30 years of above-average temperatures means the climate has changed

February 26, 2015 by Richard B Rood, The Conversation
30 years of above-average temperatures means the climate has changed
It’s getting hot in here. Credit: andrea zeppilli, CC BY-NC-SA

If you're younger than 30, you've never experienced a month in which the average surface temperature of the Earth was below average.

Each month, the US National Climatic Data Center calculates Earth's average surface temperature using temperature measurements that cover the Earth's surface. Then, another average is calculated for each month of the year for the twentieth century, 1901-2000. For each month, this gives one number representative of the entire century. Subtract this overall 1900s monthly average – which for February is 53.9F (12.1C) – from each individual month's temperature and you've got the anomaly: that is, the difference from the average.

The last month that was at or below that 1900s average was February 1985. Ronald Reagan had just started his second presidential term and Foreigner had the number one single with "I want to know what love is."

These temperature observations make it clear the new normal will be systematically rising temperatures, not the stability of the last 100 years. The traditional definition of climate is the 30-year average of weather. The fact that – once the official records are in for February 2015 – it will have been 30 years since a month was below average is an important measure that the climate has changed.

How the Earth warms

As you can see in the graphic above, doesn't vary as much as land temperature. This fact is intuitive to many people because they understand that coastal regions don't experience as extreme highs and lows as the interiors of continents. Since oceans cover the majority of the Earth's surface, the combined land and ocean graph strongly resembles the graph just for the ocean. Looking at only the ocean plots, you have to go all the way back to February 1976 to find a month below average. (That would be under President Gerald Ford's watch.)

Temperature history for every year from 1880-2014. Credit: NOAA National Climatic Data Center

You can interpret variability over land as the driver of the ups and downs seen in the global graph. There are four years from 1976 onwards when the land was below average; the last time the land temperature was cool enough for the globe to be at or below average was February 1985. The flirtation with below-average temps was tiny – primarily worth noting in the spirit of accurate record keeping. Looking at any of these graphs, it's obvious that earlier times were cooler and more recent times are warmer. None of the fluctuations over land since 1976 provide evidence contrary to the observation that the Earth is warming.

Some of the most convincing evidence that the Earth is warming is actually found in measures of the heat stored in the oceans and the melting of ice. However, we often focus on the surface air temperature. One reason for that is that we feel the surface air temperature; therefore, we have intuition about the importance of hot and cold . Another reason is historical; we have often thought of climate as the average of weather. We've been taking temperature observations for weather for a long time; it is a robust and essential observation.

Despite variability, a stable signal

Choosing one month, February in this instance, perhaps overemphasizes that time in 1985 when we had a below average month. We can get a single yearly average for all the months in an entire year, January-December. If we look at these annual averages, then the ups and downs are reduced. In this case, 1976 emerges as the last year in which the global-average temperature was below the 20th century average of 57.0F (13.9C) – that's 38 years ago, the year that Nadia Comaneci scored her seven perfect 10s at the Montreal Olympics.

I am not a fan of tracking month-by-month or even year-by-year averages and arguing over the statistical minutia of possible records. We live at a time when the Earth is definitively warming. And we know why: predominately, the increase of greenhouse gas warming due to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Under current conditions, we should expect the planet to be warming. What would be more important news would be if we had a year, even a month, that was below average.

To see a cooler Earth any time soon, you’ll need to carve one out of ice. Credit: Kirsten Spry, CC BY-NC-SA

The variability we observe in surface temperature comes primarily from understood patterns of weather. Many have heard of El Niño, when the eastern Pacific Ocean is warmer than average. The eastern Pacific is so large that when it is warmer than average, the entire planet is likely to be warmer than average. As we look at averages, 30 years, 10 years, or even one year, these patterns, some years warmer, some cooler, become less prominent. The trend of warming is large enough to mask the variability. The fact that there have been 30 years with no month below the 20th century average is a definitive statement that climate has changed.

The 30-year horizon

There are other reasons that this 30-year span of time is important. Thirty years is a length of time in which people plan. This includes personal choices – where to live, what job to take, how to plan for retirement. There are institutional choices – building bridges, building factories and power plants, urban flood management. There are resource management questions – assuring water supply for people, ecosystems, energy production and agriculture. There are many questions concerning how to build the fortifications and plan the migrations that sea-level rise will demand. Thirty years is long enough to be convincing that the climate is changing, and short enough that we can conceive, both individually and collectively, what the future might hold.

Finally, 30 years is long enough to educate us. We have 30 years during which we can see what challenges a changing climate brings us. Thirty years that are informing us about the next 30 years, which will be warmer still. This is a temperature record that makes it clear that the new normal will be systematically rising temperatures, not the ups and downs of the last 100 years.

Those who are under 30 years old have not experienced the climate I grew up with. In thirty more years, those born today will also be living in a climate that, by fundamental measures, will be different than the climate of their birth. Future success will rely on understanding that the in which we are all now living is changing and will continue to change with accumulating consequences.

Explore further: World experiences hottest November in 134 years

Related Stories

Recommended for you

833 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.9 / 5 (45) Feb 26, 2015
Do people STILL try to deny this?

parcite
1.6 / 5 (29) Feb 26, 2015
The focus on temperature data is ridiculous.

Take two rooms. Both exactly the same. Both have a humidifier and a furnace.

Set the humidity in room 1 to 10%.

Set the humidity in room 2 to 90%.

Set the thermostats in each room to 85 degrees F.

In which room does the furnace have to burn more fuel to maintain the temperature of 85 degrees?

When both rooms are at 85 degrees F, which room embodies more thermal energy?
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (36) Feb 26, 2015
The focus on temperature data is ridiculous.

Take two rooms. Both exactly the same. Both have a humidifier and a furnace.

Set the humidity in room 1 to 10%.

Set the humidity in room 2 to 90%.

Set the thermostats in each room to 85 degrees F.

In which room does the furnace have to burn more fuel to maintain the temperature of 85 degrees?

When both rooms are at 85 degrees F, which room embodies more thermal energy?

What exactly do you hope to prove with this specious exercise? The Earth is not like a room, at all, period, full stop.
gkam
2.8 / 5 (40) Feb 26, 2015
parcite

Okay, choose the acidification of the oceans, then, as proof of CO2 excess.
mysticfree
1.6 / 5 (39) Feb 26, 2015
OH NO! Look at the chart, people! In almost a century, the average temperature has increased by a blistering ... 2 degrees F! You know what this means. In a few more centuries, the planet will be covered by fat guys in speedos. Oh the horror!
gkam
2.9 / 5 (46) Feb 26, 2015
I think you are unaware of what subtle temperature changes do to growing things, and their extent. One degree makes a BIG difference in many areas, changing the times of budding and fruiting. It can change the interrelationships of the bees and other pollinators, to be out of sync with the plants. It can mean there is no time for the crops to achieve some of their processes.
parcite
1.7 / 5 (20) Feb 26, 2015
parcite

Okay, choose the acidification of the oceans, then, as proof of CO2 excess.


