Global warming slowdown: No systematic errors in climate models

February 2, 2015, Max Planck Society
Forecasts without systematic errors: climate models, such as the model MPI - ESM LR of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, predict a significant increase in temperature by the end of this century, especially at the Earth's poles. No model, however, has predicted the global warming hiatus which climate researchers have observed since the turn of the millennium. This, however, is not due to systematic errors of the models, but to random fluctuations in the climate system. The model predictions are therefore reliable, taking some statistical uncertainty into account. Credit: MPI for Meteorology / Deutsches Klimarechenzentrum (DKRZ)

Sceptics who still doubt anthropogenic climate change have now been stripped of one of their last-ditch arguments: It is true that there has been a warming hiatus and that the surface of the earth has warmed up much less rapidly since the turn of the millennium than all the relevant climate models had predicted. However, the gap between the calculated and measured warming is not due to systematic errors of the models, as the sceptics had suspected, but because there are always random fluctuations in the Earth's climate. Recently, Jochem Marotzke, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, and Piers M. Forster, a professor at the University of Leeds in the UK, have impressively demonstrated this by means of a comprehensive statistical analysis. They also clearly showed that the models do not generally overestimate man-made climate change. Global warming is therefore highly likely to reach critical proportions by the end of the century - if the global community does not finally get to grips with the problem.

Climate is subject to chance and chaos - which makes life difficult for climate researchers. No wonder that these two unpredictable climate factors lie at the root of a mystery that has baffled scientists since the start of the 21st century. Since then, the temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by only around 0.06 degrees Celsius - much less than had been predicted by all 114 simulations considered in the climate report by the IPCC. Jochem Marotzke and Piers M. Forster have now explained the warming pause in terms of arising from chaotic processes in the climate system. Even more importantly for the two researchers and their colleagues around the world: they did not find any conceptual errors in the models. Most notably, the models do not generally react too sensitively to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

"The claim that climate models systematically overestimate global warming caused by rising greenhouse gas concentrations is wrong," says Jochem Marotzke. Climate sceptics often make precisely this claim, citing the warming pause as evidence. Yet they cannot deny that nine of the ten warmest years since systematic climate observations began have occurred in the new millennium and that has slowed at a very high level. The sceptics also ignore the fact that ocean temperatures continue to rise as rapidly as many models have predicted.

"On the whole, the simulated trends agreed well with the observations"

To explain the puzzling discrepancy between model simulations and observations, Jochem Marotzke and Piers M. Forster proceeded in two steps. First, they compared simulated and observed temperature trends over all 15-year periods since the start of the 20th century. For each year between 1900 and 2012 they considered the temperature trend that each of the 114 available models predicted for the subsequent 15 years. They then compared the results with measurements of how the temperature actually rose or fell. By simulating the average global temperature and other climatic variables of the past and comparing the results with observations, climatologists are able to check the reliability of their models. If the simulations prove more or less accurate in this respect, they can also provide useful predictions for the future.

This image shows retroactively simulated and observed 15-year trends of the global mean surface temperature since 1900. For each year from 1900 to 1998, the 15-year trend indicates how the temperature will change over the next 15 years. Between 1900 and 1914, it decreased for example, by about 0.09 degrees Celsius. For this first year, the models predict a weaker negative or even positive temperature trend ahead. The colour shading indicates - based on the available 114 simulations - the frequency with which a simulated temperature trend occurs for each start year. The circles represent the observed temperature trends. For 1998, the observed value is at the lower limit of the ensemble of the simulations. This means that between 1998-2012, the temperatures of the Earth's surface increased less significantly on average than predicted by climate models. Credit: Nature 2015/MPI for Meteorology

The 114 model calculations withstood the comparison. Particularly as an ensemble, they reflect reality quite well: "On the whole, the simulated trends agree with the observations," says Jochem Marotzke. The most pessimistic and most optimistic predictions of warming in the 15 subsequent years for each given year usually differed by around 0.3 degrees Celsius. However, the majority of the models predicted a temperature rise roughly midway between the two extremes. The observed trends are sometimes at the upper limit, sometimes at the lower limit, and often in the middle, so that, taken together, the simulations appear plausible. "In particular, the observed trends are not skewed in any discernible way compared to the simulations," Marotzke explains. If that were the case, it would suggest a systematic error in the models.

No physical reason explains the spread of the predictions

In a second step, the two scientists are now analysing why the simulations arrived at disparate results. This analysis can also explain why the various predictions for the past 15 years deviate from the actual observed trend. Random fluctuations and three physical reasons come into question to explain this: The model calculations are based on different amounts of radiant energy from the sun that impinge on the Earth's surface and are stored as a result of the greenhouse effect, e.g. due to atmospheric carbon dioxide. However, their predictions also respond with different degrees of sensitivity to changes in this radiant energy, for example if the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere doubles. In other words, the models assume different proportions of energy that warm the Earth's surface and the proportion that is sooner or later radiated back into space. Finally, all the assume different amounts of energy stored on the Earth that is transferred to the ocean depths, which act as an enormous heat sink.

Using a statistical method, Marotzke and Forster analysed the contributions of the individual factors and found that none of the physical reasons explains the distribution of predictions and the deviation from the measurements. However, random variation did explain these discrepancies very well. In particular, the authors' analysis refutes the claim that the models react too sensitively to increases in : "If excessive sensitivity of the models caused the models to calculate too great a temperature trend over the past 15 years, the models that assume a high sensitivity would calculate a greater temperature trend than the others," Piers Forster explains. But that is not the case, despite the fact that some models are based on a degree of sensitivity three times greater than others.

The Earth will continue to warm up

"The difference in sensitivity explains nothing really," says Jochem Marotzke. "I only believed that after I had very carefully scrutinised the data on which our graphs are based." Until now, even climatologists have assumed that their models simulate different temperature rises because they respond with different degrees of sensitivity to increased amounts of solar energy in the atmosphere. The community of climatologists will greet this finding with relief, but perhaps also with some disappointment. It is now clear that it is not possible to make model predictions more accurate by tweaking them - randomness does not respond to tweaking.

Quite apart from their role as scientists, researchers have another reason for greeting the study with mixed feelings: no all-clear signal has been sounded. Climatologists have been fairly correct with their predictions. This means: if we continue as before, the Earth will continue to warm up - with consequences, particularly for developing countries, that we can only begin to fathom.

Explore further: Climate models don't over-predict warming, study shows

More information: Jochem Marotzke & Piers M. Forster, Forcing, feedback and internal variability in global temperature trends, Nature, 29  January 2015; DOI: 10.1038/nature14117

Related Stories

Climate models don't over-predict warming, study shows

January 29, 2015

If you listen to climate change skeptics, Earth's surface hasn't warmed appreciably in the last 15 years, and any "record" set last year is just the result of the planet doing what the planet naturally does.

Climate models disagree on why temperature 'wiggles' occur

January 26, 2015

A new Duke University-led study finds that most climate models likely underestimate the degree of decade-to-decade variability occurring in mean surface temperatures as Earth's atmosphere warms. The models also provide inconsistent ...

Volcanoes helped offset man-made warming: study

February 23, 2014

Volcanoes spewing Sun-reflecting particles into the atmosphere have partly offset the effects of Man's carbon emissions over a 15-year period that has become a global-warming battleground, researchers said Sunday.

Why global warming is taking a break

August 19, 2014

The average temperature on Earth has barely risen over the past 16 years. ETH researchers have now found out why. And they believe that global warming is likely to continue again soon.

Recommended for you

Amazon River pirating water from neighboring Rio Orinoco

August 16, 2018

The Amazon River is slowly stealing a 40,000-square-kilometer (25,000-square-mile) drainage basin from the upper Orinoco River, according to new research suggesting this may not be the first time the world's largest river ...

189 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rufusgwarren
3.5 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2015
Measure the total energy absorbed by water and compare it to ice, then tell us how long this hiatus will last. Get it "Ice" - "Water" E&Water and E&Snow, damper? Temporal! The ocean has changed! The earth has changed! So we think this is normal?! Anyway, the process is Poisson in space and time. It's the biology that is the real issue. Basic thermodynamics, energy flow in space and time between two sumps with different E and the dT/dt per boundary conditions, For local, requires more data. So know what you are talking about. The best model is the planet!
PsycheOne
3.3 / 5 (31) Feb 02, 2015
Why do all the articles about global warming sound like the writer is emotionally involved in the subject?

"Sceptics who still doubt anthropogenic climate change have now been stripped of one of their last-ditch arguments"

Saying "who still doubt" implies that most people have given up their doubts in the face of evidence. If that is the case, prove it.

"stripped" is a highly charged word. Why use it unless you are very excited at the prospect?

"last-ditch arguments" implying that the dam has broken and the skeptics are on the run.

Just report the facts. If you like to arouse emotions, write for the National Enquirer.

PS. Unless you are British, it is skeptic, with a k.
rufusgwarren
4 / 5 (3) Feb 02, 2015
its the summation of energy added to the ocean, i.e. water, heat, molecular energy consumers/emtters, etc.
Z99
2.3 / 5 (19) Feb 02, 2015
I have little doubt that anthropogenic CO2 is and will continue to affect Climate. However, the extent to which it will affect it is the real issue - IPCC has continued to reduce their predictions, even without a good explanation of the hiatus. You know something is wrong if there are 114 models of Climate Change. Certainly there is only ONE best model, at any one scale. You also know there is something wrong when the proponents of one position re-analyze HISTORICAL data (the data that was used to create the models in the first place) and find that although none of the models correctly predicted the hiatus (which I assume means the probability of 15-17 years of averages not increasing by more than 0.06° is negligible) that the analysis shows there isn't a problem. Risible. Uh, gee; we forgot about the oceans. Uh, gee; we forgot about volcanism are unbelievably stupid 'reasons' for the discrepancies. How about Uh, gee; it turns out that we can't ignore insolation in our modeling. Duh.
Jeffhans1
1.5 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2015
We cleaned up the Sulfur Dioxide Emissions from our vehicles and factories. The warming trend following that seems to have been adjusting to the new normal. Now that we are no longer pumping more and more into the atmosphere, it isn't building up and reflecting more light each year.
Science Officer
2.8 / 5 (25) Feb 02, 2015
So the predictions of all 114 UN IPCC computer climate models are wrong, but that's no reason to doubt CAGW? This must be the new scientific method.
freeiam
2.3 / 5 (24) Feb 02, 2015
"Sceptics who still doubt anthropogenic climate change have now been stripped of one of their last-ditch arguments: ..."

The writer clearly doesn't know what science should be about and shows a childish mindset using tendentious language.
Let me explain, when the facts doesn't fit the model, the model is wrong and must be adapted to fit the facts.
What's 'explained' here is such an adaptation: the model says it predicts every day of every year in the future but you shouldn't see it like that, it is blind for at least 15 (18?) years and means something when we say it does.
Well, I have a model that's 100% accurate, I will reveal my predictions the day after they occur ...

At best the 'explanation' says the model isn't disproved statistically, but of course that doesn't say it is correct in any way in the future.

Keep trying.
David R_
4.6 / 5 (20) Feb 02, 2015
Models are just that. They assume a certain set of conditions as input and model the anticipated results based on that. Different groups using different models with different assumptions get different results. This is normal scientific process. No climate model is ever absolutely correct. But the actual climate conditions that have come to pass over the last 50 years do all fall within the long term predicted range of variability. Sometimes on the high side, sometimes low, most often near the middle of the range. That is good enough to predict long term trends absent significant deviations in actual conditions. But nothing happens without cause.
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (19) Feb 02, 2015
So it's volcanoes, the ocean ate it, etc, etc, etc....

Now we have a new culprit, Professor Chaos!

https://www.youtu...aztxj87E

Or is it Captain Chaos?

https://www.youtu...oHvHhlOE
runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2015
PS. Unless you are British, it is skeptic, with a k.


He/she probably is - It's a British website.
http://english.st...n-the-us

Oh, and regarding "Why do all the articles about global warming sound like the writer is emotionally involved in the subject?"
Some do yes, but not always in the same direction...
I suggest to read/reread this write-up:
http://phys.org/n...ors.html

From it (eg): "The very greatly exaggerated predictions (orange region) of atmospheric global warming in the IPCC's "
and
"Among the errors of the complex climate models that the simple model exposes are the following"
al_hopfer
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2015
This is what "they" (2 scientists of math) are saying.

