain still, otherwise we wouldn't need a range of ECS 1.5 - 4.0 per IPCC.

Drop the tribalism and focus on the science.

Oct 22, 2014
Meanwhile, on Earth, the NASA data confirms the NOAA results; says so right in the article (which you should have read before commenting):
NASA, which measures temperatures slightly differently, had already determined that September was record-warm.

Oct 22, 2014
"My guess is the Ferguson/Brown shooting inquiry will show that the cop fired in self defense "
-----------------------------------------------------
WHAT?

This is a forum regarding Global Warming. Take your petty and pathetic politics elsewhere.

Oct 22, 2014
Water doesn't store heat. The NOAA can't make up it's mind, and this point why should anyone trust the government based science? These are the same people that tell us that we have to fear Russia FFS.

Oct 22, 2014
Do you think the Deniers have the character to admit to their kids and grandchildren they were part of the problem, the reason we did not save the Earth?

Probably not. All the Bush Voters disappeared, and now we only have Tea Folk, who apparently had nothing to do with Bush, his wars, his torture of those unable to resist, the Police State, or the Great Republican Economic Meltdown.


This is how I can tell you're not here for the science. This is purely political for you and the other two trolls.

Oct 22, 2014
"Water doesn't store heat"
--------------------------------

Look up the Specific Heat of Water and get back to us.

Oct 22, 2014
Water doesn't store heat.
Bwahahahaha!

Go soak your head in a bucket of boiling water then come back and say that again!

What barber college did you learn physics at?

Oct 22, 2014
Water doesn't store heat.


Bwahahahaha!

Go soak your head in a bucket of boiling water then come back and say that again!

What barber college did you learn physics at?


Be sure to get someone to make a video of you sticking your head in that bucket of boiling water that doesn't store heat. (Be sure to remove it from it's heat source first - wouldn't want you to get burned now)

This way if you're correct you will have the proof.

And if you're wrong, we'll all have another YouTube video to watch and laugh at.

Oct 22, 2014
Ah @Da, Oil, coal, fossil fuels is the point.

You have the disadvantage of me having predicted climate for years. You can mock all you like. But you admitted there are things you are not capable of mathematically, that I can do as a matter of routine.
It is no shame on you, you could probably run circles around me in your area of expertise. Why no open your mind to possibility, it is not like you have anything better to do.

But I don't know why you, and this site resist the elementary so much.

It does amaze those minds willing to listen. I have seen the looks of wonder.

Sadly, very few here, and no GW-ers, oddly.
Still holding on to the false CO2 religion, sacrificing reason on the altar of pride and propaganda.

Oct 22, 2014
Trying to remove a duplicate post.

Oct 22, 2014
Ah @Da, Oil, coal, fossil fuels is the point.

You have the disadvantage of me having predicted climate for years. You can mock all you like. But you admitted there are things you are not capable of mathematically, that I can do as a matter of routine.
Ummmm, only problem being you don't know anything about the physics of CO₂. As you proceed to demonstrate:
Still holding on to the false CO2 religion, sacrificing reason on the altar of pride and propaganda.
You really ought to bother to understand how AGCC actually works instead of making up straw men.

Oct 22, 2014
Meanwhile, on Earth, the NASA data confirms the NOAA results; says so right in the article (which you should have read before commenting):
NASA, which measures temperatures slightly differently, had already determined that September was record-warm.


Guess I missed the headline that said NOAA and NASA headed for hottest year on record. In fact, because as you say reading is fundamental;

"Last month was the warmest September globally since records began being kept in 1880, NASA reported Sunday. January through September data have 2014 already at the third warmest on record. Projections by NOAA make clear 2014 is taking aim at hottest year on record."

Joe Romm at thinkprogress.org

Google is your friend :)

Oct 22, 2014
Wow, after reading these comments, I am convinced we are destined to become an extinct species.

Ignorance, and putting your head in the sand is the best solution to collected data which proves a heating trend in both the atmosphere and the ocean??? I've lost faith in humanity.

What is the benefit of ignorance in this case? Nothing.
What is the benefit of taking action to observed heating trends? Possibly saving future generations?

Hmmmm....


There is no argument about the evidence, just your conclusions.

Oct 22, 2014
"Water doesn't store heat"
--------------------------------

Look up the Specific Heat of Water and get back to us.


The heat leaves the water. You know, that stuff that clouds are made of. If water held heat, it wouldn't change states so readily. So it is evident that what you are talking about is a an instance of entropy after a peak of thermal soaking from some form of radiation. The heat readily leaves the molecule though, because water doesn't hold thermal energy.

Apparently I went to a better school than you. One that at least taught me what a change of state actually means.

Oct 22, 2014
All the Obama voters have disappeared and want nothing to do with Obama's wars in North Africa and the Middle East, or his economy, or his preference for non-citizens.


Deception and fraud are the only way 'liberals' can win. That is the entire purpose of the IPCC, deception and fraud.


DeceptiCons will shit in a paper bag if they can add the word 'Liberal' to a sentence. Ohh we are all so afraid liberals. The most decent and caring people of the world who's agenda is to help people. It just shows the sleazy depths that neocon libertarians and the wingnut republicans will take to push their agenda. An agenda that consists of greed, corruption, anti labor, anti student, anti science... anti good government. Congress is a freaking food fight since the depticons took over. Racists bitchy twits you all are @R2. But that's the way you like it isn't it?

Your still wrong on global warming, the facts are facts and the numbers are clearly in front of your face.

Oct 22, 2014
JoeBlue said:
"The heat leaves the water. You know, that stuff that clouds are made of. If water held heat, it wouldn't change states so readily. So it is evident that what you are talking about is a an instance of entropy after a peak of thermal soaking from some form of radiation. The heat readily leaves the molecule though, because water doesn't hold thermal energy."


I would really like to explore this with you to figure out what you are trying to say. This started with your stating that water "doesn't store heat."

Can you please expand this statement?

Let me explain why I would really like to understand what you are saying. From a thermodynamic standpoint, if you add heat to a substance it changes temperature. It stores the heat by increasing temperature. So how can water not store heat? Please explain that for us?

Oct 23, 2014
Be sure to get someone to make a video of you sticking your head in that bucket of boiling water that doesn't store heat. (Be sure to remove it from it's heat source first - wouldn't want you to get burned now)
Oh my gawd, please do this! Please! You will convince me to argue with ubamoron, againstseeing, shooless and all the rest is you do this!!I swear I will!

Oct 23, 2014
Warming Earth heading for hottest year on record (Update)
Oh brother, more ridiculous hysteria from the NOAA. "It's the hottest ______ ever!" (fill in the blank)

Why is it, they're the only ones tooting this horn? Is it because they use their own internal, and highly manipulated data set, whereas all the other major global temperature data sets state otherwise? Naw, that couldn't be it... could it?


from the article

"NASA, which measures temperatures slightly differently, had already determined that September was record-warm."
Funny, i didn't know September was a stand in for the entire year... oh wait, it's not.

According to satellite data, here is what is really happening with global temperatures:
den.

Whack-a-mole! Oh my the ubamoron is back! I would like to say you were missed, but I don't like to lie. You are still a moron, moron.

Oct 23, 2014
Meanwhile, on Earth, the NASA data confirms the NOAA results; says so right in the article (which you should have read before commenting):
NASA, which measures temperatures slightly differently, had already determined that September was record-warm.