That works too. I'm not arguing against the idea that humans have a main role in the changes the climate is going through. I'm also not arguing against the idea that increasing CO2 increases the thermal capacity of the Earth's atmosphere.

The two room experiment is to demonstrate the fact that temperature isn't what we're measuring. We're measuring embodied energy which can vary widely between two atmospheres even though their temperatures are exactly the same.

The difference that makes it possible is the concentration of the green house gas used in the experiment.

Replace the humidifier with a device that controls CO2 concentration and we will see similar results though not as obvious given that CO2 isn't as powerful a greenhouse gas as H2O vapors.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (29) Feb 26, 2015
OH NO! In almost a half century, the average temperature has increased by a blistering 1 degree F!


1C actually, but I digress. Perhaps you can explain something to me. Why is it, when scientists say that the temperature is going to rise by 1C, there are always those who mistakenly intimate that that is like raising the temperature by 1C in their house? Do you have any concept of how much energy is required to raise the average temperature of this planet by 1C?

1C in 30 years IS blistering! It is scary fast, as fast or faster than has been seen on this planet for many tens or even hundreds of thousands of years. Faster than when the last glacial maximum ended. Faster than when any interglacial period started. Faster than the middle of the Cretaceous, 90 million years ago.

If you are going to deny science, at least get an understanding of what you seek to deny.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (34) Feb 26, 2015
parcite, we understand enthalpy. It is taken into consideration.

To whom is it new?
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (19) Feb 26, 2015
@parcite - I still don't see what you are driving at. My initial reaction to your comment above is "so what". That doesn't change the fact the the Earth's climate cannot, except in the loosest of terms, be equated to what happens within an enclosed space, like a room.

No, temperature is not the best measure, but it is the most easily understood by laypeople. What's the problem with that?

Enlighten me please. What is your point?
parcite
2.4 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2015
Maggnus...


What exactly do you hope to prove with this specious exercise? The Earth is not like a room, at all, period, full stop.


I'm not proving anything. If you ran the experiment it would prove to you that the amount of energy embodied in an atmosphere can vary widely while the temperature can stay the same.

The only difference required is a difference in concentration of one or more greenhouse gasses.

parcite
4.2 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
parcite, we understand enthalpy. It is taken into consideration.

To whom is it new?

It is new to those who think CO2 concentration has nothing to do with the changing climate.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2015
I'm not proving anything. If you ran the experiment it would prove to you that the amount of energy embodied in an atmosphere can vary widely while the temperature can stay the same.

The only difference required is a difference in concentration of one or more greenhouse gasses.
Ah, ok I am beginning to understand. Your point is that temperature is a poor measure because it doesn't really reflect the reality that the real problem is not so much that temperatures are rising, it is that the whole climate system is having energy added to it.

Have I got that right?
parcite
2.8 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
@parcite - I still don't see what you are driving at. My initial reaction to your comment above is "so what". That doesn't change the fact the the Earth's climate cannot, except in the loosest of terms, be equated to what happens within an enclosed space, like a room.

No, temperature is not the best measure, but it is the most easily understood by laypeople. What's the problem with that?

Enlighten me please. What is your point?


The experiment works the same whether we're discussing two rooms or two planets. Collecting temperature data to show a total increase in embodied energy is like using only air speed to calculate your miles per hour over land.

Trying to prove that AGW is false by pointing to temperature data is useless given the fact that embodied energy can vary while temperature stays the same.

It is a red herring.

Temperature is the metric that laypeople cling to in order to reach the conclusions they want.
parcite
4.6 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2015
I'm not proving anything. If you ran the experiment it would prove to you that the amount of energy embodied in an atmosphere can vary widely while the temperature can stay the same.

The only difference required is a difference in concentration of one or more greenhouse gasses.
Ah, ok I am beginning to understand. Your point is that temperature is a poor measure because it doesn't really reflect the reality that the real problem is not so much that temperatures are rising, it is that the whole climate system is having energy added to it.

Have I got that right?


Perfect summation! Thanks!
gkam
2.4 / 5 (31) Feb 26, 2015
Let's use Ocean Acidification as one measure of environmental Carbon Dioxide.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (21) Feb 26, 2015
Trying to prove that AGW is false by pointing to temperature data is useless given the fact that embodied energy can vary while temperature stays the same.


Which is why I and others on here are constantly referring to the oceans as the repository of ~93% of the climate system's energy storage and the that's it's temperature rise at depth of 10th's of a degree or less is actually a massive amount of energy measured in 10^22 J.

http://www.realcl...000m.png

The top 10 ft of the oceans conatains the same energy as the whole of the atmosphere.

Well, I think this is what you are talking of when applied to Earth's climate system anyway.
rhugh1066
1.7 / 5 (22) Feb 26, 2015
I think we should start a national registry of people who are willing to entirely give up fossil fuel usage , both directly and indirectly, for the good of all. We could give them an award, Smart People's Hero or something. No hydrocarbon-fueled vehicle interaction of any sort, including personal transportation both public and private, no commodity deliveries including food by tractor trailer or train, no fuel oil or gas furnace home heating (no wood either, need trees for carbon sinks, and coal is obviously too dirty and inefficient), no electricity (coal, remember?) and, last but not least, no plastics. Let's put our money where are mouths are. Who's with me?
parcite
4.5 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
@rhugh1066

On the fossil fuels I agree. They're quite finite and the sooner we learn to sustain some sort of economy without them the better.

Conventional oil production has already peaked as of 2005. With these low oil prices the unconventional production (shale/tar/ultra-deep-water) will decline too.

Unless we can somehow dramatically and sustainably increase demand for oil, we're at the global peak in oil production right about now.

What happens after energy production peaks?

UK coal production peaked in 1913. Anything bad happen in Europe just after?

Argentine oil production peaked in 1998. What year did they collapse again?

Soviet Union oil production peaked in 1987. What year did they become the Former Soviet Union?

Global conventional oil production peaked in 2005. Anything happen to the global economy in the years immediately following?

Kick oil to the curb before it kicks you.
gkam
2.6 / 5 (34) Feb 26, 2015
The rant of rhuh is just plain silly. We should reduce as much as we can the combustion of petroleum, and save it for feedstocks.