Yes, all 114 have not shown the measured slowdown (10x slowing) but the models are accurate.... if you take into account poor programming of the real world and how the real world works.

Further, we see no reason to change those inputs. The models are already accurate.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (20) Feb 02, 2015
So the predictions of all 114 UN IPCC computer climate models are wrong, but that's no reason to doubt CAGW? This must be the new scientific method.

Trying reading the article again, without blinkers on.
And appreciate that the way you want ave global temp modeled (a smack-on, shadowed fit), cannot be done ... for the scientific reasons stated.
But what makes this post an epic fail, as for all denialists - is the failure of common-sense (never mind lack/want of understanding) that should make you realise that anyway.
Your world must be very simple black/white my friend.
justindadswell
1.8 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2015
In the 90's I use to comment, why are scientists not looking for a possible plateau in climate change.
I said that at the time simply because that's how nature works. A sun takes millions of years to form, going through changes all the time - them bam it turns on and plateau's for the next 2 trillion years before starting another time of massive change. Evolution works the same way as well. Looking through fossils we find explosions of evolution and plateau's.
Even then, when I didn't have the internet - I assumed the cooling process for Earth would work the same way. We will hit plateau's and we will have times of massive change.

I didn't know this was going to happen or exactly why it would happen if it did, but I always wondered why scientists ignored something that happens in so many aspects of nature. All they did was leave a hole for denial.
netprophet
2.5 / 5 (19) Feb 02, 2015
The average of all the models predicted an increase of 0.8 Degrees F increase over the last 15 years. The real increase was 0.09 deg F. Off by a factor of 10 but nonetheless the models are "accurate". Welcome to postmodern gibberish.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2015
This is what "they" (2 scientists of math) are saying.

Yes, all 114 have not shown the measured slowdown (10x slowing) but the models are accurate.... if you take into account poor programming of the real world and how the real world works.

Further, we see no reason to change those inputs. The models are already accurate.

Correct.

PS: Irony meant..
Now read up some science and find out why .....as the explanation above passed through the science free/logic zone in your head without imprinting.
Starbuck0002
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2015
Runrig quote - "Trying reading the article again, without blinkers on.
And appreciate that the way you want ave global temp modeled (a smack-on, shadowed fit), cannot be done ... for the scientific reasons stated.
But what makes this post an epic fail, as for all denialists - is the failure of common-sense (never mind lack/want of understanding) that should make you realise that anyway.
Your world must be very simple black/white my friend." Runrig it appears your world is the simple black and white scenario. In science if modeling fails, the process is to discard those models and continue to improve or go back to the drawing board. The IPCC kept these models instead apparently waiting for a marketing scheme to prove them correct even though they were and are incorrect.

kerry_sloan
2.3 / 5 (16) Feb 02, 2015
"the temperature of the Earth's surface has increased by only around 0.06 degrees Celsius - much less than had been predicted by all 114 model simulations considered in the climate report by the IPCC" --- But yet, they conclude (astonishingly) that the models are correct! WOW....DOUBLE WOW. How delusional do these two guys think we are?

runrig
4.2 / 5 (20) Feb 02, 2015
In science if modeling fails, the process is to discard those models and continue to improve or go back to the drawing board. ......

That's the point - they haven't failed (and they are continuing to improve them ).... just like NWP hasn't failed if it came up with an incorrect forecast at, say, T+120. It's is just a limitation of what is possible.

How do you expect a a model to predict random cycles ?????? Come on, tell us?
And it is not a fail that they cant..... as I said - read it.

Is I said prior, denialists cannot conceive a "correct" projection from the models unless they damn well overly the actual obs curve. That's bloody impossible. What models have shown us is why those "wiggles" or "hiatus'" have occurred, and this study just underlines that (at the moment) that randomness cannot be predicted. That's why an ensemble technique is used and error bars found.
Meanwhile once the temp climate cycle reverses then temps will rise back to the log-term trend.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (19) Feb 02, 2015
The average of all the models predicted an increase of 0.8 Degrees F increase over the last 15 years. The real increase was 0.09 deg F. Off by a factor of 10 but nonetheless the models are "accurate". Welcome to postmodern gibberish.

No - welcome to ignorant, anti-science Trolls who jump into threads on here despite knowing nothing of it, and more pertinently, not wanting to know anything of it.... Because their minds are made up on the basis of what their "tax dollars" comprises.
Alberto_Knox
4.3 / 5 (16) Feb 02, 2015
Why do all the articles about global warming sound like the writer is emotionally involved in the subject?


It has been and continues to be a highly exasperating time to have every discussion of climate change monopolized by denier trolls. There are many interesting unknowns that are valid points of discussion and debate and public policy is certainly worth discussing in light of what science has found.

Facing daily haranguing from those who didn't do the slightest bit of their homework, well, wouldn't You be a little emotionally engaged?
mbee1
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 02, 2015
When you cannot explain the errors blame it on random chance. What a way to look at science. The models simply do not work. Per Hanson the giss data set inventor all the data prior to 1951 is unreliable so the random chance is put into the models in the first place. Random here Random there, Random everywhere except where it counts in the science. If these models were so good put the temperature reconstructions into them for the last 2000 years and then see what happens. Never going to happen as they know the models are junk but their carriers are built on the junk. Admit you are wrong and there goes the promotion and grants.
gramkeel1987
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2015
Norman Rogers in the May 14 issue of the American Thinker began his article citing President Eisenhower's farewell address warning that a "scientific-technological elite" dependent on government money would exert undue influence on government policy". Scientific advice to policy makers has become heavily influenced by political agendas and rewards to organizations and scientists that provide the necessary scientific support for political objectives. In the case of climate change, the influence can be traced back to the White House and Al Gore. Sound Familiar?

In making projections of future global temperatures, the IPCC relies on over 50 models. None of the models has been able to project actual temperatures or the pause. And, the only way these models can "back cast" past temperatures is by a process of adjustments. If climate science was settled, 50 plus models would be unnecessary and they would be highly accurate.
mbee1
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2015
I should point out the trolls are the people claiming that anybody who is not in the herd is a troll. When you refuse to look at the actual science and pretend a model that does not work is okay due to chance you are simply denying reality. We are not denying climate change, we are denying man is changing the climate and that it has not changed in 16 years, just like it did not from 1940 to 1980 and got colder from 1880 to 1912 in that unreliable prior to 1951 data.
mbee1
1 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2015
if you want to do some homework google the Hanson giss data set revision of 2010, the third revision. That look up what giss claims is the temperature for a northern hemisphere station, there is a set over in Berkeley and go to weather history of say Barrow Alaska. giss added 1.5 degrees to the actual temperature. They did that for large parts of the northern hemisphere. when you do that you can say like NOAA warmest year 2014 (48 percent chance of being correct assuming their math is correct) and have in November 2014 the largest snow and ice cover ever recorded in North America and 5th largest in the Northern Hemisphere which last time I checked is half the world. You cannot have more snow and ice and be warmer at the same time.
partial recall
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2015
Science is science but you can't deny what the thermometer says and the high temperature today in Maine was 3° F and I can not remember a lower high temperature in the last 60 years. This whole winter has been colder than normal and snow amounts have been much above normal. If there is global warming it's not happening here.
lewisbower
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2015
Is scientific proof based on consensus? Is a true experiment run to have data support the hypothesis? Is a series of experiments run until the "one true one" gets you your degree, tenure, or a grant? Should legislation be based on scientific theory?
If you answered yes to any of the above, you are truly prejudiced.
Archimedes proved the axis of the world varies without even a pencil and paper (no comment on the climate effect). Why cannot modern man prove this theory with all the money and computer models they have tried? Proof? Theory? Many theories get published.
Until theory becomes Law, why should Law tax us for theory?
Those men wouldn't be in Washington if they didn't know what they were doing?
mbee1
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2015
By the way the claimed .06 degree rise is an illusion of the math. Nobody is actually measuring to a hundredths of a degree in 1900 nor are they today. you get hundredths of a degree by averaging and not cutting off the extra digits to the right of the decimal point.
Cavalier
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2015
WTF Why the hell is everybody relying on COMPUTER MODLES??? Use REAL data!
mbee1
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 02, 2015
Those of you who believe really need to look into how things are actually measured. Take that temperature. That is not some figure from God. It is a man made temperature with a lot of adjustments put into it. If you take the temperatue at 5 AM and than at 12 noon and than at 6 pm you can pretend the temperature average out to be X. what happens if the temperature was actually taken at 4.30 one morning at 12.45 some noon time and at 5 Pm another time? More adjustments. When you figure in all the adjustments because the timing of the temperature measurement varies from day to day at each station, is missing data, stations take the temperatures at different times depending on local policy and those times vary depending on the time zone. A whole lot of adjustments each of which is subject to error. Throw that in an anybody claiming .06 of a degree is smoking what used to be an illegal weed.
lazeruslong
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2015
Note also that there is a statistically insignificant difference between the satellite-measured and climate modeled thermal energy imbalance of the Earth with a relatively constant solar energy output/input caused by the continuing increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide of human economic origin from the combustion of fossil fuels on a worldwide industrial scale.

It is always more challenging to model the details of how, where, how rapidly, and with what climatological effects that excess thermal energy is redistributed internally among air, land, and water layers and ice shelves and the associated average temperatures, changes in temperatures, and rates of changes of temperatures.

The present limitations of the former should not be used to discredit the latter or the cautionary policy tale that flows logically from those scientific results. When in doubt, err on the side of the public interest in a sustainable green future rather than a profitable brown now.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2015
Science is science but you can't deny what the thermometer says and the high temperature today in Maine was 3° F and I can not remember a lower high temperature in the last 60 years. This whole winter has been colder than normal and snow amounts have been much above normal. If there is global warming it's not happening here.

Sorry ... but Maine is NOT the world.
What does the G stand for in AGW?
Exactly.
You're experiencing weather just now and not climate.
KDK
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2015
True, total fraud is not the same as systematic errors--as exposed by Climategate, explained by Agenda 21, and confirmed by 18 years of no warming and 7 years of global COOLING--based on Solar Cycle 24 and likely the Milankovitch ice-age cycle as well!
runrig
4.3 / 5 (16) Feb 02, 2015
Why cannot modern man prove this theory with all the money and computer models they have tried? Proof? Theory? Many theories get published.
Until theory becomes Law, why should Law tax us for theory?
Those men wouldn't be in Washington if they didn't know what they were doing?


The "theory" has been proved with ~95% confidence (virtually certain).
It's only the "ideologically" challenged that cannot/don't want to understand that.
Oh, and QED on that with your post (mention of politicians and tax).
xisummit
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2015
" ... but because there are always random fluctuations in the Earth's climate." - Wait, you mean that man is not so all powerful after all? That climate change existed before man created it? Do tell ... that's what we've been trying to tell the sky-is-falling crowd for years but all we get in exchange is "Denier!! Heretic!".

the biggest problem is the lie that "Our models weren't wrong ..." because they were categorically wrong. They missed numerous key global mechanisms and failed to take them into account. That's the definition of wrong, it was modeled with data either not known or not taken into account. Why is it so hard to say "We got it wrong but we're trying to correct our models to be accurate rather than the current stab-in-the-dark". That's maybe a bit harsh but anyone with a hint of ethics would admit they got it wrong but that they're trying to correct it. Zealots, on the other hand, come out and say "We didn't get it wrong, it was something else's fault!".
Melchizedek0001
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2015
Models do not predict the effect (GW slow down) and are correct? What logic is it? At first why are there ...100 models? I think the methodology of the phil.terrorist, K.Fayerabend:"everything goes" works here. Science (?) is ridiculling itself: the number of...100 models says the authors so differ on causes of the event: warming that they are in...darkness; consequently, just throw the coin to predict tomorrow's temperature!
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (20) Feb 02, 2015
Eisenhower's farewell address warning that a "scientific-technological elite" dependent on government money would exert undue influence on government policy"


It's not really the science that is the threat, as most of it is legitimate and truth shouldn't be considered a threat. One gets trapped arguing the science...

The threat to freedom, liberty, and the capitalist economy comes from the Liberal Progressive, who have an unearned and false sense of superior judgement over the greater masses, all because their social engineering polices are based on valid scientific studies.

In fact their judgement is often inferior because their not smart enough to understand that just because there is a valid fact does not mean that it needs to be 'acted on' by gov coercion or that it needs to be 'acted on' in their specified left-wing manner.