Guess I missed the headline that said NOAA and NASA headed for hottest year on record.
What's this even mean? Do you mean it's going to be hot at the Goddard Space Flight Center? At the NOAA Woods Hole CICOR facility? In Washington DC? At the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City?

Word salad detected.

Oct 23, 2014
JoeBlue obviously has no education in science with this idiot blurt
Water doesn't store heat.
In phsycis, even at high school & some primary schools in better places than USA they teach & demonstrate the "specific heat of water" vs ice vs vapour etc

I'm sorry that either english is not your first language or you didnt get an education, sad :-(

Look up "Specific heat" eg ice/water in relation to your redneck comment "Water doesn't store heat."

Then get back to all the people here with an apology for either being uneducated or lying ?

Please focus on science & not about fear of russia etc, hypocrisy not allowed here.

Please TRY to understand, in respect of climate science, get a grip on the fundamentals then you are not going to be manipulated by those that use technical terms indiscriminately & without the context of understanding when pushing any politics !

Oct 23, 2014
Water_Prophet again proves he has NO claimed university study
It does amaze those minds willing to listen. I have seen the looks of wonder.
This is presumably in ref to your bowl of ice/water & a candle. The look of wonder is how someone can be so stupidly simplistic to suggest it models climate with all the complexity NOT possibly evident in a bowl of water !

U show u don't understand Scale !

Water_Prophet proves he lied about a claimed degree in physical chemistry
Still holding on to the false CO2 religion, sacrificing reason...
1. How are molecular vibrational states a "religion" ?
2. How is long wave IR a "religion" ?
3. All other related science ?

How can a bowl of ice/water predict:-

- CHANGE in ocean currents re heat eg 1998 on?
- Tidal forces eg change of gravitational influence.

You SHOULD know that watching ice & water establish an equilibrium in an isolated container and then crafting vague interpretations & claims is NOT a model.

Oct 23, 2014
JoeBlue sheer ignorance of heat, specific heat & statistical mechanics
The heat readily leaves the molecule though, because water doesn't hold thermal energy.
Its clear JoeBlue, you have no quantitative understanding of specific heat and how to articulate the issue of time in respect of heat loss.

JoeBlue claims
Apparently I went to a better school than you. One that at least taught me what a change of state actually means.
Its often not the school its the student doing their homework... Did you learn the art of dialectic ?

Yes you SHOULD know a change of state involves phase change so to claim "readily leaves the molecule" is not science, that is a purely qualitative assessment showing no understanding.

If what you say is true then please explain why melting ice has a huge specific heat of ~150x that of ice & ~75x that of water ?

It seems you have an unfortunate way of articulating your feelings, you do realise specific heat works BOTH ways ?

Oct 23, 2014
Ah @Da: You proceed to show you are uninterested in expanding your horizons.
:(

You bring up a good point about fossil fuels not being much to the Sun. However, you need to examone just how small a fluctuation it takes in the Sun's energy to effect change. 1/10000. Then you need to consider fossil fuel heat is waste heat and additional to the Sun's energy.

There are a few other factors.

But it doesn't matter, your mind is a fossilized sponge. You and Mike, charging off in misconstrued directions so you won't have to accept reality.

Oct 23, 2014
Ah @Da: You proceed to show you are uninterested in expanding your horizons.
:(
No, it's that I'm not so open minded my brains fall out.

You bring up a good point about fossil fuels not being much to the Sun.
No, I didn't. Read it again. You didn't understand it.

The problem with burning fossil fuels is not heat pollution. It's heat trapping, and the major source of the heat (overwhelming source, actually) is the Sun. The problem is CO₂, which when added to the atmosphere changes the climate by changing how much of the Sun's heat can escape to space, cooling the Earth. It does not change the amount of sunlight, either, because sunlight is high-frequency radiation to which the atmosphere is transparent; but it does change how much of the low-frequency radiation from Earth leaves, thus making it warmer.

Until you get this through your head you shouldn't talk about anthropogenic global climate change.

Oct 23, 2014
BTW, heat pollution *is* an environmental problem with some electric power plants; however, this is a local problem, not a global problem. We're not talking about heat pollution here, but about CO₂ pollution. Heat pollution does not cause (or even significantly contribute to) global climate change; CO₂ pollution, on the other hand, *does*.

Oct 23, 2014
CO₂ pollution, on the other hand, *does*.

So the AGWites say.

Oct 23, 2014
So physics says.

Gee, last I checked this was a physics site. Who knew?

Oct 23, 2014
So physics says.

Gee, last I checked this was a physics site. Who knew?

No, the physics does not say.
The AGWite GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL makes the assumption.

Oct 23, 2014
RyggDummy says:
So physics says.

Gee, last I checked this was a physics site. Who knew?

No, the physics does not say.
The AGWite GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL makes the assumption.


Da Schneib just gave you an outline of how CO2 works to allow short wave radiation through and it slows down long wave radiation heading out of the atmosphere. You don't even say why you think that is wrong. Please provide a link that shows how physics says that is wrong.

Your lack of understanding does not make something true.

Oct 23, 2014
ryggesogn2,
It has nothing to do with any climate model. CO2 is known to affect the climate from basic physics and empirical data. I know a lot of people have a fear of computers, but they aren't necessary at all for the basic parts of climate science.

Oct 23, 2014
You don't make sense @R2. "The AGWite GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL makes the assumption." There is something about an assumption but you don't say what it is. Are you just chicken or too afraid your going to be wrong again?

Can you post your complaint on AGWites as a power-point somewhere so we can all get a laugh.


Oct 24, 2014
ryggesogn2 claimed degree in physics & when questioned asked me to prove my qualifications which I did, contact Curtin University, Bentley Western Australia as can water_prophet to confirm yet ryggesogn2 hasn't but, when I likewise ask ryggesogn2 to confirm his degree in physics he can't or won't, only interpretation is ryggesogn2 (& likely water_prophet) are liars.

When ryggesogn2 claims
So the AGWites say.
which just like water_prophet are qualitative utterances NEVER quantified then the only tangible conclusion is both ryggesogn2 & water_prophet could NOT have their respective claimed degrees therefore both are liars !

ryggesogn2, water_prophet; CO2 WELL KNOWN, proven, never refuted, put up & shut up.

water_prophet claimed effect of CO2 is small (qualitative), please quantify water_prophet, that is what uni graduates in physical sciences do EASILY !

Yes CO2 effect is small on the atmosphere, it is measurable:-
http://www.woodfo...rg/notes

Oct 24, 2014
Water_Prophet mumbling incoherently again
But it doesn't matter, your mind is a fossilized sponge. You and Mike, charging off in misconstrued directions so you won't have to accept reality.
This is the same typical speak of people who have NEVER studied physics or even pre-requisite units for related disciplines such as chemistry.

Water_Prophet muttered rubbish earlier
Still holding on to the false CO2 religion, sacrificing reason
Showing water_prophet is "not reason able", prove it, answer the questions I posed please, like a good little fetus:-

1. How are molecular vibrational states (eg CO2) a "religion" ?
2. How is long wave IR a "religion" ?

AND How can water_prophet's bowl of ice/water heated by a candle predict:-

- CHANGE in ocean currents re heat eg 1998 on?
- Tidal forces eg change of gravitational influence.

Capisce; Vague interpretations & (post) claims do not make a MODEL !