We can get most of what we need from alternative energy sources.
parcite
3.8 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2015
The rant of rhuh is just plain silly. We should reduce as much as we can the combustion of petroleum, and save it for feedstocks.

We can get most of what we need from alternative energy sources.


Please define, "most of what we need."

If you mean we can generate enough power to run modern civilization with, "alternative," energy sources then I'm afraid you may be mistaken.

Though I agree completely about the silliness of the rant. :)
gkam
2.3 / 5 (29) Feb 26, 2015
Yes, I may, . . but I will look up some references for you. I think you may not be aware of the spectrum of sources we can use.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (17) Feb 26, 2015
Wow!! They have completely rewritten history. The 1930's was hotter than the present.
Well, I guess all that heat from "cooking" the temperature data has to go somewhere.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (30) Feb 26, 2015

http://www.nrel.g...ial.html
http://www.rmi.or...otential
https://www.ameri...an-west/

I have a report for the entire Great Britain, if I can go back to an old browser and find it.
parcite
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2015
Yes, I may, . . but I will look up some references for you. I think you may not be aware of the spectrum of sources we can use.


Thanks! I look forward to the list.

I'm always trying to find ways to lessen my panic over resource depletion but my understanding of the exponential function usually refuses to let me rest.

I've looked into Geothermal, Tidal, Nuclear, Methane Hydrates, Coal-To-Liquids, Solar Thermal, Solar PV, Wind and Hydro, Biodiesel (both canola and soy), Ethanol (corn, cane and beets) and all of them can function quite well on the small scale though almost all of them require the use of some fossil fuels.

It is the scaling up of any of these technologies that runs into limits. Especially when the process is to happen with very few fossil fuels.

The best energy source is the sun and plants are the best at converting it into useful things.
parcite
4.3 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015

http://www.nrel.g...ial.html

I have a report for the entire Great Britain, if I can go back to an old browser and find it.


Thanks! Will look into it.

Here is the best treatment of alternative energies I've found so far...

http://www.resili...e-future
gkam
2.5 / 5 (32) Feb 26, 2015
Good reference. I noticed Wiki is way behind the times for the numbers of MWh produced by the various sources and their costs.

But the yo-yo of fossil fuel costs may be the final nail in the heart of Dirty Fuels. Large users cannot forecast sufficiently without more confidence in future costs, and will go to other fuels, where costs are most stable. This latest drop in oil prices fools nobody.
TampaReb
3.2 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
No Maggnus. The graph shows a 1 degree Fahrenheit increase. The left side of the graph is Celsius and only shows a 0 because it never reaches 1. The right side of the graph, if you look closely is a Fahrenheit reading.
burnsranch
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 26, 2015
The first scientific issue is how did we accurately measure the earths total temp for 30 years to +- one degree? This is a technical impossibility at this point.
rhfield
1.8 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2015
Is the implication of this article that we can only take the most recent 135 years and draw any rational conclusion about climate? What about other 135 year periods in history? No so-called scientist would find one data point and say, "There. I've proved my point." There has to be more proof than that. There has to be even one shred of skepticism and a modicum of exhaustive testing and research before drawing such a dramatic conclusion. Show me!
RWT
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2015
A speculative change of a single degree doesn't change climate. Sorry to burst you ignorant little bubble there. Climate is the long term prevailing weather in a region, not whether a region's average temperature is 18 or 18.2 degrees.
eswagner77
1.8 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
It looks like a cooling cycle that peaks in 1910 and lasts to about 1935 followed by a 40 years intermediate cycle, followed by a warming cycle that starts around 1975. So either A) the warming cycle will peak go into another intermediate cycle, then another cooling cycle, or B) temperatures will continue to go up indefinitely.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2015
The first scientific issue is how did we accurately measure the earths total temp for 30 years to +- one degree? This is a technical impossibility at this point.

Well obviously!

The point is, it's the way we do it and have done for ~130 years. As such we have a comparable method that is (fairly) consistent in methodology. It is thus the only way we have of seeing temperature changes on Earth over that time-scale and as such we are comparing (as near as is possible) apples with apples. Just like a pollsters can get very close to a result by sampling a small population.
farmer8ray
1.8 / 5 (19) Feb 26, 2015
Deny this?? Ha...I can't believe just how many of you gullible "believers" there still are.

NASA says that 2014 was the warmest ever.....and two days later recant because they (with their own information/data) say that there is only a 38% of it being accurate.

Two days ago there is an article claiming that the chance of there being a temp lull of 15+ years to be 1%...but, that is exactly what has happened according to the article. It also went on to say that there is only a 25% chance of it continuing. (Boy they sure were right the first time huh?)

Today there is an article on how the Pacific Ocean is cooler and THAT is the reason for the 15+ year lull in temp increases, but it is only a temporary thing.

Now this article says there is no temp lull at all!!

Would one of you please talk to your so called scientists and tell them they should at least talk amongst themselves and get their story straight?? Because that is all it is by the way...a story.

antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2015
A speculative change of a single degree doesn't change climate. Sorry to burst you ignorant little bubble there. Climate is the long term prevailing weather in a region, not whether a region's average temperature is 18 or 18.2 degrees.

AGW Cult dogma is not only rewriting history, but also the very definition of science.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (20) Feb 26, 2015
A speculative change of a single degree doesn't change climate. Sorry to burst you ignorant little bubble there. Climate is the long term prevailing weather in a region, not whether a region's average temperature is 18 or 18.2 degrees.

Ignorance is as ignorance does.
Climate is not long term weather. You have it arse about. Weather rides on the signal of climate.
The long tern energy trend of climate dictates the weather within that climate. And yes 1C is very much a game changer. As we have seen. But the blind cannot see. What's more there's another degree rise built in that's unavoidable.
I know you deniers don't accept science because your "belief" trumps all but a ~1C rise in ~150 years is unprecedented in the historical record since at least the Holocene Climatic optimum.
http://www.realcl...cott.png
gkam
2.5 / 5 (30) Feb 26, 2015
farmer8ray gets confused. That's because climate and weather are the result of complex systems interacting. Most complex systems can sustain a stable state until perturbed, then they oscillate, out of control, and eventually reach another different stable state, which may not be conducive to the life in the previous stable state.

We have perturbed our environment, and now wait to see our fate.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (17) Feb 26, 2015
Farmer
Deny this?? Ha...I can't believe just how many of you gullible "believers" there still are.
NASA says that 2014 was the warmest ever.....and two days later recant because they (with their own information/data) say that there is only a 38% of it being accurate.