In fact the far lefts alarmist judgement is being rejected as the consumption of oil continues to increase...
runrig
4.1 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2015
Models do not predict the effect (GW slow down) and are correct? What logic is it?


It's called numerical modeling of a complex system with inherent chaotic internal cycles.

And does NOT conform to ignorance as expressed by your good self.

FFS
jinx_fogle
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2015
I have been involved in measuring trace gases in the atmosphere for my living for the last 35+ years. There is NO EVIDENCE of MAN MADE cooling or warming. If the earth is warming all the hand wringing or TAXATION will not slow it down. If the earth is cooling (I personally find the evidence points this way), there is nothing hand wringing or TAXATION will do to make a difference. The main thing that people and governments want to do to slow down climate change is TAX. Remove the tax, make people who want to change your habits, not theirs, rely on donations. Make the highest pay on a climate board $0.00 and see the people line up for the job. The people who represent themselves as advocates fly all around to stop global warming, sacks of ship. If every person in USA and Europe died tomorrow, China and India would still pump out "climate warming" at a rate that is far greater than the rest of the world. Stop trying to control other peoples lives, have fun and learn the truth.
sweetgman46
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2015
Wake up people. IPCC has been caught in falsifying the data. They got hacked and the emails states that they needed to "Hide the Decline". Sun spots control the temperature of the earth. Every 206 years the sun goes into a quiet period (Lower number of sun spots). 412 years ago we had the Maunder Minimum, 206 years ago we had the Dalton Minimum and now for the last 17 years it has been getting COLDER not warmer. Put another log on the fire and buy another blanket. Remember this post when the crops start failing and people go hungry. Search term - parrotandlinks- shhh quiet they don't want to tell you the truth
- One World Government, Global Carbon Tax, Depopulation Agenda 21
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (19) Feb 02, 2015
I think the study simply makes the point that the models have a limited 'resolution' of accuracy,... as to be expected. It appears, as expected, that a decade and a half of a slice of the graph is just too small to say much in itself about global temperature trends.

The question is, how much better is a mere five times this much graph (still a relatively short earth time), to speak confidently of future global temperature predictions?
jdcremer
1.3 / 5 (15) Feb 02, 2015
Does this model take into account the the earth is not yet out of the last ice age?

Does it take into account all the other global warming episodes, 7 major ones I believe, what caused them and why the earth cooled after all of them?

If not it is flowed!
DarkWingDuck
1 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2015
When will the climate "scientists" incorporate the SORCE satellite data instead of denouncing NASA and LASP. The Sun is not a perfect black body.
default
5 / 5 (5) Feb 02, 2015
something which the article did not discuss, which by now may be identified for changes in the model, and the ongoing observations of the metrics used to measure climate change, is that it's possible the projections and predictions from 20 or 30 years ago do not match with today's numbers, is that attempts by responsible people and institutions to follow recommended policies over the past 30 years have had sufficient impact to slow down climate change. remember that, when AGW-more correctly, climate change-was first proposed, the projections for the future were based on what would happen if nothing was done. it would have been nearly impossible then to project what the figures would be today without knowing to what extent humanity would follow recommendations to reduce CO2 output and other measures.
DarkWingDuck
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 02, 2015
Climate scientists refuse to NASA's and LASP's SORCE satellite data which they've been collecting since 2001 and first published in 2007. They found that there is an inverse correlation between the FIR (far infrared) and solar activity. The climate "scientists" assume a perfect black body and when the total irradiance increases, the FIR increases. The SORCE survey found that the Sun is NOT a perfect black body and the FIR decreases when the total irradiance increases. The opposite of what is used in models The balance is made up by UV variations. Total increases, FIR decreases and UV increases.
The larger implication is that the "Deep Solar Minimum" bottoming out in 2009 since measurement began in the 60's results in an increasing FIR balance since the 60's where the climate "scientists" had the FIR decreasing as a result of decreasing total irradiance since the 60's. They had the wrong FIR input and thus not balanced. They compensated with the increase in CO2.
adam_s_0625
1.7 / 5 (18) Feb 02, 2015
"However, the gap between the calculated and measured warming is not due to systematic errors of the models, as the sKeptics had suspected, but because there are always random fluctuations in the Earth's climate."

Duh. "Random fluctuations" is just newspeak for natural variation. From the time James Hansen spoke to Congress in the 80s, we were pitched that CO2 was THE major driver of atmospheric temp (i.e. that as atmospheric CO2 rose, atmospheric temp would rise because of the heat trapping characteristics of CO2 (IT'S PHYSICS!!)). Well, as even the article can't deny, atmospheric temp has stalled. Why? Because natural variation has a stronger effect on atmospheric temp than CO2 does. Skeptics are not denying the physics of CO2. It is alarmists that are in denial that their cherished models simply aren't good enough to predict a reality that does not require Big Oil bashing.
MEC
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 02, 2015
Excellent! Any data-however contradictory, can be dovetailed into the liberal democrat empowerment screed. It would be hard to make a cogent case that the huge population of humans is not degrading the ecosystem. It Does require quite a bit of gibble-gabble to present a case that liberal democrats and statists can do anything at all to alter it or that giving then power and money will do anything but spread misery and hasten the destruction of the ingenious material culture that has sheltered liberal democrats and other parasites from natural selection and permitted them to breed out of control. .
Water_Prophet
1.8 / 5 (11) Feb 02, 2015
The easiest explanation for a pause is whatever the change mankind inflicted, is that if you introduce change to a system, it simply progresses to another equilibrium.

Sorry deniers, the pause is not unexpected. Even if scientists (other than me), can't predict it.

Say for example, you hold a candle under a brass bowl full of water, it comes to an equilibrium temperature of 50C. You move it a little closer, it's temp climbs rapidly, but then settles down to a new equilibrium temp.

Not complicated.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (15) Feb 02, 2015
Norman Rogers in the May 14 issue of the American Thinker began his article citing President Eisenhower's farewell address warning that a "scientific-technological elite" dependent on government money would exert undue influence on government policy". Scientific advice to policy makers has become heavily influenced by political agendas and rewards to organizations and scientists that provide the necessary scientific support for political objectives. In the case of climate change, the influence can be traced back to the White House and Al Gore. Sound Familiar?

If you're a fan of American (Non)Thinker, a purver of paranoid lies, racism, booster of theocratic laws, delusional historic revisionism, and anti-knowledge, you have ZERO credibility.

I visit that site daily knowing I'm going to laugh my ass off AND fight back the urge to puke.
Eddy Courant
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2015
Scientist #1: "What are we going to do? It looks really bad for us. Egg on face bad."
Scientist #2: "Chill. Just move the goalposts. Move them so far that we'll all be gone."
Scientist #1: "Brilliant!"
acuperus
1 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2015
All the AWG research comes with so many caveats. All of it is based on climate models, huge and complex computer programs that attempt to reproduce the physics of the global climate system and forecast the future response to all greenhouse gases and other warming and cooling effects. Though they are the best tools available, these models contain many acknowledged problems, gross assumptions and no one is sure how accurate they will prove to be at peering just a few years or many decades ahead. Computer models that would accurately predict the stock market would be orders of magnitude simpler than the ones needed for climate change. All of the climate models that were predicting warming that were made back before 2000 and thousands that have be made since then are all wrong because they failed to predict the stop in global warming for the past 18 years.
kingdr360
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 02, 2015
I e-mailed the head climate change scientist at NASA last month with a very simple question. What percentage of CO2 comes from human sources? I knew the answer but wanted to find out what kind of response I would get. The response was that CO2 has gone up by so many parts per million and the cause is thought to be industrialization. I thanked him for his response but let him know that he didn't answer my question. What percentage of CO2 comes from human sources. I received no response. The answer is 3% of CO2 comes from human sources. 97% of CO2 comes volcanoes, decaying plant matter and forest fires. So do the math or better the physics involved with CO2 as a greenhouse gas. This 9th grade science. We may or may not getting warmer but it is not anthropogenic.
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (20) Feb 02, 2015
All of it is based on climate models

No, it isn't. A vast amount of the science is based on basic physics and empirical data. Why did you think it was all based on climate models?
Vietvet
4 / 5 (21) Feb 02, 2015
I --- 3% of CO2 comes from human sources. 97% of CO2 comes volcanoes, decaying plant matter and forest fires. So do the math or better the physics involved with CO2 as a greenhouse gas. This 9th grade science. We may or may not getting warmer but it is not anthropogenic.


Citations?

I didn't think so. Numbers you pulled from a dark stinky place.
exyoeman
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2015
"...the Earth goes through random fluctuations." Well, duh. What else have we infamous "deniers" been saying? The simple fact is that there is no real evidence of any significant global warming at all, much less that we have caused any warming that has happened. Satellites, ice core samples, volcanic activity, historical recorded and anecdotal accounts, geological survey findings...the list of proofs debunking "Man Made Global Warming" goes on and on, with more items added to it on almost a daily basis. The government grant whores and ideological control freaks can spin it any way they want, but at the end of the day there is a whole lot of nothing going on.
JoeBlue
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2015
All of it is based on climate models

No, it isn't. A vast amount of the science is based on basic physics and empirical data. Why did you think it was all based on climate models?


If that were actually true, then you guys would have noticed the exponential increase in CO2 levels without the corresponding increase in global mean temperature levels.
JoeBlue
2 / 5 (12) Feb 02, 2015
I --- 3% of CO2 comes from human sources. 97% of CO2 comes volcanoes, decaying plant matter and forest fires. So do the math or better the physics involved with CO2 as a greenhouse gas. This 9th grade science. We may or may not getting warmer but it is not anthropogenic.


Citations?

I didn't think so. Numbers you pulled from a dark stinky place.


Uhh the 3% figure is from the IPCC's own dataset from 2013.

It amazes me how very little you self-proclaimed experts actually know about the topic that you claim to be experts on...
jus_wundrin
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 02, 2015
Graphs using 10ths & 100ths make good alarmist spikes, but can anyone REALLY tell the difference between 33.06 deg. C vs 33.08 deg. C?

Scares the high school and BIO101 students though.
JoeBlue
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 02, 2015
Graphs using 10ths & 100ths make good alarmist spikes, but can anyone REALLY tell the difference between 33.06 deg. C vs 33.08 deg. C?

Scares the high school and BIO101 students though.


None of the surface thermometers have an accuracy to below 0.5*C. So any real 1*C change that is measured on the surface has a fault tolerance of +/-50%. So even the quoted 0.6*C increase in the past century is relatively unmeasurable.

The satellite data is the only reliable data.

Ready the one star fascists...
Vietvet
4 / 5 (20) Feb 02, 2015
@JoeBlue

@Kingdr360

--- 3% of CO2 comes from human sources. 97% of CO2 comes volcanoes, decaying plant matter and forest fires. So do the math or better the physics involved with CO2 as a greenhouse gas. This 9th grade science. We may or may not getting warmer but it is not anthropogenic.


Ignorant statement when volcanoes are responsible for less than 1% of CO2 in the atmosphere and forest fires another 4% to 6%. It's true that the largest source of CO2 is natural but it is also true that nature is the only sink for CO2 and that has been greatly degraded by human activity.

The burning of fossil fuels and and industrial processes have overwhelmed the natural sinks, upsetting the carbon cycle. Why in the f**k wont you science deniers get a little education instead of falling back on you political ideologies? Or fears that the IPCC reports are correct?

Cont.
Vietvet
3.9 / 5 (19) Feb 03, 2015
There is a common thread among the deniers on this and similar articles. That is an ideological bias not necessarily connected to a political party.

For a an example: http://environmen...e-change
JoeBlue
1.8 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2015


The burning of fossil fuels and and industrial processes have overwhelmed the natural sinks, upsetting the carbon cycle. Why in the f**k wont you science deniers get a little education instead of falling back on you political ideologies? Or fears that the IPCC reports are correct?

Cont.


If you had a lick of scientific integrity, you would be able to formulate an argument without ad-hom's.

I teach this stuff daily. What exactly is your claim to posterity on any of this again? I mean other than calling us political assholes?
Vietvet
4 / 5 (20) Feb 03, 2015


I teach this stuff daily.