Uni students KNOW maths is absolutely essential or they are deluded.

Oct 24, 2014
MM: I don't know how much time you have, but if you want to see Water Prophet (Alchemist at this time but he changed his name after this debacle) really embarrass himself take a look at this long thread.

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

He did what many have done and retreated claiming victory. Read through if you have the time and you will find out what an idiot he is. He came away from this thinking that Captain_Stumpy and I are the same person. That will demonstrate how poor his reasoning is.

Oct 24, 2014
...I would really like to explore this with you to figure out what you are trying to say. This started with your stating that water "doesn't store heat."

Can you please expand this statement?

Let me explain why I would really like to understand what you are saying. From a thermodynamic standpoint, if you add heat to a substance it changes temperature. It stores the heat by increasing temperature. So how can water not store heat? Please explain that for us?


Storing is not holding. Holding implies that it has control of the positional relation of that energy, as if it could hold information.

Oct 24, 2014

Please TRY to understand, in respect of climate science, get a grip on the fundamentals then you are not going to be manipulated by those that use technical terms indiscriminately & without the context of understanding when pushing any politics !


You're a physicist and you didn't know that the word HOLD implies control over the positional relation of said energy? You can talk all the shit you want hero, I have nothing to worry about from you.

Oct 24, 2014
Joe Blue said:

Please TRY to understand, in respect of climate science, get a grip on the fundamentals then you are not going to be manipulated by those that use technical terms indiscriminately & without the context of understanding when pushing any politics !


You're a physicist and you didn't know that the word HOLD implies control over the positional relation of said energy? You can talk all the shit you want hero, I have nothing to worry about from you.


What in the world are you trying to say? What do you think you are saying when you say: "control over the positional relation of said energy"? This is word salad. Please explain what you are trying to say.

Oct 24, 2014
The assumptions are how the GHG feedbacks are tweaked to make THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL fit observations.

Oct 24, 2014
Joe Blue says the heat instantly leaves the water, decides to start the boiling water challenge..
http://youtu.be/ev-E6F1g3NE
Look how red he goes!

Oct 24, 2014
So physics says.

Gee, last I checked this was a physics site. Who knew?

No, the physics does not say.
The AGWite GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL makes the assumption.
Sure it does. CO₂ absorbs long-wave radiation from the Earth and prevents it from escaping to space. It does not absorb short-wave radiation from the Sun, so the energy from the Sun keeps coming in; it can't get out.

It's simple physics. As plain as the nose on your face.

You do know physics, right?

Oct 24, 2014
...I would really like to explore this with you to figure out what you are trying to say. This started with your stating that water "doesn't store heat."

Can you please expand this statement?

Let me explain why I would really like to understand what you are saying. From a thermodynamic standpoint, if you add heat to a substance it changes temperature. It stores the heat by increasing temperature. So how can water not store heat? Please explain that for us?


Storing is not holding. Holding implies that it has control of the positional relation of that energy, as if it could hold information.
No, it just means the water is warm.

Duh.

++++++

The assumptions are how the GHG feedbacks are tweaked to make THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL fit observations.
How do you "tweak" "CO₂ absorbs long-wave radiation but ignores short-wave radiation?"

It's a very simple statement, and quite obvious. Not much wiggle room there.

Oct 24, 2014
CO₂ absorbs long-wave radiation

What long wave radiation? What wavelengths?
There is a lot of wiggle room in the 'forcings' used in THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL'.
CO₂ absorbs long-wave radiation from the Earth and prevents it from escaping to space.

No, it does not.

Oct 24, 2014
Thermo, retreated claiming victory? Look at that assaulted by Caliban, Maggnus, Capt Stumpy, and yourself, who we all now know are the same pathetic person, or four cyber bullies, because you admit you know each other. Able to not only hold my own, but show 4 approaches you couldn't discount to your one, which ignored both ground rules and objections.
Sure you won. Especially if we take a vote among you us.

Anyway I know a way to resolve this, Maggnus and Da actually brought it up, the incrementally additive vs proportional approach to calculating effects.
You showed me it was a linear effect, and you know that at at extremely low densities there is a chance that one, two, ten, 1000 CO2 particles have some chance of not affecting the system, from an improbability of being struck, and from a lack of interaction with each other.

Cont...

Oct 24, 2014
So the equation is simple, let [CO2] equal the concentration of CO2.
The change in CO2 effect on GW will be related to:
[CO2] + δ[CO2] which despite CO2 in common are independent variables, and

k * [CO2]
so these can be related by a constant so

[CO2] + δ[CO2] = K * [CO2].

We add the additional assumption that it is zero at zero concentration.

This is a pretty little problem that arrives at a simple distribution functions with assumptions we all agreed on.

Solve it.

Now if you are all who you say you are:

@Thermo: If you are who you say you are, you should be able to solve it by looking at it. Not even having to debate the correctness of it.
@Mike, it should take you a little while with pen and paper.
@Da, you already admitted it was beyond you, but you could surprise yourself.
@Stumpy, depending if you are wearing your PhD visage or your student visage, who cares?

Now let's watch as the above all have an excuse to fail the challenge.

Oct 24, 2014
CO₂ absorbs long-wave radiation

What long wave radiation?
From the Earth. Because it's warm. You do know that warm things radiate heat, right?

What wavelengths?
4.3 microns and 15 microns.

There is a lot of wiggle room in the 'forcings' used in THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL'.
I don't see any there. I think you're lying again.

CO₂ absorbs long-wave radiation from the Earth and prevents it from escaping to space.

No, it does not.
Yes, it does. That's why the Earth is 33K warmer than the Moon, at the same distance from the Sun. (The CO₂ accounts for 13K of it.)

Oct 24, 2014
from an improbability of being struck,
What? This is heat energy being radiated by the ground. Are you suggesting the CO₂ we're talking about here is somewhere other than in the atmosphere? Maybe you think the little moleculies can put on earthscreen, or earth shades, or something?

and from a lack of interaction with each other.
Why would they have to interact with each other? You are totally clueless about how this works.

As for your equation, why should it equal a constant? You're assuming that the rate at which CO₂ is being added is constant. It's not. It's increasing.

Oct 24, 2014
What in the world are you trying to say? What do you think you are saying when you say: "control over the positional relation of said energy"? This is word salad. Please explain what you are trying to say.


In physics, when you hold something, it means you are determining it's position and state. Water doesn't hold anything, because it's not in control of it's state. It's state is merely a derivation of causality.

Inside a computer, within the memory, those little cells hold their state until told to release it or alter it's state. Water doesn't do this, so water doesn't hold energy of any kind. It can store it temporarily, but the amount of energy decreases at a "predictable" rate. Think of water as a ceramic capacitor, it doesn't really store energy so much as prevent spikes from crossing it's position. That we have a planet mostly made of water are why the temperatures on earth remain relatively stable.

Oct 24, 2014
In physics, when you hold something, it means you are determining it's position and state.
No, that's called "measuring."

On Earth.

Water doesn't hold anything, because it's not in control of it's state. It's state is merely a derivation of causality.
What's a "derivation of causality?" More word salad. Gimme some dressing and croutons.

Inside a computer, within the memory, those little cells hold their state until told to release it or alter it's state. Water doesn't do this, so water doesn't hold energy of any kind.
That's why water is always cold.

Oh, wait...