Which is correct when taking 2014 in isolation - you then need to quantify each other year in isolation and guess what? the next most probable warmest year is (NASA) 1010 23% and (NOAA) 2010 18%. So 2014 was the warmest year on record by probability, which is all we can ever say..
http://www.ncdc.n...1501.pdf


Two days ago there is an article claiming that the chance of there being a temp lull of 15+ years to be 1%...but, that is exactly what has happened according to the article. It also went on to say that there is only a 25% chance of it continuing. (Boy they sure were right the first time huh?)

Really?
try this:
http://www.skepti...php?g=47
psychosalmon
2 / 5 (20) Feb 26, 2015
So why were the 1930s warmer than today?

Time is running out for this scam...
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (18) Feb 26, 2015
So why were the 1930s warmer than today?

Time is running out for this scam...


They weren't. Time for you to take your meds.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (17) Feb 26, 2015
I think we should start a national registry of people who are willing to entirely give up fossil fuel usage , both directly and indirectly, for the good of all. We could give them an award, Smart People's Hero or something. No hydrocarbon-fueled vehicle interaction of any sort, including personal transportation both public and private, no commodity deliveries including food by tractor trailer or train, no fuel oil or gas furnace home heating (no wood either, need trees for carbon sinks, and coal is obviously too dirty and inefficient), no electricity (coal, remember?) and, last but not least, no plastics. Let's put our money where are mouths are. Who's with me?

Or. we could have an intelligent conversation about the different means by which our use of fossil fuels, and especially those that we burn, can be reduced or eliminated in the hopes that the waste gas we continue to dump into our atmosphere can be eliminated.

Oh, wait, probably too cerebral for you.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2015
No Maggnus. The graph shows a 1 degree Fahrenheit increase. The left side of the graph is Celsius and only shows a 0 because it never reaches 1. The right side of the graph, if you look closely is a Fahrenheit reading.


I stand corrected.
richiemc
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 26, 2015
This is BS. For one thing, temperature measurement techniques are infinitely more accurate now than even 30 years ago. Reading a digital thermometer giving temps in the hundredths of a degree is magnitudes different than a guy going out in the open on a windy day with his bifocals on trying to read the mercury. Also, 30 years ago there were very few measurement locations relative to the number today. So it is impossible to be able to decipher 2 degrees warmer now that 30-60-90 years ago. And furthermore, 385 ppm CO2 relative to 500-1000 ppm is nothing relative to the overall scheme of things. Let say that the earth is warming for a moment. Its not because of more CO2 in the atmosphere. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere BECAUSE the earth is warming. This is just for $$, nothing less.
gaming_ogre
1.5 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2015
The temps were altered going into the model. This one was already proven false. Stop recycling the lies. At least keep it creative. GW is a lie!
kingdr360
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 26, 2015
Only 3% of CO2 comes from human sources. If you look at the hockey stick graph in the proper geologic time range it is barely an uptick. It was much warmer during Roman times and during the Renaissance. Both of those periods were warmer with no industrialization. We may or may be getting warmer but it is not from human sources
runrig
4.5 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2015
This is BS. For one thing, temperature measurement techniques are infinitely more accurate now than even 30 years ago. Reading a digital thermometer giving temps in the hundredths of a degree is magnitudes different than a guy going out in the open on a windy day with his bifocals on trying to read the mercury. Also, 30 years ago there were very few measurement locations relative to the number today. So it is impossible to be able to decipher 2 degrees warmer now that 30-60-90 years ago. And furthermore, 385 ppm CO2 relative to 500-1000 ppm is nothing relative to the overall scheme of things. Let say that the earth is warming for a moment. Its not because of more CO2 in the atmosphere. There is more CO2 in the atmosphere BECAUSE the earth is warming. This is just for $$, nothing less.

Ah, another critical mind in our midst, hand-waving anti-scientific bollocks ( UK version of BS).
You do not change the way the world works by railing at it my friend. Education wanted.
ettubrute
3.5 / 5 (21) Feb 26, 2015
Wow!! They have completely rewritten history. The 1930's was hotter than the present.
Well, I guess all that heat from "cooking" the temperature data has to go somewhere.


That is true for the U.S., but not globally.

U.S.: http://www1.ncdc....temp.gif

Globally: http://www.nasa.g...1%5D.jpg

You are not trying to rewrite history. You are only trying to rewrite geography. Th U.S. is not the planet. The U.S. is small fraction of the planet.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (25) Feb 26, 2015
Most complex systems can sustain a stable state until perturbed
-Except for all the many that cant.
then they oscillate, out of control, and eventually reach another different stable state
Where do you get the idea that you can make up utter bullshit like this and get away with it?

"Due to the strong coupling between components in complex systems, a failure in one or more components can lead to cascading failures which may have catastrophic consequences on the functioning of the system."

"Instability is a pervasive phenomenon that has deep implications for virtually all complex
social and technical systems. It occurs when a system responds to external stimuli in a way that makes the system less controllable—with potential negative implications for economic, societal, and technological outcomes... There is a very real possibility that this
pattern of instability may result in the entire collapse of the industry"
ettubrute
3.6 / 5 (17) Feb 26, 2015
The first scientific issue is how did we accurately measure the earths total temp for 30 years to +- one degree? This is a technical impossibility at this point.


The temperature data is a useful tool to use if you wish to know to what extent the temperature has changed. The temperature data is but one part of the observational data. How else would you be able to determine if the global temperatures have risen without having to use a thermometer? There are many ways to do this. Perhaps you are just unable to think of any of these other ways and therefore you must rely solely on the temperature data?
dandelgado100
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
It's amusing that these articles always come out right in middle of a record cold snap. But by next year, due to the magic of data manipulation, the climate "scientists" will rejigger the data and claim "February 2015 was the hottest on record". It's easy to claim the last thirty-years were "above average" when you can simply manipulate the data to match what you want to believe.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2015
The temps were altered going into the model. This one was already proven false. Stop recycling the lies. At least keep it creative. GW is a lie!

Only in the Denialosphere my friend.
But then that is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The truth science discovers, to those that see through the prism of ideology will always be their 'belief'. And we know what that abhorant psychology is doing in some parts of the world.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (17) Feb 26, 2015
This is BS. blah blah .. Also, 30 years ago there were very few measurement locations rblah blah.. And furthermore, 385 ppm CO2 relative to 500-1000 ppm is nothing relative to the overall scheme of things...blah blah..There is more CO2 in the atmosphere BECAUSE the earth is warming. This is just for $$, nothing less.
Well there you go, the entire denialist argument encapsulated in one sophist rant. There is no warming, if there was we couldn't measure it, if we did measure it, it wouldn't be very much, that which we have measured is all natural, and it's all just a government conspiracy to steal money anyway.