What do you teach Joe,? It certainly can't be science,
Vietvet
4 / 5 (20) Feb 03, 2015
@JoeBlue

I refuted an inaccurate statement. What is you problem with that?
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (19) Feb 03, 2015
Joeblow teaches his fellow sockpuppets to be dumb and stay dumb, that's why they all receive between 1and 2 out of 5 vote ratings, this clown in particular is known for is inability to understand emperical evidence... at the end their trolling spam campaign makes them look like even bigger idiots everytime they comment on this site, not good for their political campaigns,nor their dirty oil money... ;) but hey... i'm loving it... :D :D !
Losik
Feb 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Melchizedek0001
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2015

"It's called numerical modeling of a complex system with inherent chaotic internal cycles."
Hey boy! Do you know the Taylor series applied to any function, and if you have n-unknown parameters you can create "complex system with..." as a computer game toy for kids in kindrgarden! Aplly to your fancy model the influence of even the measuring device on one or twoo or.....n parameters then what you will get? March to math textbook!

zz5555
4.3 / 5 (16) Feb 03, 2015
If that were actually true, then you guys would have noticed the exponential increase in CO2 levels without the corresponding increase in global mean temperature levels.

And, yet, the earth continued to heat up at the same or greater rate even though surface temperature warming slowed down (http://www.skepti...1998.htm ).

If you actually "teach this stuff daily", you would be able to acknowledge that climate science is correct. That it hasn't been warming at the same levels as, say, during the 90s, would be much more interesting if the same thing hadn't happened ~4 times during the current warming (http://www.skepti...php?g=47 ).
runrig
4.5 / 5 (17) Feb 03, 2015

"It's called numerical modeling of a complex system with inherent chaotic internal cycles."
Hey boy! Do you know the Taylor series applied to any function, and if you have n-unknown parameters you can create "complex system with..." as a computer game toy for kids in kindrgarden! Aplly to your fancy model the influence of even the measuring device on one or twoo or.....n parameters then what you will get? March to math textbook!
I don't need a maths text book as I know the science and have worked with NWP models. There are NO unknown parameters in regard to the essentials of a heat-engine. Measure energy in (Solar insolation) and measure SW reflected (albedo) and terrestrial IR emitted to space. They have been. And the Earth is retaining more energy than it emits. Therefore by SB law the Earth has to heat up to catch up.
Models are useful in indicating where the INTERNAL energy is distributed.
Look, you have a right to your opinions ... but not your own facts.
Skeexix
5 / 5 (7) Feb 03, 2015
PsycheOne - They are British. Omnicron, Isle of Man.
knotkool
1 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2015
nah. still aint buyin' it.
Humbled1
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2015
You have to melt ice before you can warm water. Moreover, in order for the surface temperature on a water collum to warm, unless the body is stratified due to composition, you generally have at least some warming all the way down untill some limit. Additionally, most of the ice in the northern hemisphere is land ice, including on Greenland, which is literally buffering the northern-most sea ice.

On the whole, since heat is transported through the ocean and the atmosphere, you have to warm Antarctica slightly before you can continue to warm the farthest north of the northern hemisphere. That is to say heat goes where the coldest sink is, on the whole, which means that as the amount of N. hemisphere sea ice approaches zero you need to melt more and more antarctic sea ice before the N. hemisphere ice continues to melt.

What's unknown is how fast land-based glaciers collapse and accelerate in antarctica as sea ice and shelfs melt. It's non-linear and non-continuus.
Humbled1
2.4 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2015
Melting ice absorbs 80 times more energy than heating the same mass of water by 1C.

There, I said it. Increasing the temperature of the atmosphere requires a lot of other changes since you can't change temperature too drastically without it automatically seeking an snow-line equilibrium. Thus atmospheric temperature change is bounded by the ocean temperature, which is itself bounded by the amount of snow and ice melting on the planet.

So it takes 80 times more energy to melt a square kilometer of ice at a given thickness than to warm the same amount of water by 1C.

It's not just about adding some heat north or south of a snow line. You do in fact have to heat the entire globe to push the snow line northward (consistently) because the heat tries to obtain an equilibrium.
phizzics
1.6 / 5 (16) Feb 03, 2015
This article seems to deliberately overlook what most "skeptics" are saying. The Earth has warmed since the mid-1800's, well before the level of CO2 in the atmosphere could have been responsible. Even the IPCC uses the 1950's as the starting point for anthropogenic warming and earlier warming is called "natural variability".

Even this study admits the models overestimate recent warming, although they go on to say that the discrepancy is probably just chaotic fluctuations in short term weather. CO2's direct effect is only 1.2C even if you double its concentration in the atmosphere. Most of the warming results from feedbacks that enhance CO2's effects, and those feedbacks haven't been observed or quantified. When faced with a drop in the rate of temp increase, a true scientist would call for more observations. Only a charlatan would insist that a theory is correct when the observations are obviously equivocal. How did climate science gain that mantle of infallibility?
Bellatar
1.5 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2015
So... the argument here is that every climate model way over predicted global warming because the climate models don't over predict global warming...

Like has been stated before, the earth has a LONG history of constant climate change. Ice ages, heat waves, lush forests becoming huge sand deserts, disappearing seas, etc. But this last 0.06 C change, has to be us.
Humbled1
1.2 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2015
At 400PPM (by mass) it means that less than 400 photon-molecule collisions per million in the atmosphere are CO2.

When a warmed CO2 molecule collides with any non-greenhouse molecule, by the laws of thermodynamics, it transmits that hit via transfer of kinetic energy anyway, and thereby the heat gets transmitted back as IR light anyway.

Therefore increase atmospheric temperature by CO2 count is incredibly hard relative to human standards. It follows a geometric series with respect to it's concentration.

However, the more you warm the CO2, the faster it collides with non-greenhouse gases and carries away the extra heat, so even the warming of the CO2 itself has negative feedbacks in the maximum amount of heat it can trap in an earth-like atmosphere, since non-greenhouse gases actually serve to cool the Earth by transporting heat from the day side to the night side.

The night side of the Earth should still be able to release heat as quickly as the day side recieves it.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2015
This article seems to deliberately overlook what most "skeptics" are saying. The Earth has warmed since the mid-1800's, well before the level of CO2 in the atmosphere could have been responsible.

Wrong:
http://www.skepti...2008.gif
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2015
However, the more you warm the CO2, the faster it collides with non-greenhouse gases and carries away the extra heat, so even the warming of the CO2 itself has negative feedbacks in the maximum amount of heat it can trap in an earth-like atmosphere, since non-greenhouse gases actually serve to cool the Earth by transporting heat from the day side to the night side.

You ignore the biggest effect - Back radiated IR. I've seen it's effects countless times whilst monitoring road temp sensors for the UKMO. All it takes is a patch of Ci cloud at 6 miles high and around -30C to raise raise a road temp (when ~0c) by a few tenths of a deg C. Yes that is H2O/ice but CO2 does the same all the time (night and day BTW). CO2 has been increased 40% by man and the effects can be seen in my prior graph. And no CO2 does not cool the Earth - ever read what's going on on Venus?
jdouglas25
1 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2015
How many times do I have to remind the chicken little's that the earth has been warming and cooling for four billion years?
HeloMenelo
3.5 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2015
How many times have you tried to think today, O..... i forgot each time you think the noise comes out below where the sun never shines.. that in turn causes you and your sockpuppets to receive a resounding 1 out of 5 on the voting scale... on every single topic posted...o..man i'm glad i'm not you, it's beyond ebarrasing...

Can'ts say i'm not having fun, you clowns sure know how to create a bad reputation for yourselves and taking pride at doing so..lol.

But hey... keep at it, the world takes notice... and people all over the world now, more than ever are enlightened on how dumb you anti climate change clowns really are.. ;)
runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2015
How many times do I have to remind the chicken little's that the earth has been warming and cooling for four billion years?

And for 4 bn minus 1 million there wasn't mankind to pollute and upset the natural balance of sinks/sources of GHG's my friend.
What a stupid "Allah wills it" sort of statement. Totally FFS head-in-sand defeatist.
Didn't bloody matter did it then? Man can stop himself from shitting in his house and making it unlivable (eventually in places vis coasts).
FFS your imaginary friend gave you a thinking brain didn't it.
PS: I'm guessing your'e a God afearin Americane
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2015
nah. still aint buyin' it.

If you say so.
Humbled1
1.5 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2015
Both the concentration and total mass of Venus atmosphere is far, far more CO2 than Earth. It is comparable to vaporizing huge amounts of limestone from the entire surface of the Earth, for example like several feet deep.

The Earth is incapable of creating a Venus-like atmosphere at it's current distance from the Sun.

I dislike the Earth-Venus comparison because they really aren't even the same type of planet.
HeloMenelo
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 03, 2015
Naa, the concentration of CO2 in your head seems to clutter your ability to comprehend scientific data... that has been proven over and over again and again right here on this site, what makes it hilarious is that it will be proven again on the next climate topic and all the rest.

It's like putting a big magnifying glass on a dungfly and keeping it there for the world to not just take notice, but clearly imprint the perception of how dumb you anti climate clowns really are. And that makes me smile.. :D :D
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (15) Feb 03, 2015
IPCC has continued to reduce their predictions, even without a good explanation of the hiatus.
Can you be more specific? For one thing, they have not made predictions. For another, if they have made any change at all, they have adjusted their projections of surface temperatures in line with new evidence. Isn't that what science is supposed to do? Take into account new evidence? Furthermore, surface temperatures are only one projection they made. What about all the rest?
You know something is wrong if there are 114 models of Climate Change. Certainly there is only ONE best model, at any one scale.
No, something is wrong if someone suggests one model can give you all the answers. You know something is right when you have multiple models all reaching essentially the same conclusion.

The rest of your post is not worth comment.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2015
What's 'explained' here is such an adaptation: the model says it predicts every day of every year in the future but you shouldn't see it like that, it is blind for at least 15 (18?) years and means something when we say it does.
Well, I have a model that's 100% accurate, I will reveal my predictions the day after they occur ...
That is NOT what the models do, and you are making an extreme case in any event. No one says they are predicting" "every day of every year" at all, and if you think that, you have no idea how modelling works. The models speak to trends. That's all.

And I see I was too-seeked by David R. He has it right.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Feb 03, 2015
I --- 3% of CO2 comes from human sources. 97% of CO2 comes volcanoes, decaying plant matter and forest fires. So do the math or better the physics involved with CO2 as a greenhouse gas. This 9th grade science. We may or may not getting warmer but it is not anthropogenic.


Citations?

I didn't think so. Numbers you pulled from a dark stinky place.


Uhh the 3% figure is from the IPCC's own dataset from 2013.

It amazes me how very little you self-proclaimed experts actually know about the topic that you claim to be experts on...

So everyone ignores the germane info, typical.

It's because it isn't the production of CO2, it's that we've destroyed the Earth's ability to absorb it:

http://disc.sci.g...es.shtml

Not that CO2 is a driver. But when they conceived this, they never imagined we'd be able to damage the CO2 cycle.
fay
1 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2015
i dont know if AGW is happening and i dont really give a damn about it; but I despise how climate activists always only talk about one side of the problem: we are burning fossils and that probably harms earth. But we dont burn those fossils just for fun!!! We burn them so that we dont live in a stone age. If I am to choose comfortable life throwing co2 in the air or uncomfortable life with no co2, its really easy choice for me. I already pay 70% tax on petrol, pay twice the price for electricity and 3x for gas than in US with less than half the average income, WTF more do you eco jerks want?? do i really have to live in 18th century conditions to make you happy???
rockwolf1000
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 03, 2015
i dont know if AGW is happening and i dont really give a damn about it; but I despise how climate activists always only talk about one side of the problem: we are burning fossils and that probably harms earth. But we dont burn those fossils just for fun!!! We burn them so that we dont live in a stone age. If I am to choose comfortable life throwing co2 in the air or uncomfortable life with no co2, its really easy choice for me. I already pay 70% tax on petrol, pay twice the price for electricity and 3x for gas than in US with less than half the average income, WTF more do you eco jerks want?? do i really have to live in 18th century conditions to make you happy???


You could live at the bottom of the ocean.

That would make me happy!
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 03, 2015
The Earth is incapable of creating a Venus-like atmosphere at it's current distance from the Sun.