It can store it temporarily, but the amount of energy decreases at a "predictable" rate.
That rate depends on the temperature of the water and the temperature of the environment. You know, like on top of a stove. Otherwise you could never boil water.

Wow, imaginary physics. No wonder the deniers are so screwed up.

Oct 24, 2014
....e water and the temperature of the environment. You know, like on top of a stove. Otherwise you could never boil water.

Wow, imaginary physics. No wonder the deniers are so screwed up.


Oh, so you know more than Niels Bohr now eh? We are discussing a field that would not exist without him, and you are telling me that he is wrong. The man that essentially created the Standard Model that was proven correct in 2012, is wrong because some guy on a pulp science site says so.

Denier? What am I denying here? What in the hell are you talking about?

Oct 24, 2014
Ummmm, sorry, Niels Bohr never worked on the spectrum of CO₂.

On Earth.

What you're denying is the physics of CO₂ in the atmosphere, as well as a joint statement by the UK Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences.

Clathrates are decomposing on the sea floor and releasing methane into the atmosphere by the thousands of tons per year, right now today. The Clathrate Bomb (or gun) Hypothesis is no longer a hypothesis.

Atlantic ocean: http://www.nature...-1.15761
Arctic ocean: http://www.su.se/...1.198540
Elsewhere: Who the hell knows? We haven't looked yet. Mostly because the deniers are stopping the scientists from doing research.

Oct 24, 2014

Atlantic ocean: http://www.nature...-1.15761
Elsewhere: Who the hell knows? We haven't looked yet. Mostly because the deniers are stopping the scientists from doing research.


The conversation is about water storing energy, not CO^2.

Yeah, the "deniers" on this sub-standard site are stopping a guy from India from taking his temperature measurements... Because that is a real thing.

You are sounding more and more like you just want to make life choices for other people.

Oct 24, 2014
The conversation is about climate change.

Your weird ideas about water "not storing heat" are merely a side-issue. I invite you again to go soak your head in a bucket of boiling water. If you live, you'll know all about the storage of heat in water.

Water stores heat (like most substances) in increased motion of its constituent molecules. There's another thing called "latent heat," too, which stores even more heat in the difference between solid and liquid, and liquid and gas, but at this point you're clueless about the basics so we'll leave that until you figure out how heat works in the first place.

It's too late for peoples' life choices to matter; the clathrates are already melting. What we need to do now is figure out how not to become extinct. Because it's gonna get hot. Real hot. 105ºF in the oceans at the equator.

Oct 24, 2014
I've seen climate deniers say a lot of stupid stuff, but claiming you can't boil water is one of the stupidest ever.

Congratulations.

Where the hell do you think the heat is going when you put a pan of water on the stove and turn it on high?

Do you seriously think that increasing temperature doesn't equate to increasing heat, in ANY substance? (Latent heat excepted, since you're incapable of understanding it in the first place.) The only question at this point is whether you "believe in" the Law of Conservation of Energy or not. It's really new; they only discovered it in the nineteenth century, you know, a couple hundred years ago. :p

Oct 24, 2014
Wow, did you even graduate high school?

You must be an American.

Oct 24, 2014
LOL, a guy who thinks you can't boil water asks me if I graduated high school.

Not to mention a guy who confuses measurement with specific heat.

Typical clueless denier, more interested in politics than reality. Wouldn't know a physics if it jumped up and bit him on the ass.

Oct 24, 2014
Oh, so now I think you can't boil water eh? I didn't know you could read minds.

P.S. Specific heat is a measurement.

Oct 24, 2014
Oh, so now I think you can't boil water eh? I didn't know you could read minds.

I don't need to read minds; I can see what you said. You said water doesn't store heat. If it doesn't, it can never boil; it will never get hot enough, because it can't store heat.

This is obvious.

How come you haven't soaked your head in a bucket of boiling water yet?

Just askin'.

Specific heat is a measurement.
No, it's a brute physical fact that can be measured. Denying specific heat is like denying that the Moon circles the Earth, or denying gravity. Gravity can be measured too, as can the Moon's orbit. Does this make them non-existent?

Duh ummm.

Oct 24, 2014
That's why the Earth is 33K warmer than the Moon, at the same distance from the Sun.

Heat does escape.
You asserted that CO2 absorbing at 15 um prevents all heat from escaping the earth.
The peak wavelength of a 300K is ~10 um. There are significant IR windows in the atm that radiate heat into space from 8-12 um.

Oct 24, 2014
You asserted that CO2 absorbing at 15 um prevents all heat from escaping the earth.
No, I didn't.

Straw man fallacy detected.

Edited to add: 1. I never said "all," and even if I had 2. I specified two frequency bands, not one.

You're lying again, rggy.

Oct 24, 2014
Yes, you did state that CO2 blocks all IR radiation.

"Sure it does. CO₂ absorbs long-wave radiation from the Earth and prevents it from escaping to space. It does not absorb short-wave radiation from the Sun, so the energy from the Sun keeps coming in; it can't get out

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...tml#jCp"

Obviously heat does radiate from the Earth so your statement is wrong on two counts.

Oct 24, 2014
Yes, you did state that CO2 blocks all IR radiation.
Quote it.

Your quote does not contain the word "all," and doesn't contain my statement about the wavelengths of the CO₂ spectrum.

You're lying again, rggy.

Oct 24, 2014
See, this is what deniers do: lie about what people said.

Oct 24, 2014
See, this is what deniers do: lie about what people said.


No one lies more than ryggy.

Oct 24, 2014
Well, Joe the Clueless is working on it.

Oct 24, 2014
Yes, you did state that CO2 blocks all IR radiation.
Quote it.

Your quote does not contain the word "all," and doesn't contain my statement about the wavelengths of the CO₂ spectrum.

You're lying again, rggy.

That's YOUR quote, verbatim.
If that quote was a lie, then you need to be more precise.

Oct 24, 2014
Well, Joe the Clueless is working on it.


Show me some math proving that water molecules can hold information like you are stating.

Oct 24, 2014
Ah, @Da, quantum tells us that a photon can go right through an atom without interacting with it, even absorbing ones, because their is basically only a chance of it interacting. The other important effect is CO2 exchanging photons with each other. One absorbs/releases and another "catches" that photon and releases, etc.. while important at high concentrations, it is not an important effect at low concentrations...

As to the equation, it's correct, makes sense, and solvable.

Oct 24, 2014
@Joeblue, now that I read your posts I understand what I must seem like trying to explain to people who won't understand.

I read your post and understand exactly. You've uncovered Mike's and thermo's little secret, without being told. Mike doesn't understand physics, to be fair to Da S, he admits he doesn't have higher level science, thermo claims to be a plasma engineer, who, in my day at least, were the "gods" on non-linear equations, but he has no clue about water not storing heat... or any thermodynamics concepts that are not simple and google-able. He can answer using Capt Stumpy's account, which suggests they're the same, or maybe room-mates, they're cyber bullies.

Anyway, don't let them frighten you off. I'm my own crazy, don't let me frighten you off either :)

@Da Schneib, Joe is right, he talking about say, junior level college physics. Making solid points.

Oct 25, 2014
Yes, you did state that CO2 blocks all IR radiation.
Quote it.

Your quote does not contain the word "all," and doesn't contain my statement about the wavelengths of the CO₂ spectrum.

You're lying again, rggy.