And they wonder why the US has gone from the most educated country in the world to about 56th.
samohta
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
Very disappointed in this article. It just wasn't scary enough. I need more doom, gloom, and shrill hysteria. I would feel better if my intellectual and morally superior people would throw out a a few choice words besmirching my character. I did live in West Virgina for many years...if that helps. Thanks in advance.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
Only 3% of CO2 comes from human sources. If you look at the hockey stick graph in the proper geologic time range it is barely an uptick. It was much warmer during Roman times and during the Renaissance. Both of those periods were warmer with no industrialization. We may or may be getting warmer but it is not from human sources


I wonder how many people need to repeat a lie before they realize it is still a lie? From the "it's warmer but it's not from us" crowd.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
Very disappointed in this article. It just wasn't scary enough. I need more doom, gloom, and shrill hysteria. I would feel better if my intellectual and morally superior people would throw out a a few choice words besmirching my character. I did live in West Virgina for many years...if that helps. Thanks in advance.


Oh, well then you should go to WUWT. You'll get all of that, and more.
runrig
5 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2015
It's amusing that these articles always come out right in middle of a record cold snap. But by next year, due to the magic of data manipulation, the climate "scientists" will rejigger the data and claim "February 2015 was the hottest on record". It's easy to claim the last thirty-years were "above average" when you can simply manipulate the data to match what you want to believe.

Ah, you'll be a "small town" US citizen, that thinks the Earth comprises the US ( When actually just 2% ). Well not even the US in this case, just the eastern half, with the west having "record" warmth.
Do you realise how stupid you come across? Do you care?
You're right though - it's amusing. And sad.
http://data.giss....;pol=rob
mbee1
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2015
Each month they take the actual measured temperatures and change them usually upward for the northern hemisphere and parts of the southern hemisphere. For example, Barrow Alaska raised 1.5 degrees from actual, Kansas raised 1 degree from actual. Google the 2010 revision of the giss data set and you can read what they do. When you do this the world is warmer for the last thirty years, than they use the data prior to 1951 and adjust it, you guessed it downward from the measured. Nevermind that Hanson, who invented the giss data set says data prior to 1951 is unreliable. When you do this the world was colder prior to 1951. After all those adjustments you can claim with a straight face 2014 was warmest on record, 52% chance of being wrong with their own math, and have the 5th highest snow and ice measured ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere in November, highest in North America, have 1936 as the hottest US temperature, the hottest temperature in Australia is 1924, pure Fraud
richiemc
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 26, 2015
Maggnus, I hate to tell you this but I am well educated with a degree in Chemical Engineering. The problem with people like you is that you look at one side and if it agrees with what you want to believe, you go running off the cliff with the other sheeple. The global warming alarmist started with a conclusion and then worked backward to formulate the data so that it would fit the conclusion. I've read arguments on both sides and both sides have good points. I've also done a lot of research myself. Check these graphs out:

(I tried to insert website for geocraft showing temp and CO2 over 400,000 yrs)

If you notice, when the temp goes up, so does the CO2. When the temp goes down, so does the CO2. Man has only been in a position to make an impact for, let's say 200 out of 400,000 years. What caused the temp and CO2 to fluctuate together before the last 200 years? In several instances the temp was much higher than now and the CO2 much lower. What caused that?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2015
It's amusing that these articles always come out right in middle of a record cold snap. But by next year, due to the magic of data manipulation, the climate "scientists" will rejigger the data and claim "February 2015 was the hottest on record". It's easy to claim the last thirty-years were "above average" when you can simply manipulate the data to match what you want to believe.


Ah, a person from the NE USA. From the "it's cold (or winter, or snowing) outside so there must not be global warming" crowd.
mbee1
1 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2015
the US may compromise 2 percent of the world but is 4 percent of the Northern Hemisphere. All our weather comes from the 96 percent of the Northern Hemisphere with some slop from the Southern Hemisphere but not very much. if we are cold that means a good part of the northern hemisphere is cold and vice versus. to claim like runrig that somehow the US has a wall around it and our weather is independent of the rest of the northern hemisphere is just nonsense.
KDK
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
Quit lying people!

According to NASA's own data via Remote Sensing System (RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).

The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we've actually had temperatures DROPPING!

As can be seen in this chart, we haven't seen any global warming for 17 years.

Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.

runrig
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015



If you notice, when the temp goes up, so does the CO2. When the temp goes down, so does the CO2. Man has only been in a position to make an impact for, let's say 200 out of 400,000 years. What caused the temp and CO2 to fluctuate together before the last 200 years? In several instances the temp was much higher than now and the CO2 much lower. What caused that?

Jumping in for Maggnus...
What caused that is the Earth's orbital eccentricity (Milankovitch cycles). Increasing summer insulation slowly melting the NH land ice and warming the climate. This in turn allowed CO2 to re-enter the atmosphere and give a +ve feedback (along with H2O). Normally temp follows CO2 but it can lead and cause warming, as it is now, because humans have added it artificially.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
It's amusing that these articles always come out right in middle of a record cold snap. But by next year, due to the magic of data manipulation, the climate "scientists" will rejigger the data and claim "February 2015 was the hottest on record". It's easy to claim the last thirty-years were "above average" when you can simply manipulate the data to match what you want to believe.

Ah, you'll be a "small town" US citizen, that thinks the Earth comprises the US ( When actually just 2% ). Well not even the US in this case, just the eastern half, with the west having "record" warmth.
Do you realise how stupid you come across? Do you care?
You're right though - it's amusing. And sad.
http://data.giss....;pol=rob


Lol dammit runrig you keep getting in ahead of me!!!
richiemc
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2015
runrig, BS!!
mbee1
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2015
maggnus, you are sure snappy with the put downs but I do not see a shred of data from you. The giss data set is adjusted you know that I know that. if you adjust something it would be nice to verify the adjustments represent the real world. The satellite measurement do not agree the world is warming, the mid and lower troposphere show no trend in 55 years, the deep oceans are not warming, the ice core studies show CO2 does not change the climate, the arctic and antarctic ice is increasing, 5th highest snow and ice coverage of the northern hemisphere where they do most of the adjustments yet they claim the world is warming. Any reasonable person would suspect something is wrong.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
@ rickeimc Oh good gawd, another engineer. Do you know benni? Or alchemist?