Not true......
Although further away from the Sun the Earth has a much lower albedo .... 0.3, while Venus has an albedo of 0.9. The Earth therefore absorbs more solar energy... ~3x more than it receives compared with Venus, despite being further away. The Earth most certainly could become a Venus. And don't bring up the atmospheric mass - has nothing to do with it. If you think it has, ask and I'll explain. Venus' BB temp is 184k and the Earth's 254K.
BTW: I am NOT saying this is going to happen re AGW.

http://nssdc.gsfc...act.html
Uncle Ira
4.5 / 5 (16) Feb 03, 2015
Both the concentration and total mass of Venus atmosphere is far, far more CO2 than Earth. It is comparable to vaporizing huge amounts of limestone from the entire surface of the Earth, for example like several feet deep.

The Earth is incapable of creating a Venus-like atmosphere at it's current distance from the Sun.

I dislike the Earth-Venus comparison because they really aren't even the same type of planet.


@Returnering-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am still good me. Thanks.

I am glad the doctors let you out to try again seeing if your mental condition is getting under control. But did you forget that the too many postums is what caused them to lock you away last time? And the times before that too.

Where they put you this time? Back in Mandeville again or back in Jackson again? Maybe you should try Brentwood if it isn't to far from where you are, it is way up there almost in Texas at Shreveport. I heard they got real good food there.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 03, 2015
*snip*. But we dont burn those fossils just for fun!!! We burn them so that we dont live in a stone age. *snip* I already pay 70% tax on petrol, pay twice the price for electricity and 3x for gas than in US with less than half the average income, WTF more do you eco jerks want?? do i really have to live in 18th century conditions to make you happy???
Quite a rant. But, abeit quaintly, this poster has actually put his finger on the underlying concern of those who deny human caused global warming. It seems that there is a pretty large segment of the population who think that, in order to do something about CO2 loading of the atmosphere, that we are somehow going to have to give up everything and return to a subsistence existence.

That is not what is being said. If we act now, if we take steps to reduce our emissions, the cost will be far far less than the costs that are going to be incurred to deal with the repercussions of not doing anything.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (10) Feb 03, 2015
Well, Unc., this is where you should do some research, the mechanism for GH effect are very different on Earth then they are on Venus.

http://www.astro....R555.pdf
is a good discussion.

The thing is, at 90x Earth atm. CO2 absorbs a much much greater spectrum than here on Earth and being the only major constituent of Venusian atm., it's radiation frequency IS where thermal equilibrium is driven from.

According to the above, in other words it traps nearly 100% of it's thermal radiation at much higher temperatures than the 290K that unpressurized CO2 would give, at 95% and 90 atm.

The Earth's paltry 0.04% CO2, traps an inconceivably tiny amount of heat.

Note the paper does say Water Vapor (WV) is a slave to CO2, but when uncondensed WV is always at least 20x more than CO2, you know these guys are playing fast an loose. Just imagine clear skies.
HeloMenelo
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2015
@Returnering-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am still good me. Thanks.

I am glad the doctors let you out to try again seeing if your mental condition is getting under control. But did you forget that the too many postums is what caused them to lock you away last time? And the times before that too.

Where they put you this time? Back in Mandeville again or back in Jackson again? Maybe you should try Brentwood if it isn't to far from where you are, it is way up there almost in Texas at Shreveport. I heard they got real good food there


That sounds like good advice Uncle.

i've also heard that at Shreveport they will temporary untie the leash he is being kept on if he can get by an hour without randomly slapping himself in the face. Perhaps Shreveport could also teach him to focus and think outside of the little silkwormbox that he thinks he is confined to, those little wormies really seem to frighten him.
nilbud
5 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2015
If I were an actual patriotic American not one of the war criminals or gunfags but a real person with an actual education I'd be very concerned as to why my society produces so many gullible right wing book burning cretins.
fay
2.5 / 5 (4) Feb 04, 2015

That is not what is being said. If we act now, if we take steps to reduce our emissions, the cost will be far far less than the costs that are going to be incurred to deal with the repercussions of not doing anything.


1) is this proven?
2) I wouldnt be as strongly opposed to any action as I am if the action was reasonable. But I must "rant" like a retard when im forced to subsidise for decades green power plants built by the 1%. Or when Im forced to pay "eco" taxes on my old car so that im incented to buy a new one. What is more ecologic, to use an existing car or buy new every 5 years??? Or electromobiles - all the electromobiles in the world save as much co2 as one *small* coal plant in my country produces. This coal plant is -subsidized- by the state, no joke. So, on one hand the state is subsidizing coal and on the other hand it is fighting the co2 emissions?? I mean wwtf? And im not even mentioning the germans who are phasing out nuclear in favor of coal.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2015
1) is this proven?
How much proof do you need?
2) I wouldnt be as strongly opposed to any action as I am if the action was reasonable. But I must "rant" like a retard when im forced to subsidise for decades green power plants built by the 1%. Or when Im forced to pay "eco" taxes on my old car so that im incented to buy a new one. What is more ecologic, to use an existing car or buy new every 5 years??? Or electromobiles - all the electromobiles in the world save as much co2 as one *small* coal plant in my country produces. This coal plant is -subsidized- by the state, no joke. So, on one hand the state is subsidizing coal and on the other hand it is fighting the co2 emissions?? I mean wwtf? And im not even mentioning the germans who are phasing out nuclear in favor of coal.
Well then. It is a crazy world we live in.
dgosselin58
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 04, 2015
Would one of you scientists or climatologists please explain the relationship between CO2 and H2O in our atmosphere, and which one has the greatest effect on global climate, please? Explain how much of each in parts-per-million, and how they are produced. Thank you.

What I keep hearing is how the computer models are "accurately predicting" global warming as a result of increased CO2. Do the climate models even consider water vapor? Or is that inconvenient for the AGW religion?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2015
dgoss:
There are three cannon right now:
1. The boring one, no anthromorphic change. Inconceivable, considering termites impact the planet, but regardless many respectable people hold this view.

2. There is the prevailing Anthropogenic Global Warming view that water is responsible for ~70% of GHG contribution, and CO2 contributes to about the next 20-30%, somehow feedback of a small component does not induce feedback from a larger component (CO2 vs H2O vapor):
http://en.wikiped...se_gases

Cont'd
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 04, 2015
3. The minority view that mankind MUST be changing the planet, but that CO2 is too weak to be the causal agent. It has one narrow weak absorption band, where water vapor has many broad absorptions, and is non-zero everywhere in the infrared. Since water vapor's effects are small, therefore CO2's effects must be negligible (it is only 0.04%/400ppm, vs water vapor's ~2+%).
http://en.wikiped...r_vapour

Happy investigating.
PsycheOne
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 04, 2015
Some selected ad hominems from this discussion so far:

"No - welcome to ignorant, anti-science Trolls"
"every discussion of climate change monopolized by denier trolls"
"Why in the f**k wont you science deniers get a little education"
"Joeblow teaches his fellow sockpuppets to be dumb and stay dumb"
"How many times have you tried to think today"
"What a stupid "Allah wills it" sort of statement"
", the concentration of CO2 in your head seems to clutter your ability to comprehend"
"I am glad the doctors let you out to try again seeing if your mental condition is getting under control."
"i've also heard that at Shreveport they will temporary untie the leash he is being kept on"
"If I were an actual patriotic American not one of the war criminals or gunfags"

All of them, oddly, made by warming believers. Why do so many warmists use this kind of language? That is not a rhetorical question. Why?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2015
Psyche:
OK: From the "other side....

WTF more do you eco jerks want??
do I have to remind the chicken little's
Only a charlatan would insist that a theory is correct
Hey boy! Do you know...

And I can't see mr blue's contibutions.

BTW: What's ad hominem about>>..
"What a stupid "Allah wills it" sort of statement".

I was addressing the "statement" and NOT the person

I suggest you do your addition on rather more threads and not intimate that this one is typical.
Also, try to consider that many of the posters you accuse of bad manners are ones that have been answering the same anti-science, know-it-all-despite-not, rhetoric for some time, in my case for at least 6 years. It does get a little wearing to keep doing so, to people who conjure up their own facts, often from the same "opinionated" sources, just because they "believe" AGW is a scam/commie plot for my tax dollars/not happening/it's getting colder/it's DM/next IA coming/Mr Dyson says so, etc etc.
mooster75
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 04, 2015
No, it's a legitimate question that he has every right to ask. And the answer is, people are getting a little bit tired of dealing with morons.
Vietvet
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 04, 2015
@mooster75

No, it's a legitimate question that he has every right to ask. And the answer is, people are getting a little bit tired of dealing with morons.


I see what you did there--and I like it.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2015
3. The minority view that mankind MUST be changing the planet, but that CO2 is too weak to be the causal agent. It has one narrow weak absorption band, where water vapor has many broad absorptions, and is non-zero everywhere in the infrared. Since water vapor's effects are small, therefore CO2's effects must be negligible...

water:

Your absorption band thing. Do you not think that the full physics of that are not/have not been extensively explored these last 100+ years? And that computer algorithms cannot work it out to within fractions of a Watt?
Off course they can.
Your denial of the GHE of atmos CO2 is borne of "eyeballing" a graph? Really?
You deny the physics? You deny the computation of it?
Re H2O/WV - It cannot drive temps. It is self-policing. For reasons you've been told repeatedly. What is it about the physics of evap into air of H2O you cant understand? and that it must come AFTER temp change?
0.04% yes but ~99% has zero GHE so essentially it's ~4%.
gramkeel1987
1 / 5 (9) Feb 05, 2015
The earth will continue to warm because we are coming out of an ice age. That's what happens when you come out of an ice age, ice melts, water levels rise and temperature increases.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2015
The earth will continue to warm because we are coming out of an ice age. That's what happens when you come out of an ice age, ice melts, water levels rise and temperature increases.

Bollocks:
Myth #1 REBUTTAL AGAIN: The SH gets ~8% more insolation in it's summer than the NH does in it's. The Earth is (largely) heated (over millennial scales) via the NH due it's landmass and associated albedo. Therefore the Earth should be cooling. It isn't it's warming -sorry and all that.
It was generally cooling from the end of the Holocene climate optimum (HCO) until pre-industrial times.

If your own conjured facts were true, mankind would not notice it in 100 years my friend. if you live to be a few thousand then you might.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 05, 2015
When does 114 wrongs make a right?
When it's the Pathological "science" of the AGW Cult.
Skepticus_Rex
1.3 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2015
Now, let's see what happens to the models (should be interesting to see what they make of this) when they start taking the following into consideration (which volcanic activity warming the climate many climate scientists claimed was not happening because "the consensus" just knew volcanoes don't emit all that much CO2, at least not enough to affect global climate):

http://phys.org/n...ate.html
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2015
Now, let's see what happens to the models (should be interesting to see what they make of this) when they start taking the following into consideration (which volcanic activity warming the climate many climate scientists claimed was not happening because "the consensus" just knew volcanoes don't emit all that much CO2, at least not enough to affect global climate):


We know very well that the increased atmos CO2 is anthropic because....

From: http://www.skepti...used.htm

"CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere.....

Ctd
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2015
Ctd

... As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

And this is a graph of the C13 ratio at Mauna Loa Hawaii:

http://cdiac.ornl...logr.jpg

Taken from:

http://cdiac.ornl...ics.html
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 05, 2015
Now, let's see what happens to the models (should be interesting to see what they make of this) when they start taking the following into consideration (which volcanic activity warming the climate many climate scientists claimed was not happening because "the consensus" just knew volcanoes don't emit all that much CO2, at least not enough to affect global climate):

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


I'm so sorry, the attempt to click on 1 because this is such an unbelievably ridiculous statement missed due to over excitement in assigning it the level of derision it deserves! It will not happen again.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2015
@runrig,
It is only self-policing in so much as it evaporates and condenses.

Without doing either it is still 20000/400 --> 50x more common on average than CO2.
It's absorption spectrum is wider, stronger. Applying Beer's law should allow anyone to see that in CO2's own spectrum, water would absorb ~ the same amount as CO2.

Stop complaining at me. If it self polices itself, which I agree, it completely trumps CO2. It's just math.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2015
@ PsycheOne -
All of them, oddly, made by warming believers. Why do so many warmists use this kind of language? That is not a rhetorical question. Why?
Do you want to have an honest discussion about this?

(PS: is "warmists" not intended as an insult? Would that not be considered hypocritical? But, I digress)

Because if you want to have an honest conversation about it I would be happy to explore the issue with you.