That's YOUR quote, verbatim.
If that quote was a lie, then you need to be more precise.
No, the quote doesn't say what you said it did. The word "all" does not appear in it, and the wavelengths of the IR spectral lines of CO₂ do not appear in it either.

You're lying, rggy.
+++++++++
water molecules can hold information like you are stating.
Straw man detected.

Lying detected.

Always, always, at the end deniers lie. Every.

Single.

Time.

Oct 25, 2014
quantum tells us
Quantum talks to you?

Fascinating.

that a photon can go right through an atom without interacting with it, even absorbing ones, because their is basically only a chance of it interacting.
So what?

The other important effect is CO2 exchanging photons with each other.
Why? Once the photon has interacted once, it has less than a 50% chance of making it to space, which means it stays in the atmosphere, in the ground, or in the ocean. Further interactions can only make those chances worse.

One absorbs/releases and another "catches" that photon and releases, etc.. while important at high concentrations, it is not an important effect at low concentrations...
It's not an important effect on heat in our atmosphere. It's completely irrelevant to AGCC.

As to the equation, it's correct, makes sense, and solvable.
So? It claims that the rate of CO₂ release is constant, which is a lie.

Oct 25, 2014
@Joeblue, now that I read your posts I understand what I must seem like trying to explain to people who won't understand.

I read your post and understand exactly.
I just bet you did. You understand all about soaking your head in buckets.

Snicker.

Oct 25, 2014
thermostumpy, remember
@crybaby
blatant lie mixed with personal conjecture and absolutely no scientific justification for your comments = pseudoscience baiting/trolling
modeling the Earth-Sun system as a Sun, candle, and a bowl with water and ice
no scientific method while making assumptions based upon a false premise = pseudoscience conjecture baiting/trolling
media has got concerned peoples arguing about red herrings
that is why i keep saying to follow the science and skip the media/BS which is being fed and mislead by the big oil/business and anti-agw crowd as proven here: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
higher fidelity iterations of it have predicted climate change for 30 years
unproven and blatant lie as it has been requested you prove this conjecture
successfully parameterize it
again, unproven blatant lie as requests have been met with silence and obfuscation

Oct 25, 2014
the disadvantage of me having predicted climate for years
@crybaby
there is no evidence of this on PO, Google or anywhere else, including that BS Facebook page you linked in the past
therefore your claims are blatant lies as well as pseudoscience
mathematically, that I can do as a matter of routine
then why did you bail on Thermo's experiment?
EPIC FAIL on your part with that comment
those minds willing to listen
i've listened, and you have YET to prove ANY of your conjectures about climate other than AGW is real
CO2 religion
please provide reputable peer reviewed studies supporting the conjecture that CO2 is not responsible for AGW and that it has a religious following
the scientific method has given scientific evidence that contradicts your comments but you've not been able to provide like evidence refuting CO2 and it's effect on the climate
This is proof of TROLLING and pseudoscience
epic failure again

Oct 25, 2014
you are uninterested in expanding your horizons
@crybaby alche
attacking the people because you cannot produce scientific evidence supporting your argument = TROLLING and PSEUDOSCIENCE
epic fail again
your mind is a fossilized sponge. You and Mike, charging off in misconstrued directions so you won't have to accept reality
And yet they are providing evidence that can be looked up and read in just about any physics class as well as climate studies...
which again brings us back to the fact that you have provided NO empirical evidence from a study AT ALL above supporting your arguments
whereas there is plenty of evidence from reputable peer reviewed studies supporting the effects of CO2 on the climate
this means that you are simply making an argument in an attempt to obfuscate reality, thus denying reality yourself and transferring your delusional beliefs onto others in argument in order to further obfuscate science
no proof=pseudoscience
another epic fail

Oct 25, 2014
No, the physics does not say
@Ryg
conjecture without evidence = blatant lie for obfuscation
please provide the empirical study supporting this conjecture
Holding implies that it has control of the positional relation of that energy
@joeblow
assumption of definition based upon common use & syntax is not necessarily logical considering the technical terms that are often used in a field, which produce a lexicon that you may be unaware of
is there justification for your assumptions? please provide a link supporting your assumptions
Able to not only hold my own
@alche crybaby
you didn't hold your own
you failed to prove your point and you failed in the mathematical challenge due to your inability to follow the math
then you tried to blame it on syntax and argument
and then went the bully route when you realized that your own words showed you were an idiot... which is when you changed your moniker

proof that you are still obfuscating via blatant lies

Oct 25, 2014
Solve it....your PhD visage or your student visage
@alche crybaby
like i pointed out above: please provide empirical evidence supporting your conjecture that your experiment has accurately predicted the climate over the past decades per your claim: until you can prove this as well as prove there is evidence supporting your conjecture that CO2 is NOT affecting the climate, then I refuse to play your game above

given that you have YET to prove ANY of your own claims, it is simply another tactic to obfuscate the truth and reality

however, should you be able to prove your conjectures above, I will complete your task as requested posting it here
thanks
within the memory, those little cells hold their state
@joeblow
again, the lexicon used by computer science is not the same as the one used by physicists
please provide term usage links that support your conjecture and show which lexicon you are referring to for further analysis of argument

Oct 25, 2014
JoeSlow is a Java programmer.

You know about Java programmers, right? Straight out of college, can't program in C, wouldn't know a Unix if it bit them on the ass, don't think Java uses any memory or other system resources, and have faith in code generators (I call them bug generators, myself). My favorite was the one who insisted on pulling 250,000 records out of the database when someone searched on "A*." And instantiating them as objects. In memory. All of them. For one user. Out of ten thousand users. Whole damn thing came to a screeching halt when it ran out of memory, and the other 9,999 users got kicked off too when they had to reboot. Farking ijit.

And Water_Prophet is rc. Either that or one of them is imitating the other.

Oct 25, 2014
@Ryg
conjecture without evidence = blatant lie for obfuscation
please provide the empirical study supporting this conjecture


THE GLOBAL CLIMATE MODEL is not physics.

Oct 25, 2014
Aaaaaaahhhh, i missed this party and by the looks of it the comedy was quite hilarious, everytime i thought they'd top the previous idiocy they created, they take the stupidity a level further, man i'm hooked to this weekly series, lol.. so there we have it, let me put some extra shine on the nut rubs they inflicted upon themselves this time:

Here's the contenders:

First a new sockpuppet:

@joeblow (aka joeblue watches blue movies)

then the usual baboons:
@alche crybaby
waterfarted (waterprophet)
gorillacle (antigoracle)
ryggesogn2 (ryggyrtard as more commonly known here)

after some research ( not much really just reading one sentence of their replies) it was concluded that these monkeys escaped from a mental institution bound to prove to the world that they are in deed the dumbest bunch of idiots on the face of this very planet.

Oct 25, 2014
It's interesting to note the AGWites use invective instead logic to support their faith.
If logic is so difficult for them, they must not really understand their faith.

Oct 25, 2014
....well... i really have no choice, i gotta hand it to them, they were able to do so in all shining colors and pulled though with empirical evidence right here on the comment section. lol...

it's the only job in the world where their bosses pay them to be stupid, and bring down their and their bosses reputation, (and we all like rubbin it in and add some shine)

I think one of Our respected scientists Captain Stumpy on this site put it best when he said:

"Able to not only hold my own

@alche crybaby
you didn't hold your own"

Indeed, these clowns need someone else to hold it for them as they are afraid they might miss the potty.... lol....can't wait for the next show.... ;)

Oct 25, 2014
You're right I didn't hold my own, I destroyed you four with a score of four to one. The one being from blind line judges.
:D
My only regret is that it took so long to realize you were frauds.