Now I don't know why you hate to tell people stuff, and then go ahead and tell them anyway, and I can't really understand why you think that because you have read "both sides" that that means others can't have done that as well, but I can tell you that you that telling me I am a sheeple like you are some kind of Zeta-baterium alien overseer is not going to convince me that you are anything like what you claim.

I don't care who you claim you are, and I could not care even less that you can't link a graph that you think says something profound, but I can tell you that CO2 and temperature are not linear, and I can tell you that just because man didn't cause a CO2 rise before doesn't mean he can't cause a CO2 rise now.

I will try to explain more, given you are an engineer, as you'all seem to have trouble understanding physics. Feel free to toss in a question.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
runrig, BS!!

QED
Maggnus
5 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2015
runrig, BS!!


Well, now that is more like an engineer, at least form what I've seen from those that populate this site. Now, given that you are an engineer and all, I can understand that it may take you some time to formulate words to explain yourself, so I won't expect a coherent answer from you just yet, but perhaps you can sit down and write out why you disagree with runrig (who is a meteorologist, btw) and then copy and paste it here so we can explain all the things you misunderstand.

That's called having a conversation. Honest, you should try it, it helps you learn stuff.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
Quit lying people!

Quit being stupid.

According to NASA's own data via Remote Sensing System (RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years.....


Ah, satellite series, of surface temp, that isn't, as a satellite can't measure surface temp. It infers it from a complex algorithm ... And we all know what deniers think of algorithms (models).
Oh, BTW it's different to UAH as well.

The problem with that argument is that we experienced the bulk of that warming between 1979 and 1998 . . . since then, we've actually had temperatures DROPPING!

Err, no, or how else would we have had the 10 hottest years in that time (globally not the US).

As can be seen in this chart, we haven't seen any global warming for 17 years.

As can be seen from this chart the oceans have been heating instead.

http://www.realcl...warming/

Ctd
mbee1
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2015
runrig, it is a claim that CO2 is warming the world currently which is simply unsupported by the actual data. You can have a thousand PHd's standing on papers a mile high but if the world is not warming as it currently is not the claim CO2 is warming the world falls flat on its face except for people like you , the useful idiots as the communists used to say. They need you as they want to take your money and send it to themselves while destroying the west and capitalism as the people over at the IPCC keep saying. Mann lied on his hockey stick by leaving out 40 years of data he did not like, otherwise his stick would be flat instead of rising. Hanson claims the world has a cold bias in the Northern Hemisphere so adjusts all the data upwards while throwing out anything that does not meet his idea of correctness. Than plugs the data or simply leave that station out. It reminds me of the cold fusion guys and that lady in japan making the claims about stem cells.
runrig
5 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2015
Ctd

Weakening the global warming argument is data showing that the North Polar ice cap is increasing in size. Recent satellite images from NASA actually reflect an increase of 43% to 63%.


Hardly...a 2 year recovery to a falling trend line, a recovery does not make.

http://en.m.wikip...line.png
mbee1
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2015
runrig, why not look up the NASA paper on ocean warming, NOT, out is june of last year.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 26, 2015
Sorry Maggnus ... Finger trouble and hit a 1 by mistake
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2015


Lol dammit runrig you keep getting in ahead of me!!!


Sorry .... In bed with the Ipad and fighting off the Trolls like Michael Caine in Zulu!

And they,re making as much sense as the Zulu - so easy to shoot down.

I'll get me head down now. Midnight in the UK.
richiemc
1.8 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2015
"Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today."

Maggnus does nothing but run around trying to intimidate. I don't give a crap if someone is a meterologist or a PhD or whatever they may be. If they are wrong, they're still wrong. You can believe whatever you want but your data doesn't support millions and millions of years of history.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2015
"Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today."

Maggnus does nothing but run around trying to intimidate. I don't give a crap if someone is a meterologist or a PhD or whatever they may be. If they are wrong, they're still wrong. You can believe whatever you want but your data doesn't support millions and millions of years of history.

Well there you go.
Now tell me when (if) you went to Uni, did you by any chance take over from the lecturer and teach him.
Because of course you knew better than him then, and better than the worlds experts now.
And why? did you get you "science" from WUWT, along with the other inhabitants of the rabbit- hole?

lifemurals
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
Pseudoscientific chicanery reported last year by Steven Goddard's Real Science blog illustrates shameless manipulation of some of the world's most influential climate records.

His investigation reveals that many surface measurements originally recorded in NOAA's U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) have been replaced with temperatures "fabricated" from theoretical computer models.

In doing so, original recorded temperatures were subsequently lowered, thereby exaggerating warming in recent decades by comparison. Whereas the original records show that the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s, the hottest decade on record, NOAA's manipulated graph based nearly half on fantasy data projects a high warming rate in excess of 3 degrees Celsius per century.


NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies based its recent mainstream media-parroted "2014 hottest year" canard on this same contrived data, but ratcheted up the hot spin cycle even more.
ceh4702
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2015
The climate is always changing. So what? What exactly can mankind do about the climate. You ready to turn off all the electric plants and live off the land with no chemicals and no fertilizer. i.e. The carbon cycle is 100 years long we are stuck with what we got for about 100 years.
ceh4702
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
So we don't even know what caused the last ice age or what made it end. All this happened without industrialization or any significant amount of man made pollution. Since science does not know the answers about what is causing this, it means there is no way to tell the cause, only to observe the effect. Myans predicted our warm weather. Maybe the ancients knew more than they let on. Got that recipe for greek fire yet? Do you know how to make a copper chisel stronger than a modern steel file?
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2015
If you weren't laughing after the first sentence, you are either not sane or not educated.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2015
Maggnus does nothing but run around trying to intimidate. I don't give a crap if someone is a meterologist or a PhD or whatever they may be. If they are wrong, they're still wrong. You can believe whatever you want but your data doesn't support millions and millions of years of history.
Funny you saying that after declaring you're an engineer and all. I guess you don't get irony either.

Now you've copy/pasted this from somewhere
Compared to former geologic periods, concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere are still very small and may not have a statistically measurable effect on global temperatures. For example, during the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm while temperatures then were about the same as they are today.
During the Cretaceous 90 million years ago, they were about 2500PPM. So? Do you understand there are other drivers? And brakes? What does that have to do with today, in your mind?
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
One sentence, buried in the 9th paragraph.