Of course, if it is just rhetoric on your part, then never mind.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2015
@runrig,
It is only self-policing in so much as it evaporates and condenses.
Without doing either it is still 20000/400 --> 50x more common on average than CO2.
It's absorption spectrum is wider, stronger. Applying Beer's law should allow anyone to see that in CO2's own spectrum, water would absorb ~ the same amount as CO2.
Stop complaining at me. If it self polices itself, which I agree, it completely trumps CO2. It's just math.

OK one last try.....

No, it is self policing, in that at ANY temp only a specific quantity of H2O/WV can be present.
Do you agree?
It does not get higher, but it is often lower. Agree?
In order for H2O/WV to evap more and absolute humidity increase the temp needs to be higher. Agreed?
So H2O follows temp. Agree?

In the ABSENCE of a warming driver It ONLY responds to it. The hydrological cycle.
It cannot drive warming of it's own account or we'd have runaway warming simply because the Earth has oceans.

Ctd
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2015
Ctd

Look, H2O in the atmosphere of course back-radiates terrestrial IR. It is the biggest GHG.
BUT it is a constant at a set temperature. It is a constant warmer of the Earth (taken as a whole over the globe). It is a constant in the heat engine equation. Given that global temperature remains stable then H2O does not drive warming.

CO2 when added to the atmosphere captures further IR, primarily over drier regions (dessert) and high in the Trop.
This causes warming due the additional GHE and more WV is evaporated, further warming climate. A feedback. The temp rise caused by CO2 being the driver of further atmos H2O. The driver of further warming.

Of course it "it completely trumps CO2. It's just math" BUT without a driver warming climate first H2O/WV is self-policing, despite it massive GHE it will remain unchanged and its warming remain unchanged.
So the net effect is H2O feeback roughly doubles the warming caused by CO2..
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2015
No, runrig,
As a meteorologist you MUST know than the amount of water is controlled by 2 things:
1. Availably, not a problem over 70% of the Earth.
2. Temperature. The AVERAGE temperature of the Earth is 19C.
This means about 20k ppm H2O average, & what ~10k over a desert?

RE: Your second paragraph, absolutely, the evaporative cycle is MUCH MUCH more powerful than W V's greenhouse effect. Which is much much more powerful than CO2's greenhouse effect.

Ergo, CO2 is ineffective. Like it or not, your own reasoning and knowledge lead you to this conclusion.

Your heat driver argument also cuts both ways.

And again, if CO2 drove more of a more powerful GHG into the atmosphere, there would be an amplification of WV from the WV. Since there isn't CO2 doesn't.

Now, I have asked you repeatedly, please answer: You have stated that the ocean absorbs 4000x more heat than the atm.. How is it then that you believe that temperature is a significant observable in climate change?
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2015
Runrig, I think you are missing his main argument. Of course, he flops about so much that it understandable why you might miss his main argument, but it boils down to this:

Mankind's burning of fossil fuels combined with other forms of mechanical heat generation by man, and this in combination with the "heat island" effect of cities, is heating the atmosphere. This excess heat is what is responsible for raising the temperature of the atmosphere, which in turn in increasing the amount of water that evaporates, especially in areas like large cities beside oceans.

The water thus evaporated is driving additional heating of the atmosphere, thereby creating a feedback loop. So arguing about water in the atmosphere is a bit of a red herring - I think he understands that part. The actual argument is whether the initial heating results from mechanical heating as I've described above, or heating as a result of CO2 loading.

He claims CO2 can't cause heating. That's the real issue.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Feb 05, 2015
No, runrig, we're interested in what you have deducted, don't allow Maggie to change the subject. You've made points, I've agreed with them, yet the conclusions don't work out.

We can talk about my crackpot theories afterwards.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 05, 2015
He claims CO2 can't cause heating. That's the real issue.
You know, the worst part of his claim is that he has it partially right. In some small sense, there is a degree of mechanical heating in the atmosphere; it just isn't enough, by orders of magnitude, to do what he thinks it is doing.

His problem is that he is so hell bent on being right about the heating part that he ignores why he is wrong about CO2 loading of the atmosphere. He's fixated on arguing against CO2's ability to trap IR because it goes against his underlying idea that heat from car engines is the real culprit. He just can't understand that there is simply not enough energy from that to cause the degree of heating necessary for WV to take over as the main driver of further GW.

It's too bad really, that he gets so vexed when his belief that mechanical heating creating a WV feedback loop is challenged. I wish you luck in convincing him otherwise.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2015

His problem is that he is so hell bent on being right about the heating part that he ignores why he is wrong about CO2 loading of the atmosphere. He's fixated on arguing against CO2's ability to trap IR because it goes against his underlying idea that heat from car engines is the real culprit. He just can't understand that there is simply not enough energy from that to cause the degree of heating necessary for WV to take over as the main driver of further GW.

It's too bad really, that he gets so vexed when his belief that mechanical heating creating a WV feedback loop is challenged. I wish you luck in convincing him otherwise.

Maggnus:
Indeed he does confuse.
I thought that that argument of his was put to bed years ago. I remember I looked into it and produced some maths to *try* to make it apparent to him that it was absurd ... as you say orders of magnitude. Common sense should tell him so surely!

runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2015
No.....You have stated that the ocean absorbs 4000x more heat than the atm.. How is it then that you believe that temperature is a significant observable in climate change?


Water;
IIRC It was me that introduced the 4000x truth to this board.
Because it is only stored temporarily! It passes on to air!
The ocean heats the atmosphere and not the other way about.
It acts as the Earth's central heating storage system. The heat is "hidden" both by the mass and the SH of ocean water (bugger all temp rise but a LOT of heat).

That stored heat IS transfered to the atmosphere in the form of sensible and latent heat release via convection (which is why ENSO plays such a vital part). This extra heat then plays the role of feeding more H2O into the air. Feedback - all starting with the GHG loading mankind has caused. Oceans radiate IR some of which comes back from H2O/CO2 ... more.... less cooling .... passed on via convection. Loop.
Sorry but your red herrings blind you.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2015
In fear of giving him more to work with, I have one last thing to say about his "theory" and then I'll leave off. WRT CO2, he should actually be supporting its ability to absorb and re-emit IR, because IR is actually what mechanical heating is. It would give his idea a little more traction, and his argument for it would be a little harder to argue.

It would still be orders of magnitude too small to have the effect he claims, but then he at least wouldn't be making claims that physics do not support.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Feb 06, 2015
Runrig,
It's not stored temporarily, look up the "Equipartition Theorum." QED.

Now to compare H2O and CO2 without bias we need to engage, at least conceptually, the "separation of variables."

Look at the Global Warming power of
CO2
Water Vapor (WV)
and heating through condensation/evaporation (CE) separately.

We all agree WV's GH effect is >> than CO2's.
We all agree that the effect of CE >> WV's GH effect. If not, look it up.

Well, here's what is bolluxing: The average count of WV has increased 435ppm, world wide. You know what that means better than I. But clouds have not changed significantly, for obvious reasons, they have probably decreased immeasurably.
CO2 has only increased 135ppm.

Since it is total concentration, not percentage change that drives "insulation," WV should have had a tremendous effect.

To repeat, since it's GH effect is separate or at least separable from it's EC, changes in it should drive AGW.

Now, why is this wrong?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 06, 2015
That reminds me: runrig, this article seems wrong to me;
http://phys.org/n...her.html

Would you mind critiquing it?

I hope you're not going to jump all over my misuse of the word "heating," above. After all, it's not really "warming," either-it's insulating, but that wouldn't make the papers would it?

Cordially.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 06, 2015
Alche/WaterBowl said:
It's not stored temporarily, look up the "Equipartition Theorum." QED.


This is just another example of his complete ignorance of theory. I hope he can give us an example of what "equipartition" has to do with storage not being temporary. This should be rich.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 06, 2015
Alche/WaterBowl said:
It's not stored temporarily, look up the "Equipartition Theorum." QED.


This is just another example of his complete ignorance of theory. I hope he can give us an example of what "equipartition" has to do with storage not being temporary. This should be rich.
I wonder why he would think that the average energy of a gas would apply to something as dynamic as the atmosphere, especially given its finite height and increasing density at lower altitudes.

It's like he threw out a term because it sounds sciency or something. He wouldn't stoop to that would he?
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 06, 2015
Alche/WaterBowl said:
It's not stored temporarily, look up the "Equipartition Theorum." QED.


This is just another example of his complete ignorance of theory. I hope he can give us an example of what "equipartition" has to do with storage not being temporary. This should be rich.
I wonder why he would think that the average energy of a gas would apply to something as dynamic as the atmosphere, especially given its finite height and increasing density at lower altitudes.

It's like he threw out a term because it sounds sciency or something. He wouldn't stoop to that would he?


As I said, I am just waiting to see how he responds. I am perplexed by his use of the word and would like him to show us how smart he is by giving us an explanation that makes sense. If this is anything like his usual plunge into "sciency" things, he will just spout venom and not answer the question.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2015
That reminds me: runrig, this article seems wrong to me;
http://phys.org/n...her.html
Would you mind critiquing it?

Water:

"Air masses that are able to reach the top of the atmosphere are strengthened, while those that can not are weakened."
This happens in supercell storms.
If there is a "lid" on convection say at 800mb in a hot airmass, under the right upper air conditions, when that lid "pops" the up-rush can be immense, the cloud top breaking through the Tropopause into the Strat.
Look at a logskewT (Tephigram for Brits) and you will see how the LH component really adds in energy at those extreme temps.
The "damping" of convection is more troublesome but one possibility is that supercells, because of their massive outflow aloft (anvil Ci) suppress convection around, due shading of solar input and there is of course convergence aloft that produces subsiding air around the storm.
Best I can do.
Humbled1
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2015
You people just don't get it.

Venus isn't even the same type of planet as Earth.

If you moved Venus to Earth's position, it would still have tens as much atmosphere, and it would cool to the point that it would have a liquid CO2 ocean several tens of meters deep covering it's entire surface.

You can prove that using the phase diagram for CO2.

They are not even remotely comparable planets, in spite of the allegations of them being "twins" or "sister" planets.
Humbled1
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2015
Venus is actually COOLER now than it was in the past. It has cooled since it's accretion. It would have been molten geologically and it's atmosphere would have been even thicker in the past during that time period. As it became geologically less active the atmosphere would have been depleted by solar winds as hydrogen-based compounds would be depleted.

Your belief that this thing was ever Earth-like is based on some mis-guided 1700's notion of what planets are and were, which has somehow managed to stick around in our text books.

That is not a "runaway greenhouse effect". The damn thing always had tens of Earth atmospheres worth of CO2 since the time it existed.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2015
Runrig, appreciate it. Back to our conversation?
Humbled1
1 / 5 (10) Feb 07, 2015
You actually have to deplete hydrogen from the water vapor via solar wind before you can form CO2, because hydrogen reacts more strongly with Oxygen than does carbon.

This means the water on a planet has to be depleted before a runaway greenhouse effect could happen to cause the spontaneous reaction of Oxygen with the carbon...which doesn't even actually happen until around a thousand degrees, which means you need a planet even hotter than Venus is now (like I said) or you need open fires that start from lightning to burn across the entire surface repeatedly.

This process is taught completely wrongly on television and in your text book, because the period table shows that the reaction you claim is happening is unstable in the pressence of hydrogen. It breaks down the CO2.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2015
Runrig, appreciate it. Back to our conversation?

I would if I understood what you are trying to say.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2015
Well: Equipartition means that energy is shared equally between systems. So to raise the temp. of a system made of water connected to a system made of air, you need to add enough energy/heat to raise the temp. of each. They would both go up by the same temp. in equilibrium.
You asserted that the ocean was a 4000x atm.. (The rate of change in the Earth is slow enough to easily assume "text book" equilibrium. That is non-equilibrium conditions and inefficiencies are negligible.)

"Separation of Variables" is a techniques of solving different aspects of a problem by focusing on their germane characteristics.
For example, examine the GH contributions of WV.
Examine the GH contribs of CO2.

Independent of their other effects. We can add those other effects later.
Recap with above.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2015
You know you have hit the motherload when Alche/WaterBowl tries to give his own definitions of technical terms by looking them up in some children's dictionary.

He defined "equipartition." I guess he just looked at the parts of the word and figured it meant to equally divide energy between "systems." Does anyone want to take a shot at this definition before I have to type more?

He then said:
"The rate of change in the Earth is slow enough to easily assume "text book" equilibrium. That is non-equilibrium conditions and inefficiencies are negligible."