As case in point. A very simple challenge for this crew of AGW's and the response is elementary school insults.

and JoeBlue seems to have a good edu., why do you cros discourage such people?
I will try to be more disciplined in ignoring you in the future.

Oct 25, 2014
ryggesogn2 I am focused on physics & leading questions NONE of which you have or it seems been able to respond to
It's interesting to note the AGWites use invective instead logic to support their faith. If logic is so difficult for them, they must not really understand their faith
Logic GOOD !
So ryggesogn2 be smart, explain this:-

"How can adding a greenhouse gas to the atmosphere such as CO2 with KNOWN thermal properties of re-radiation NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

ryggesogn2 use your claimed physics degree to explain that simple point ?

Do you need help; get 2 pieces of paper, calculate outcomes over 200 yrs re Earth to space:-
paper 1 long wave (LW) emissions with negligible CO2
paper 2 LW emissions with 400ppm CO2

Ryggesogn2, show YOUR physics degree/maths training WHY paper 2 could show LESS emissions than those of paper 1

If you can't COMPLETE the answer then you obviously prove you have NO skill in physics & are paid to be a dick !

Oct 25, 2014
You're right I didn't hold my own
@crybaby/Alche
we know... we can see that for ourselves
I destroyed you
this is called delusional behavior and there are meds you can take to fix it in most cases
you were frauds
an actual scientist with publications and patents vs you, alche... there was no one else but you and Thermo and you lost because you:
1- can't comprehend the math
2- don't know anything about physics
3- use false assumptions in your conjecture
4- you are delusional (see arguments and above for proof)
A very simple challenge for this crew of AGW's
and given that YOU have YET to answer the previous challenges that have been provided to YOU? does that mean that you are even MORE SO childish and elementary? after all, we've been challenging you to provide empirical evidence for as long as we've been here and you've YET to comply

this is typical denier tactics: bait and switch while using delusion as attempted proof

Oct 25, 2014
As case in point. A very simple challenge for this crew
@alche/crybaby
then we shall also post the case in point as proof of ignorance on your part

this is the thing that i've been talking about regarding your arguments from the time i first started posting to you: you have never once offered empirical proof of comments, simply argued with your delusional off-brand logic which is flawed by lack of education and experience with reality

Therefore: until you can provide proof of comment justifying your anti-climate science as well as ignorant rants regarding CO2 then it will simply be reported as TROLLING
because that it all it is

you rant away and have never given any proof... and when taking part in an exercise that would teach you something about CO2, you bail and claim victory (which is a delusion to anyone literate and mathematically capable)

no proof + no science + anti-science rants = Pseudoscience and baiting/trolling

Oct 25, 2014
Water_Prophet proves AGAIN he cannot have ANY claimed uni training or even a degree in physical chemistry with
You're right I didn't hold my own, I destroyed you four with a score of four to one. The one being from blind line judges.
:D
It is so sad the uneducated and naive don't know how deep they dig their hole !

Water_Prophet - FFS ! NO person who has even one year uni physics speaks the immense fractured uneducated delusional non-science one-upman-ship rubbish U do !

Water_Prophet reflected (by association)
and JoeBlue seems to have a good edu., why do you cros discourage such people?
Takes one to know one doesn't it !
Why don't you ask him out on a date should be ok, "not that there is anything wrong with that" ;-)

Pray tell, Water_Prophet does your ice/water brass bowl have a short wave (SW) source from ABOVE and a (local) correction for SW to Long wave (LW) transmutation or only a candle BENEATH - what does this show either way ?

LOL !

Oct 25, 2014
@Stumpy I always and only use physical properties, who needs proof and citations for physical properties? You're just mad that I can discount all your rubbish with the heat capacitance of water.

Certainly the equation with constraints needs no proof, it only needs to be solved. Can't do it? Not even with references. Here's the thing, anyone who has solved this kind of thing before could easily solve it.

You can't, Thermo can't, Mike_M can't. Despite your claimed education, you don't even recognize it, or recognize how to solve it! I am benchmarking this one!

It is trivial for any physical scientist, yet your response is juvenile name calling! Who has no credibility?

As thermo, you called me out on the vortex not being inefficient, I missed that, unfortunately; Please, PLEASE generate the vector equations demonstrating the inefficiency of the vortex, I'd so love to show you how ridiculous you are.

Oct 25, 2014
The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 plus years, melting the glaciers that covered the most of the northern hemisphere.


No it f****ng hasn't - as I've told you many times.....

http://www.realcl...cott.png

It's been COOLING since the end of the HCO .... Until mankind f****d it up.

Oct 25, 2014
More juvenile name-calling incoming.

Oct 25, 2014
who needs proof and citations for physical properties?
@alche/crybaby
your water bowl experiment is NOT proof, nor is it physical properties, nor is the CLAIM that your water bowl has been accurately predicting anything other than your delusional state for ANY length of time
Can't do it?
wont
won't even consider it or even look at it
not until you can prove your own comments etc as requested
I am benchmarking this one
that is good... it will show how you have continually made claims without proof and when asked to provide it, redirect in an attempt to obfuscate and switch the argument into a direction that you think makes people forget you've never given proof of anything
your response is
still waiting for you to provide proof
and i will continually remind you of this
don't mistake past history for juvenile name calling... after all, you ARE whining, crying and throwing a tantrum because we are asking for proof (still)

Oct 25, 2014
As thermo, you called me out on the vortex
@alche/crybaby
almost forgot... i am NOT Thermo and you know this

Thermo is an engineer who has publications as well as patents
I am a retired firefighter/truck captain as well as soldier

you continually post this crap, so (as i promised before) i will simply downvote and report those stupid posts where you make these conjectures without evidence and blatantly lie...

like you are still doing above

still waiting for that evidence, alche

Oct 25, 2014
Little did the puny humans know, all the incessant jabbering on all their favorite internet forums would amount to jack squat. As the democrats and the republicans bickered, their planet slowly withered. It's the same as Easter island, only the island is bigger and the inhabitants don't appear any more intelligent.

Oct 25, 2014
Captain, CAN'T.
not until you can prove your own comments etc as requested

This is certainly part of many proofs. This time it is applied physics. Like I say, I can get respectable citations that say anything I want. They didn't satisfy you when I wasted time doing that the last times. This is something anyone can do that generates obvious proof, if not conclusions, so why so shy?

It is based on properties of CO2 that must exist, absorption, absorption changing with concentration, being 0 at 0, and necessarily approaching the classical absorption values.

So, I am going to go with: CAN'T.

Oct 25, 2014
As to a bowl demonstrating climate change... it demonstrates why temperature has not gone crazy like everyone else predicted, ice melts, buffering it. It predicts the rise of the oceans, obviously. It predicts more extreme weather from local unpassivated heat, especially more if not stronger hurricanes/tropical storms from increased equator-polar gradients. I am not even sure what you would consider references or proofs. A meteorology course? The second law of thermodynamics?
And this is just an the basics. As I am tired of saying, intuitively the model can be improved. Instead of using a bowl, use a watery planet with ice caps and local heat effects. Then increase fidelity to add land, esp. mountains. Eventually you apply it to regions of the Earth, and are able to create logical constructs to predict how climates change.