"And we know why: predominately, the increase of greenhouse gas warming due to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. "

Are you guys starting to move away from this lie as I predicted? Everything else in the article is about the climate getting warmer over the last 30 years, which no one is denying, so what's the point?
Shastafarian
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2015
I would love to read from a scientist the possibility that the earth is healing.
Think about it:
Fact: There are palm trees and ferns under the artic ice
Fact: The rings in the stumps are of equal size proving that once the climate/weather was the same year round for long periods of time.
Fact: North America was once covered in 300-1000' deep glaciers
Fact: Ruins of cities have been found under the ocean.
Is it possible that the earth is healing and reverting back to a tropic planet?
gkam
2.2 / 5 (26) Feb 26, 2015
Is ConfusedSociety ready to discuss the Acidification of the Seas as proof of excess Carbon Dioxide?
KDK
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2015
AGW is a total fraud, 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!
gkam
2.2 / 5 (29) Feb 26, 2015
Yeah, KDK, that-there global warming is all in their pointy heads, . . . right?

And you are much smarter than those educated folk, . . . right?
DrPhill
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2015
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "....Joseph Goebbels.
zz5555
4.5 / 5 (15) Feb 26, 2015
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "....Joseph Goebbels.

You should tell that to people like KDK, above. The 18 years of no warming and 7 years of cooling lies are getting old. ;)
antigoracle
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2015
Bill589
1 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2015
Blizzards in Hawaii. A foot of snow in Jerusalem. Record cold around the world and polar ice caps growing.

And yet the government/corporations, and the university 'scientists' they pay, say it's because of 'Global Warming'.

Not long ago, DC and their corporate cronies wanted more money and power to 'save us' from the next ice-age.
Different lie. Same liars.

I believe this regarding our government:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.
It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." - Adam Smith
Bill589
1 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
"U.N. Official Reveals Real Reason Behind Warming Scare"
news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021015-738779-climate-change-scare-tool-to-destroy-capitalism.htm

"Destroying capitalism" means transferring more power from the individual to Big Government. Historically, this happens to be the typical "Fundamental Transformation of a country." Add to that W and O administrations routine lying about so many things.
xstos
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2015
These numbers sure make it look like we're pumping an epic amount of chemicals into the atmosphere.

http://cdiac.ornl...ghg.html

Nothing suspicious here. Humans have no effect on the planet whatsoever.
Bill589
1 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2015
Some important new researchers can't be trusted:
"The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever" www.telegraph.co....ver.html
ConfoundedSociety
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2015
Is ConfusedSociety ready to discuss the Acidification of the Seas as proof of excess Carbon Dioxide?


As soon as you explain how that proves man is responsible for 80%+ of the warming seen over the last 135 years.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (16) Feb 26, 2015
@richiemc
I have a serious problem with the following
you say
I am well educated with a degree in Chemical Engineering
but then turn around and say
The global warming alarmist started with a conclusion and then worked backward to formulate the data so that it would fit the conclusion
If you are reading the studies, then you will see that the overwhelming amount of the data supports AGW... but then you also say
I've also done a lot of research myself
OK then... lets start by looking at your studies published
especially the ones refuting the current evidence regarding AGW... link those here and lets look at them

And i am not being mean or facetious, i am truly interesting in seeing your studies because i am shocked that you aren't a worldwide name, considering the implications of your post

Mostly because it seems to mimic another former "prophet" here

so, post any and ALL of your research here so that we can read up on your findings re: CO2
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (21) Feb 26, 2015
There a lot of people making claims on this thread, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence or even logical deduction to back them up. Does anyone who is in the "skeptic" camp want to explain why they do not accept the validity of the physical phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect, which is responsible for trapping more and more heat in the Earth's climate systems each year? You will note that I said "heat" instead of "warming", because the two things describe distinctly different physical phenomena. "Heating" is the transfer of thermal or radiative energy from a warmer body to a colder body, whereas "warming" is a temperature rise resulting from absorption of heat. So, while it is true that heating must happen before warming can occur, the amount of warming depends on the heat capacity of the colder body, and actually, it is possible for a body to absorb heat without changing temperature at all (think of a glass of ice water, which remains at 0 deg. C until all ice has melted).
gkam
2.3 / 5 (27) Feb 26, 2015

confused cannot debate Ocean Acidification, because he will lose.

It is caused by our Carbon Dioxide turning to Carbonic Acid in the seas. He wants to only consider temperature, because he will lose the acidification test.
ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015

confused cannot debate Ocean Acidification, because he will lose.

It is caused by our Carbon Dioxide turning to Carbonic Acid in the seas. He wants to only consider temperature, because he will lose the acidification test.


Why would I want to? It has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that man made carbon emissions are responsible for 80%+ of the warming seen in the last 135 years. If you want to admit to the myth of AGW, then we can talk about ocean acidification.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (16) Feb 27, 2015
explain why they do not accept the validity of the physical phenomenon
@DLK
you will not likely get any to actually present logical arguments for the most part

one reason they ignore empirical evidence and scientific studies is here: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

You will also see this study validated in cantdrives arguments here: http://phys.org/n...ine.html

the article linked above is actually relevant too...

hard line conspiracy theorists and anti-gov't people tend to think that anything supported by the gov't or mainstream accepted is simply wrong due to the circular conspiratorial thought process

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

i think you will enjoy those articles i linked
and as for cd & electric universe - look up Velikovski and http://rationalwi...Universe
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
There a lot of people making claims on this thread, but I haven't seen a lot of evidence or even logical deduction to back them up. Does anyone who is in the "skeptic" camp want to explain why they do not accept the validity of the physical phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect, which is responsible for trapping more and more heat in the Earth's climate systems each year?


It's your claim that the greenhouse effect as you describe it is responsible for 80%+ of the warming over the last 135 years that's been proven false. Even a large portion of the peer reviewed studies you claim to put all of your faith in say the same. The 97% number that kept getting thrown around counted every single study that said that man was responsible for even 1% of the warming, which you claimed was agreeing with AGW.

CO2 is not the primary driver of warming. The past 17 years (amongst other things) proves that.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
So we don't even know what caused the last ice age or what made it end. All this happened without industrialization or any significant amount of man made pollution. Since science does not know the answers about what is causing this, it means there is no way to tell the cause, only to observe the effect. Myans predicted our warm weather. Maybe the ancients knew more than they let on. Got that recipe for greek fire yet? Do you know how to make a copper chisel stronger than a modern steel file?

Milankovitch cycles. Look them up.
DarkLordKelvin
2.9 / 5 (19) Feb 27, 2015
Does anyone who is in the "skeptic" camp want to explain why they do not accept the validity of the physical phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect, which is responsible for trapping more and more heat in the Earth's climate systems each year?
It's your claim that the greenhouse effect as you describe it is responsible for 80%+ of the warming over the last 135 years that's been proven false.