Really, the earth is at "text book" equilibrium? Let's see how Alche handles this.

He then says:
"Separation of Variables" is a techniques of solving different aspects of a problem by focusing on their germane characteristics.
For example, examine the GH contributions of WV.
Examine the GH contribs of CO2.


Does anyone recognize the term from diffeQ?
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2015
water:

I probably shouldn't as your arguments are as clear as mud to me ...

But did you really mean this?....
"They would both go up by the same temp. in equilibrium."?

Do I need to explain why it is wrong?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2015
Yes, you do because it is not wrong.
Zeroth and First Law of Thermodynamics. You could be putting the emphasis of the sentence wrong. If so, just read it the other way.

What we are really trying to arrive at is that you've stated that the sea can absorb 4000x the heat of the atmosphere-yet you believe temperature is an indicator.

It's either one or the other.

AH! I think I see a confusion. Do you think I think that every bit of ocean is in thermal equilibrium with every bit of air? Negative. I am not that much of an idiot.

The equilibrium I am referring to is that the climate(s) of the Earth are changing slowly, by thermodynamic standards. In other words, incremental changes over say about a year in the Earth are small.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2015
OK, that is about enough time to wait for Alche/WaterBowl to straighten out his own definitions. Of course, he couldn't even go look them up.

Let's start with his comment:
The equilibrium I am referring to is that the climate(s) of the Earth are changing slowly, by thermodynamic standards. In other words, incremental changes over say about a year in the Earth are small.


The Earth is not in equilibrium at any time. If flows of matter and energy become steady, the Earth can be in temporary semi-steady-state. For small areas and short times steady-state is possible. Not equilibrium.

If you go to short times and small dimensions you can talk about the approximation of LTE (local thermal equilibrium).

Those are the most common technical definitions of "equilibrium, LTE, and steady-state" in use in thermodynamics. Where was Alche/WaterBowl to refine his writing.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2015
There is the other kind of equilibrium as well: Say you have a copper bar connected to a bowl of ice water and a bowl of boiling water. The rod goes to equilibrium.

If we change the temperatures in the bowls slowly enough, the bar never leaves "text-book" equilibrium.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2015
Actually, this conversation has got a little drawn out:
I see two topics I am trying to convince you of:
That a 435ppm increase in WV should trump a 135 ppm increase in CO2.
The process is to examine their radiation effects independent of their physical effects.

and to convince you of the ramifications of your own statement that the oceans absorb 4000x more heat than the atmosphere, therefore temperature should be a secondary effect on climate.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Feb 07, 2015
In general 20,000+ppm of WV should trump 400ppm of CO2 anyway.
Just imagine there were no clouds, condensation or evaporation, and we examined the GH effects of the gases alone.

Now once we've done that, now let's add the effects of condensation. They buffer both GH effects impartially.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2015
Alche/WaterBowl said:
Equipartition means that energy is shared equally between systems. So to raise the temp. of a system made of water connected to a system made of air, you need to add enough energy/heat to raise the temp. of each. They would both go up by the same temp. in equilibrium.


Equipartiation is a term used in thermodynamics, chemistry, and physics. It is the way that molecules can share energy over all modes (dependent on the number of degrees of freedom). in the case of an atom like Ar, it is a simple atom that is not capable of rotation or vibration so it only has three degrees of freedom (translation on three axes). For a more complicated molecule there can be vibration and rotation that adds to the number of degrees of freedom and the ability of the molecule to absorb more heat without changing the translation (temperature).
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 07, 2015
Then Alche/WaterBowl said:
"Separation of Variables" is a techniques of solving different aspects of a problem by focusing on their germane characteristics.
For example, examine the GH contributions of WV.
Examine the GH contribs of CO2.


This statement actually has two wrong parts to it. The first is his incorrect statement:
"Separation of Variables" is a techniques of solving different aspects of a problem by focusing on their germane characteristics."


Instead, separation of variables is a family of techniques used to solve differential equations and relates to aggregating variables by type. The idea of concentrating on specific variables and changing them to see how they affect the science is the calculus of variations or techniques of sensitivity analysis, but not separation of variables.

Continued
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 07, 2015
Alche/WaterBowl then says:
For example, examine the GH contributions of WV.
Examine the GH contribs of CO2. Independent of their other effects. We can add those other effects later.


That means he does not understand that when both water vapor and CO2 are present there are bands they interfere with each other over. In that case there are specific ways in which they must be combined (usually from tables). They are not "independent of their other effects" and you cannot just "add those other effects later."

This single comment shows WaterBowl has no idea of the thermodynamics of equipartition, equilibrium, and separation of variables (all from one post).
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Feb 07, 2015
No thermo, it just shows you have nothing better to do than twist my words around, and demonstrate, AGAIN, that you needed to "google" terms that a real MHD-er wouldn't, and you have no operational understanding of the very concepts you claim to live and breathe. Because guess what? equipartition is used in MHD, and it's really not used in physics, chemistry as much as it is in THERMODYNAMICS!

Duh, separation of variables is a PDE technique, but it is also a good logical one, hence the word "conceptually." I don't know how you mucked up the Equipartition Theorum, but I guess if you didn't study it, google don't help you much.

You can't prove you are someone you are not with a few googles. You just look foolish.

Why do you keep ankle biting this conversation? Go 'way, the adults are speaking.
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 07, 2015
From the article:
Sceptics who still doubt anthropogenic climate change have now been stripped of one of their last-ditch arguments: ..
Boy! If I was a skeptic, I think I would be shaking in my boots from the fear of loosing this debate once an for all. And to loose it to a bunch of Nerdy Scientists!!! ... Ooooohhh how humiliating that must be for you! Did you read the article WaterProfit?
They also clearly showed that the models do not generally overestimate man-made climate change. Global warming is therefore highly likely to reach critical proportions by the end of the century
So then again, the deniers are what we thought they were all along... pig headed ignoramuses that only suck off the tit of the republican information machine and are so duped in this anti-environment movement that denial is a psychological reward while ignoring the collapse of the earths eco-systems everywhere.

It's about time someone calls out these dim bulbs!
Skepticus_Rex
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2015
Ctd

... As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

And this is a graph of the C13 ratio at Mauna Loa Hawaii:

http://cdiac.ornl...logr.jpg


Something not well known is tests have shown that some volcanoes also have emitted the same isotope that is claimed to be exclusively anthropogenic. Considerable speculation has been generated by that finding but it has yet to make it fully into the relevant literature. Give it time. A few studies will eventually make it to the public consciousness. :-)
JoeBlue
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
So then again, the deniers are what we thought they were all along... pig headed ignoramuses that only suck off the tit of the republican information machine and are so duped in this anti-environment movement that denial is a psychological reward while ignoring the collapse of the earths eco-systems everywhere.


I find that amusing, considering I live in Australia.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 08, 2015
Howhot, stop being an idiot. How many times do I have to insist that AG change is happening, it is just not CO2?

So runrig, I don't know what caused the sudden interest in our party, but I think we're about to make a breakthrough.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2015
And this is a graph of the C13 ratio at Mauna Loa Hawaii:
http://cdiac.ornl...logr.jpg

"Something not well known is tests have shown that some volcanoes also have emitted the same isotope that is claimed to be exclusively anthropogenic. Considerable speculation has been generated by that finding but it has yet to make it fully into the relevant literature. Give it time. A few studies will eventually make it to the public consciousness.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the world's volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200m tons of CO2 annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24bn tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than 1% of those generated by today's human endeavors."
http://www.scient...-humans/
nevermark
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2015
How many times do I have to insist that AG change is happening, it is just not CO2?


Why would you insist (even once) on something that isn't supported by either evidence or physics?

Why is anyone taking you seriously enough to respond? You don't supply credible evidence. You don't demonstrate an error in accepted physics, you just "insist" there is an error and expect people to believe you.

That isn't science. That's unfounded confidence in uninformed opinion.

If you had anything coherent to say, this is the last place you would be wasting your time! If you actually thought you had some insight, you would write up a paper and take the well deserved credit for demonstrating your idea.

Can't do that? No, of course not.
nevermark
3.9 / 5 (14) Feb 08, 2015
For those who can't read the above paper, the scientists have verified:

1) The ensemble of models is very reliable over long term periods.

2) The ensemble of models is not so good at predicting short term periods.

3) When there are errors in the short term, they are neither systematically too-high or too-low, so the effect is well modeled as normal randomness until more detailed models or insights improve the models further.

This is science at its best. Careful validation of what is known. Clear characterization of what is not yet known.
Returners
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2015
1) The ensemble of models is very reliable over long term periods.

They don't have anything to compare the predictions to long term, so reliability has no basis.

2) The ensemble of models is not so good at predicting short term periods.

That's obvious.

3) When there are errors in the short term, they are neither systematically too-high or too-low, so the effect is well modeled as normal randomness until more detailed models or insights improve the models further.


So they randomly predicted a much higher increase than what actually happened?

Thanks for the clarification. i was under the impression that the models had some sort of formula they were following.
ECOnservative
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2015
Has anyone modeled the effect of running so many climate models on climate? In the US alone, Data Center power consumption is approaching 10% of total power consumed. We obviously need to run more models to look into this..

/sarc
philstacy9
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
"the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically "adjusted" to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified."

http://www.telegr...ver.html
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2015
"the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically "adjusted" to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified."

http://www.telegr...ver.html


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qRFz8merXEA

runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 08, 2015
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2015
Ctd

... As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases."

And this is a graph of the C13 ratio at Mauna Loa Hawaii:

http://cdiac.ornl...logr.jpg


Something not well known is tests have shown that some volcanoes also have emitted the same isotope that is claimed to be exclusively anthropogenic. Considerable speculation has been generated by that finding but it has yet to make it fully into the relevant literature. Give it time. A few studies will eventually make it to the public consciousness. :-)
You mean that you hope a few studies will make it into the public consciousness because so far, there are no studies that support your accusation. Do you know what people call it when you say some thing that is not true?

BTW you are committing the fallacy of Special Pleading.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 08, 2015
Fixed link......

https://www.youtu...z8merXEA



I hadn't seen that before runrig. Nice find!
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2015
So my age is showing. I remember when these models predicted a 4C increase by 2012. Ah the good old days. No one remembers those inconvenient "facts."

Bottom line is that we have our poles and glaciers that melt, cooling our planet and oceans, keeping temperature stable.
We have our oceans, which due to sheer volume keep the planet cool.

Temperature is such a bad metric for measuring change, by the time the Earth's TEMPERATURE changes in a meaningful way, there will be no hope of reversing it.

But keep chasing those wide geese. If you bring CO2 from 0.04% to 0.03% I am sure it will make a great difference. After all, if we apply Beers law using this data alone, it will make a change of 0.002% impact to the phenomena itself.

Which is, which is, really too small to be in any way significant.
Now if we apply Beers law to the increase in average humidity, we get 0.05%, which is still, reasonably speaking, 10x too weak to be significant.

Wake up.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2015
Now you might say those little %'s build up over time. And you'd be right, except that any major spike or trough essentially removes any increase.

So, with that, any chance of you folks starting to examine the real root cause of the problem?

So many paths to the truth, so many paths to one conclusion. How can you ignore them all?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2015
"the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically "adjusted" to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified."

http://www.telegr...ver.html


https://www.youtu...z8merXEA
What a bunch of rationlist crap. Isn't it just as likely the temperature data outside Paraguay is incorrect? ..or both are correct? ...or all are incorrect?

The absolute presumption the drop in temperature is incorrect, and must be "corrected," is blatant confirmation bias.

Returners
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 08, 2015
A hundredth of a degree warmer.

Gonna look pretty dumb if this is just the top of a sine curve and it starts going down again.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (16) Feb 08, 2015
A hundredth of a degree warmer.

Gonna look pretty dumb if this is just the top of a sine curve and it starts going down again.


Gonna look pretty dumb back at you Skippy if you think things like the weather or climate will ever make a sine curve.
VINDOC
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2015
Scientist don't have a clue what they are talking about.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Feb 08, 2015
How many times do I have to insist that AG change is happening, it is just not CO2?


Why would you insist (even once) on something that isn't supported by either evidence or physics?
If you had anything coherent to say, this is the last place you would be wasting your time! If you actually thought you had some insight, you would write up a paper and take the well deserved credit for demonstrating your idea.

Can't do that? No, of course not.