Ah, but as always the beauty and simplicity is lost on you. Who is truly the denier?

Oct 25, 2014
Now, CO2 would necessarily act as a world-wide insulator. This would result in dramatic increase in temperature, like GW-ers predicted but didn't exactly happen. I mean there is some, but it is a secondary effect, iaw my post immediately preceding. Heat --> temperature effects.
Not only have we not seen the rises in temperature, but we haven't seen the other effect of CO2 induced insulation. The passivation of weather. It should not only get warmer, but equator pole gradients should lesson.

Again, what citations do you require for basic meteorology? The second law, Newton's laws of heating and cooling, are these sufficient for you, since you are not even an academian, what right do you have even to demand citations? You are no one to say whether they are credible or not, who gives a tooshie that YOU want citations? The arrogance is remarkable.

BTW, CAN'T, if you could, you wouldn't waste time saying
won't
you'd just answer, and say "what's your point?"

Oct 25, 2014
Alche changes its story again. And still hasn't justified previous claims.

And here's another one:
Now, CO2 would necessarily act as a world-wide insulator.
Ummm, it doesn't prevent energy from coming in; the energy comes in as short-wave radiation, with a peak at green (the center of the optical spectrum; defined by our eyes which have evolved to use the Sun's optical spectrum as seen from Earth's surface). But some of it doesn't make it back out; it's infrared, when it's re-emitted by the ground. CO₂ therefore admits all shortwave (light) radiation, but blocks some longwave (infrared) radiation; and this happens to be in a wavelength that water vapor does not absorb.

Thus, the heat that cannot escape increases the temperature until the amount going out equals the amount coming in. And if the concentration of CO₂ increases, the same amount of solar heat comes in, but a different amount of terrestrial heat goes out.

contd

Oct 25, 2014
We have not yet achieved equilibrium for the CO₂ we have already emitted, and clathrates are already melting in the Arctic and the Atlantic coast of the Eastern US (I usually call it the "Dirty East"). We don't know about any others, we haven't looked yet (mostly due to deniers voting to suppress science they don't like).

This will probably delay the onset of the next glaciation, but the cost is another temperature excursion like the PETM. And the next glaciation wasn't scheduled to happen (due to the Milankovic cycles) for thirty thousand years. This is a losing proposition, and the conditions we will create if we burn the coal we already have access to are a lot more like the Permian extinction (AKA the "Great Dying") than the PETM.

Oct 25, 2014
Ah @Da, Duh! So it should be even better, right?

(Will he realize he strengthened the argument, rather than diminished it by attempting to contradict me?)

I notice Thermo is hiding behind the Captain's skirt instead of just providing the answer...

Oct 26, 2014
Can anyone feel global warming? Just asking.

Oct 26, 2014
mountain_team_guy asked
Can anyone feel global warming? Just asking.
Depends what you mean by 'feel' ? The human body is easily influence (& misled) by humidity, I know its Science here:-
http://en.wikiped...Humidity

Something direct here is report from city I live in & expected to be hotter this year as well:-

http://niche.ii.n...of_2.pdf
http://niche.ii.n...of_2.pdf

But, it should be known that when you warm ice the resulting cold water cools the local region, so global warming can and does cool some local areas. The overall heat has however risen, this is basically just summing the overall heat - often called the calculus of integration.

The important complexity of the current situation has to do with oceans (water) much greater heat capacity than atmosphere (air) ~4000x !
http://en.wikiped...capacity

Oct 26, 2014
As thermo, you called me out on the vortex
@alche/crybaby
almost forgot... i am NOT Thermo and you know this

Thermo is an engineer who has publications as well as patents
I am a retired firefighter/truck captain as well as soldier

you continually post this crap, so (as i promised before) i will simply downvote and report those stupid posts where you make these conjectures without evidence and blatantly lie...

like you are still doing above

still waiting for that evidence, alche

Just to postilion i

Oct 26, 2014
There is good news.

The Arctic Sea ice volume experienced a rebound, so that even if you count losses from Greenland, there was a net increase of arctic sea ice VOLUME and land ice combined this year (and last year).

I guess that is a good thing since this will provide a bit of an increase in albedo. I'm not going to joke around though, this is looking pretty stupid at this point.

Probably need a few more decades to really pin down how much of this is rebound from the LIA and how much is CO2 and other human made causes.

If we burn oil for another ~30-35 years that remains for the globe with known reserves (not counting shale-oil in the U.S.) that's a lot more CO2.

I know global sea ice AREA was actually well above average for most of the year, but antarctic sea ice volume is decreasing due to warm currents under-cutting the ice. I don't think anyone is really sure how big the melting is though. For example, discovering unknown depths of ice is evidence of bad records....

Oct 26, 2014
The good news is the NH ice melt is apparently leveled off, and is not self-reinforcing, as negative feedback from the increased convection cooling the arctic and causing increased snowfall over land during the past several winters has prevented the prior exponential trend from continuing.

Bad news: every 5 or 6 years the low peak on the Keeling curve exceeds the high peak for the tropics, and every 11 or 12 years the low peak exceeds the high peak in the arctic. This suggests a noticeable change in steering currents could develop every 6 to 12 years. That is to say, the tropics is effected by the CO2 directly more than the arctic, since the tropics gets the highest incidence angle of sunlight. However, the Arctic is effected more by the accumulated heat than the tropics, it just lags by as much as 90 days in when and where that accumulated heat gets distributed.

In the medium term, an increase in when and where tropical cyclones can form is significant.

Oct 26, 2014
I maintain that the U.K, Spain, and Portugal are eventually going to start getting hit by full blown category 1 and 2 hurricanes, which is something they have experienced in at least thousands of years.

We've seen a few storms come perilously close to making it to Europe as category 1 in just the past several years. It seems only a matter of time before it happens.

They are used to very powerful upper level/cold core storms, but they aren't really used to 75 to 100mph surface lows.

Oct 26, 2014
We have not yet achieved equilibrium for the CO₂ we have already emitted, and clathrates are already melting in the Arctic and the Atlantic coast of the Eastern US (I usually call it the "Dirty East"). We don't know about any others, we haven't looked yet (mostly due to deniers voting to suppress science they don't like).


A paper was presented showing that Methane torches are not human induced, and have been going on very at least several millenia, even millions of years in a few cases. They just weren't noticed previously.

An extensive under-water survey was done on this last year and year before last by a rather large panel of scientists from several countries in Europe. They were looking for evidence that they were man-induced, and found they are in fact 100% natural phenomena.

There are places where clathrates are believed to be threatened if the deep ocean warms by a few degrees, but that is impossible except in a very few places where warm water submerges.

Oct 26, 2014
In order to heat the deep ocean by an average of 1C under present forcing would require 17,000 years, and that's not counting negative feedbacks which would be caused by the increased convection due to the heating of the SST. That's because the ocean is so big and so volumous, and the specific heat capacity is so high for water.

So Clathrates in relatively shallow water might be in danger, but the ocean as a whole is not.

Solution?

If the methane is in danger of being released and spending 7 years as a GH agent anyway, then we may as well harvest it and put it to good use, before that energy gets wasted and makes pollution. The CO2 and water vapor will have a less warming effect than the 7 years lifetime plus the indefinite CO2 lifetime that the natural breakdown causes.

Clathrates are pretty neat. In ice form, they can burn warm enough to produce energy, but cold enough to hold in your hand!