Evidence is above.
You can look up the strengths of CO2 vs Water vapor. You can see CO2 has only inceased 135pp, WV 435ppm. You can look up investigate the heat capacity of the oceans and glaciers and poles.

You can, it's conclusive. But you wont. Why haven't I?
Just how would you propose I go ahead? Publish? What novel study or information would get published?

There is no measurement theory or study.

Well?
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2015
Sorry--


There is no measurement, theory or study [required] sic.


Just an invocation of basic principles and physical properties.

Maybe I could study why mis-information is so important to the endeavor, but I can hardly publish the IR spectrum of water vapor, CO2, their concentrations, and some how hope to get published. People have already calculated ice loss, etc..

So again, there is no novel material to publish.

Ah, but you can compare adjusted GDP and global temperature and see the linear correlation:
http://www.truthf...-gdp.jpg

http://woodfortre...o:2014.9

but you wont do that either...
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 08, 2015
Scientist don't have a clue what they are talking about.


How about doctors?
Engineers?
Teachers?

Anyone else with the knowledge you don't.
That you are certain are wrong.

Is it me or is that sort of statement the figment of a deluded mind?

I know - I'll believe you instead
Sorted.

Bet you're a US right wing republican.... And you haven't a clue what your talking about but you say it anyway.
FFS

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 08, 2015
runrig, I thought we were having a conversation that would bring you over to the dark side?

Or maybe you'll bring me over, you are asserting my assertions are wrong. We are on a home stretch...
nevermark
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 09, 2015
Well I am sorry all you AGW sciency/evidence types, I am changing my mind. I have to go with the oil companies on this one, as they have the resources, the scientists and the economic motivation to understand the long term risks of their own products.

Exxon, http://corporate....ge-risks

British Petroleum, http://www.bp.com...nge.html

Shell Oil, http://www.shell....nge.html

Oh crap! The oil companies believe in climate change!

I think the irrationality of deniers comes from fear of taxes, higher energy prices, and government control. Their fears are partly right even if their logic is off. While oil may be a problem it is a necessary source of energy. But that doesn't mean climate change isn't happening or that its effects are not worth mitigating. Heads in the sand didn't ever solve anything.
Neodim
1.6 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
With increasing density measurements picture can change significantly. Kettle boils, too, but it's not 100 degrees. Yes and place the measurement may not be significant. But the environment and new technologies needs to be addressed.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2015
I think the irrationality of deniers comes from fear of taxes, higher energy prices, and government control. Their fears are partly right even if their logic is off. While oil may be a problem it is a necessary source of energy. But that doesn't mean climate change isn't happening or that its effects are not worth mitigating. Heads in the sand didn't ever solve anything.

Never:

"The US needs a vaccination against ignorance"
By Justin Webb
The Times 6/2/15

Justin Webb who in "December 2007, he became North American Editor for BBC News" wiki

"Rght-wing Americans have finally exposed the true extent of their scientifically and socially illiterate barminess. Already wrinkling their noses at the mention of — in no particular order — public transport, evolution, sex education and climate change, they have a new target: childhood vaccinations. They are now officially in favour of measles"
Discuss.
http://www.thetim...5683.ece
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015
runrig, I thought we were having a conversation that would bring you over to the dark side?

Or maybe you'll bring me over, you are asserting my assertions are wrong. We are on a home stretch...

No chance of that my friend... I'm just trying to understand what you're on about.

IF you mean that it is waste heat from the burning of fossil fuel that is driving AGW with the feedback coming from H2O. Then, I thought you'd understood the orders of magnitude (2) that it falls short by my friend.
Try this (sorry it's SkS - but despite what you say it's 101% scientific with papers to back it up)

http://www.skepti....php?g=6
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2015
runrig, I thought we were having a conversation that would bring you over to the dark side?

Or maybe you'll bring me over, you are asserting my assertions are wrong. We are on a home stretch...

No chance of that my friend... I'm just trying to understand what you're on about.

IF you mean that it is waste heat from the burning of fossil fuel that is driving AGW with the feedback coming from H2O. Then, I thought you'd understood the orders of magnitude (2) that it falls short by my friend.
Try this (sorry it's SkS - but despite what you say it's 101% scientific with papers to back it up)

http://www.skepti....php?g=6


Oh, now you've done it! Here comes the Reductio ad Hitlerum!!
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015
runrig, No, you been diverted, either willfully or not, by Magnnus and thermo's drivel.

It is skepti's claim that is incorrect, if CO2 effects were that strong, they would be profound. What is it? he claims 1/1000th of the Sun's out put. Though necessary to trump fossil emissions, the 11 year solar cycle fluctuates by that much. I hope this is quantitative enough to debunk the silliness.
By referring to skeptiscience, whose author has a BS degree and a website, you are deferring to some someone whose credentials are LESS than your own.

The author John Cook, omits info, and has little understanding, if not willfully lying. So if you are going to use him as your referent authority, I'm sorry, he's a "Joe Average," at best in my book. Using him is a spurious reference.

However, we are talking about your claim that the seas absorb 4000x the heat that the atm. does... which I completely agree with...
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 09, 2015
runrig, No, you been diverted, either willfully or not, by Magnnus and thermo's drivel.
OR, and this is important, he can read for himself what is being said and, using his own powers of deductive reasoning and good common sense, make up his own mind about your amazing insights.
It is skepti's claim that is incorrect, if CO2 effects were that strong, they would be profound.
And so they are! They are, after all, increasing the temperature of the entire planet's climatary system!
By referring to skeptiscience, whose author has a BS degree and a website, you are deferring to some someone whose credentials are LESS than your own.
Perhaps, but at least Cook provides references and cites by which one can review his comments and make up their own minds.

And your cites are? You have what evidence that you are correct about CO2 or mechanical heating again? I mean beyond waving your hands and claiming how smart you are.

Oh yea. You have none.

/ignore
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2015
No Maggie, you seem to be making up his mind for him.

No Maggie, they are not profound, or else people wouldn't be arguing them. It just shows how ignorant you are of the climate, energy magnitudes rivaling the Sun's fluctuations would put the coldest years of the Sun's cycle on par with the warmest. Please say that's true! I want you to show everyone again what an idiot you are.

My references, again, are physical properties. If my arguments stem from physical properties, why on Earth do I need to cite anyone, and who then? Mendeleev? Heat for example, has a lower bound of sea-level rise: 6cm x area of the ocean x heat of fusion for ice.

Oh, look how smart I am.

So runrig, Maggie should be put in his place again;

I am believing your claim that the oceans have 4000x heat absorbing capability of the atm.. How then is temperature going to be a primary indicator of climate change?
runrig
4.4 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015
runrig, No, you been diverted, either willfully or not, by Magnnus and thermo's drivel.

It is skepti's claim that is incorrect, if CO2 effects were that strong, they would be profound. What is it? he claims 1/1000th of the Sun's out put. Though necessary to trump fossil emissions, the 11 year solar cycle fluctuates by that much. I hope this is quantitative enough to debunk the silliness.
By referring to skeptiscience, whose author has a BS degree and a website, you are deferring to some someone whose credentials are LESS than your own.

The author John Cook, omits info, and has little understanding, if not willfully lying. So if you are going to use him as your referent authority, I'm sorry, he's a "Joe Average," at best in my book. Using him is a spurious reference.

However, we are talking about your claim that the seas absorb 4000x the heat that the atm. does... which I completely agree with...

So you accept the figures for waste heat but not for CO2?
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 09, 2015
This is the paper SketicalScience reference re waste heat.....

http://onlinelibr...465/full
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Feb 09, 2015
Paper: Perhaps it does, seems reasonable, if <1% of waste heat escapes, etc., it's a very sloppy approach, and mixes effects. The conclusion that waste heat does not cause warming is of course correct, it is what I always say. What is deceptive is that it makes it appear that waste heat doesn't change climate, which is wrong. Look at he magnitudes it uses! Imagine 10x this effect, which is what skepti uses for CO2 impact! Are you with me? You see why both waste heat affects climate, and 10x would be a climate driver on par with the Sun?

It's misleading, no wonder skepti-uses it.

That is my courtesy review of the paper, I haven't done it justice but let us continue with more important stuff, if we continue discussing waste heat, we won't adequately explore the very important effect you've brought up:

I accept that you say the ocean absorbs 4000x the amount of heat that the atmosphere does. Let's discuss THIS more, it will bring much better conclusions.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 09, 2015
Global warming slowdown: No systematic errors in climate models
114 model simulations cannot possibly be wrong. Therefore, the earth is wrong.

runrig
4.4 / 5 (11) Feb 10, 2015
Water;
This is an example of why it is difficult to understand what you are trying to say... and so converse with you....

"The conclusion that waste heat does not cause warming is of course correct, it is what I always say. What is deceptive is that it makes it appear that waste heat doesn't change climate, which is wrong."

If waste heat does not cause warming then how can it change climate?
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
Well runrg, you all keep mocking what I put forward, and it is painfully apparent it is because you don't read it.

So why do you think the Earth doesn't boil during the day, and freeze during the night. Rhetorical, you know why. Why doesn't it boil during the Summer and freeze during Winter... etc.. Why is there so little variation around the Earth despite extremes from space? You know this as well.

The Earth is buffered against extreme changes from space and lesser changes on Earth. The Earth won't make extreme changes. Since the Earth is buffered against extreme changes, you need to look for the changes in the buffers.

The Earth is all connected, it's part of the buffering. Change the equator, it makes its way to the pole.

You ask how heat does not change temperature? On the global scale it doesn't, at least not significantly. Industries, cars, etc. are hot, but they don't change the weather, or make it significantly warmer.

Cont'd
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2015
All that heat doesn't significantly change temperature. So where does the heat go? Well according to your article, 99+% stays down here. That seems excessive, but moving on...

That waste heat must be absorbed via basic thermodynamics to some "place"d where that waste heat is actually greater than the surrounding heat energy. This where you apply the Equipartition Theorum. Again by thermodynamics, this is most profound where it is below zero and below the phase change of water.

Viewed another way: Imagine the Earth without humans: It will change how it will change. Mostly with solar variations. What effects does man bring to the scenario that approach changes in normal variations?

Which brings us back to the main event: If the ocean is the 4000x buffer/heat absorber you say it is, how then can temperature be a reasonable metric for climate change? Especially with glacial and polar run-off keeping IT chilled via melting and run-off?
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (6) Feb 10, 2015
Sorry, to answer your question: heat, or more intuitively heat-energy does not warm things up if the energy is "diverted" by melting ice, or by being divided up into a colossal mass. Like a candle in a large room, you don't notice the warmth. If it is absorbed by the colossal mass of the ocean and atmosphere, it will travel until it reaches someplace where the thermodynamic waste heat is absorbed, someplace much colder than ambient/relative baseline for waste heat. The energy does not go away, even if it is not apparent, and it progresses iaw thermodynamics.

That should put us back on track, and on to the main event.
FastEddy
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015
Global warming slowdown: No systematic errors in climate models
114 model simulations cannot possibly be wrong. Therefore, the earth is wrong.


Yes ... unless of course they are all based on the same bad data set. (Ex: "Hockey stick" results from bad data modeling are way out of line with reality.)

Recent news indicates multiple glaring errors in the "accepted" data being submitted.
FastEddy
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 11, 2015
Never in history has raising taxes changed the weather.

Those of you who seek additional funding for research might concentrate on a more accurate data reporting methodology ... It seems there are errors in the data being modeled here.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (3) Feb 12, 2015
Not for nothing runrig, but I am guessing you see my point?
Mike_Massen
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 17, 2015
Question to Water_Prophet
To be clear to everyone observing your evasion first verify u accept terms/definition re vocation as real PC does:-
https://en.wikipe...hemistry
?
This is your very obvious pattern.

When asked direct question re your claimed degree U ignore it & instead make irrelevant claims, u CANNOT answer simple direct questions in your claimed degree - why ?

It appears u are caught out yet AGAIN !

So, as a claimed Physical Chemist, is your particular training commensurate with the definition in link I supplied above ?

Obviously it SHOULD be as the uni definitions r global but, I will give u a chance to exclude an issue u missed in a lecture or failed to pass in or needed a supplementary due to illness at a main exam.

So tell re Physical Chemistry as per link above.

R U or R U not educated in this field re a degree with ALL it implies ?

btw: In Oz "graduate level" is studies towards uni degree qualification.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.