Wth processing, you can extract pure methane gas for use in fuel cells.

Oct 26, 2014
The system is designed to be self-regulating.

If you melt ice from the edges of Antarctica, the continent with experience isostatic rebound and the interior elevation will rise (several inches per year). Higher elevation means colder internal temperatures, which will begin to buffer the inland ice from melting. I believe my own density calculations showed that every 6 inches of ice that melts (for area average) allows 1 inch of isostatic rebound. This means that the highest elvations and plateaus are probably safe from the effects of GW even over multi-millennial time scales, at least for Antarctica.

I know it's theoretically possible for Greenland to totally melt in 500 years assuming linear growth rate in melting rate. This rate won't always be the same though, because of different positive and negative feedbacks between now and then.

Oct 26, 2014
Anyway, electric engines which run on Methane fuel cells would be much more efficient than batteries. Although some CO2 is produced by Methane, it has a 4 hydrogen per Carbon ratio, whereas more complex hydrocarbons approach of limit of just 2 to 1. This makes Methane the cleanest form of Hydrogen storage which doesn't require metamaterials for reasonably safe storage and transport. Pure hydrogen is awaste of time for now, since Methane is ultimately more environmentally friendly. We don't want gigatons of nano-particles and metamaterials in our atmosphere and environment either, now do we? We already know a few nano-particles, like carbon nanotubes, can produce cancers similar to asbestos. These materials must be coated or bonded with non-toxic plastics or other materials in order to prevent exposure to animal life, else we'd be right back where we are now. Replacing one toxin with another potentially worse isn't wise...

Oct 26, 2014
Recycling gigatons of automobile grade battery waste is going to be massively expensive. Sure they'll have a 25 year warranty or whatever, but some will fail the warranty, many will be damaged or destroyed in automobile accidents, etc. only a few will live significantly past the warranty on avereage, so you're looking at replacing the battery every 25 to 30 years at best, and more like the average average total/near-total automobile wreck rate in reality. These are expensive, rare materials or meta-materials. Not your typical convention car engine made out of common metals. This is an expensive, environmentally dirty repair/replace project, even with very good recycling practices.

I think pure electric will require roads to be re-designed to use induction coil technology, like those toy race tracks or subways currently use. However, this is potentially ver dangerous to pedestrians, and is a massive retrofit of our infrastructure. cont.

Oct 26, 2014
In order to enable maximum charge and versatility, every State and Interstate highway would need to be retrofitted in that manner.

Autos would need to be build lighter so that roads last longer.

Solution for trucks is unknown, but on-board batteries is unreasonable, as I have calculated the batteries would consume half the cargo space. Thus trucks need induction coil technology, or fuel cell technology to maintain some semblance of efficiency.

Induction coil could work for trucks, and allow them to use less battery space, maybe half or a quarter as much for when they must use smaller roads that don't use coils, but this is no small project.

This project would take probably $100 billion dollars to complete, maybe even more than that. We're talking about running power rails, multiples of them, along every lane of every major highway in the U.S. in order to maintain power availability.

Do we really expect semis to stop for a multi-hour recharge every 50 miles?

Oct 26, 2014
Our trains and cargo ships need to be powered by nuclear electric in order to save diesel for the trucking industry for as long as possible, because trucks are in that medium scale where it's hard to have a good solution once petroleum based fuels run out.

These retrofits to trains and cargo ships could have been done decades ago. The U.S. government has had the technology longer than I've been alive, but they don't use it.

A cargo ship burns up to 3 gallons of diesel per second...which is more than the "average" commuter uses in a day...

Oct 26, 2014
Returners wants more nukes?

This former Senior Engineer for power companies says no. Want the reasons?

Oct 26, 2014
@Returners
10, yes that is TEN consecutive posts spilling out a plethora of daylight meanderings to a varied audience - for what, u been drinking or on something stronger ?

This quote may offer you pause for reflection:-

"Vanity, all is vanity"


Oct 26, 2014
@SteveS
...your arguments would require a massive global conspiracy involving thousands of people.

Is that what you believe?
No, this appears to be a social phenomenon, like religion.

When enough people agree on something, even when it is false, social momentum (and often, as in this case, financial incentives) keep it going.

This is clearly apparent in that the AGWites predominately employ social pressure tactics, clearly attempting to force/shame the skeptics into complacency, with little regard to any actual science.

And isn't this your intention with your statement and question, above?


Oct 26, 2014
uba seems to think we are all as emotionally-vulnerable as the goobers who fell for "WMD!".


Oct 26, 2014
I can get respectable citations that say anything I want
@alche/crybaby
you've never provided ANY citations supporting your delusional CO2 hypothesis
no citations while claiming you can get citations? your lack of valid proof can be dismissed out of hand because you've not provided ANY proof of ANY of your comments, and surely not with your water-bowl prohpecy bull
I am going to go with: CAN'T
you can also go with RED HERRING because you are:
OBFUSCATION
STRAWMAN
DELUSIONAL TROLLING/BAITING as well
you make stupid claims + you don't provide proof = pseudoscience = trolling = reported

what next? you going to explain how your water bowl works again?

oh, right... there it is!

Oct 26, 2014
@Mike_Massen
"..denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope"

We KNOW of short term variances so longer term of human influence obviously much more reliable !
This is just AGWite denialist crap. You simply deny the last 18 years of global temperatures!

The 1997-1998 ENSO event is relevant. You don't simply throw out the data because you don't like it. That's not science!


Oct 26, 2014
a bowl demonstrating climate change
@alche/crybaby
there is no science in your post
you've not been able to mimic the highly complex climate or weather systems
you provided NO empirical evidence supporting your conclusions
you have not used the scientific method, but instead counted on blatant stupidity and a farcical experiment for delusional proof
Who is truly the denier?
you are
ANYONE who IGNORES THE SCIENCE and instead post a delusional water bowl belief while not capable of dissecting a study and telling me where it is wrong is not only a denier, but a liar as well... why don't you tell everyone i "can't" again while obfuscating and ignoring all the dozens of previous requests for reputable evidence of your delusional claims...
go ahead, i have big shoulders
i know that when you break out that card, you've lost the argument
why?
because you have NO PROOF

it doesn't take a genius to see that you give NO proof
and ignore studies

Oct 26, 2014
This is a quick concept sketch of what I was talking about.

https://www.youtu...youtu.be

I didn't feel like using autocad, as this is not a detail, but a concept sketch.

Oct 26, 2014
Captain Stumpy, you want citations for my delusional approach, here:
1. Water is far more powerful GHG than CO2. If you use this site AND use Beer's Law to compensate for concentration effects, then you see that water not only trumps CO2 in CO2's absorption bands, (remember water is ~30x more concentrated than CO2, which means that tiny 4 unit over lap in water is magnified by Beer's law to roughly 80.) and water has absorbence everywhere.
2. If we assume CO2 is a factor, and has increased 120ppm, which is pittance, then a 2.2% or 435 ppm increase in water must have a greater effect:
https://wiki.brow...etherley

Now there is a myth about the persistence of individual molecules. But if averages stay averages, then it doesn't matter which molecules are around. This is a principle of modern science:
http://en.wikiped...articles

Now, how about that simple equation?

Oct 26, 2014
The system is designed to be self-regulating.


Your mental condition does not let you self-regulate Skippy. It is always out of control, even with the drugs.

Oct 26, 2014