That's not "my claim", and more specifically, that's not what I asked ... I asked if you accepted the validity of the GE, and by inference, if you understand it well enough to have an informed opinion. Strictly speaking, the GE is about heat retention by the atmosphere. That retained heat will eventually lead to "warming" (i.e. temperature change), but it does not have to do so immediately or directly (c.f. latent heat). Even direct warming can be lagged significantly by dissipation into a large heat sink (e.g. the oceans).
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
That's not "my claim", and more specifically, that's not what I asked ... I asked if you accepted the validity of the GE, and by inference, if you understand it well enough to have an informed opinion. Strictly speaking, the GE is about heat retention by the atmosphere. That retained heat will eventually lead to "warming" (i.e. temperature change), but it does not have to do so immediately or directly (c.f. latent heat). Even direct warming can be lagged significantly by dissipation into a large heat sink (e.g. the oceans).


Correct. But it's overall effect is practically negligible. AGW claims that man made carbon emissions are the primary driver of warming. We know that's not the case now. The AGW hypothesis has been proven false.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
Blizzards in Hawaii. A foot of snow in Jerusalem. Record cold around the world and polar ice caps growing.

And yet the government/corporations, and the university 'scientists' they pay, say it's because of 'Global Warming'.

Not long ago, DC and their corporate cronies wanted more money and power to 'save us' from the next ice-age.
Different lie. Same liars.

I believe this regarding our government:

Wow, someone find his straight jacket quick!

Two things my friend. You use the words "believe" and "government", neither of which have the slightest bearing on the science of AGW.
BTW your gubberment is not my gubberment.
Carry on you make the case for us.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Feb 27, 2015
That's not "my claim", and more specifically, that's not what I asked ... I asked if you accepted the validity of the GE, and by inference, if you understand it well enough to have an informed opinion. Strictly speaking, the GE is about heat retention by the atmosphere. That retained heat will eventually lead to "warming" (i.e. temperature change), but it does not have to do so immediately or directly (c.f. latent heat). Even direct warming can be lagged significantly by dissipation into a large heat sink (e.g. the oceans).


Correct. But it's overall effect is practically negligible.
Please provide a scientific explanation as to why you think this is true.
al_hopfer
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
30 years? Perception has changed, not the weather. Weather varies, as do perceptions.

I came to Chicago in 1971. Compared to my hometown of Pittsburgh, it was very cold in Chicago. In 1982, for example, temperatures hit -30F. Then a warming trend started. Winters got very mild, little snow, warming in March not April.

Today, and for the past 3 or 4 years, it is getting cold, again. It has been colder each of those past 4 years or so. Warming is perception, like an elephant in a room with 5 blindfolded people trying to determine what they were feeling (never knowing of elephants). Depends on where you live.

Eventually, the cold in Chicago will cease and the arctic will get cold again, and I guess it might take 30 more years.

Perception over the previous 30 years will most likely change over the next 30 years... and so on and so on and ....
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (21) Feb 27, 2015
30 years? Perception has changed, not the weather. Weather varies, as do perceptions.

I came to Chicago in 1971. Compared to my hometown of Pittsburgh, it was very cold in Chicago. In 1982, for example, temperatures hit -30F. Then a warming trend started. Winters got very mild, little snow, warming in March not April.

Today, and for the past 3 or 4 years, it is getting cold, again. It has been colder each of those past 4 years or so. Warming is perception, like an elephant in a room with 5 blindfolded people trying to determine what they were feeling (never knowing of elephants). Depends on where you live.

Eventually, the cold in Chicago will cease and the arctic will get cold again, and I guess it might take 30 more years.

Perception over the previous 30 years will most likely change over the next 30 years... and so on and so on and ....


Good thing science is about, well, science .. instead of your personal anecdotal accounts.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2015
parcite claimed
..focus on temperature data is ridiculous
For U Yes, overall answer

"you need education in specific heat" !

parcite asked
.. Both exactly the same. Both have a humidifier and a furnace.
.. humidity in room 1 to 10%.
.. humidity in room 2 to 90%.
.. thermostats in each room to 85 degrees F.
In which room does the furnace have to burn more fuel to maintain the temperature of 85 degrees?
When both rooms are at 85 degrees F, which room embodies more thermal energy?
Easy:-

a.Determine partial pressures towards mass of constituents of air vs water vapour, then
b.Calculate enthalpy from specific/latent heat of each constituent
c.Sum

But, whats the point re climate change ?

Clearly Earth's system although complex is founded upon statistical mechanics re heat & its flow AND issue of infra-red, all measurable re temp ?

Can a denier answer:-
"How can adding CO2, with known thermal properties, to the atmosphere NOT increase thermal resistivity?"
Gimp
1 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2015
It's all hogwash, it's made up numbers and made up data, who determined what is "average", only ONE day can ever be average, anything else is abnormal. Anyone can arbitrarily set a temperature and call it average then complain about the abnormal results.

Set the average to a temperature say 6 million years ago when Antarctica was a tropical paradise, then we're basically in another Ice Age.

Is human activity changing the temperatures? YES

Would the temperatures vary if no humans were here? YES

Give it up.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2015
Is human activity changing the temperatures? YES

Would the temperatures vary if no humans were here? YES

Give it up.

Please. If you understand nothing about how statistical analysis works don't comment on climate scienec. Just don't. It's just garbage and you're embarassing yourself in front of everyone.
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2015
ceh4702
So we don't even know what caused the last ice age or what made it end.


I am so reminded of Bill Oreilly. "Tides come in, and tides go out - and we don't know why that happens".....
parcite
4.2 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2015
@Mike_Massen

Yes you got the point! The total energy of any given atmosphere cannot ever be deduced simply by looking at temperature. The atmosphere can absorb immense amounts of energy and not change a single degree.

My point (which was summed up by Maggnus perfectly above) is that temperature is a poor indicator of the total energy in any given atmosphere.

The little experiment demonstrates that the temperature in two atmospheres can be the same while total energy content can differ. The only thing required to achieve that is a change in greenhouse gasses like CO2, Methane and/or water vapor.

Adding any of them increases the thermal capacity of the atmosphere. CO2 also makes it easier for energy to transfer from atmosphere to ocean (and visa-versa). The crazy large lake effect seen recently in the US is a concrete, recent example.

Those who deny a human hand in climate change do so for emotional reasons only. Logic cannot have led to that conclusion.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
Yes you got the point! The total energy of any given atmosphere cannot ever be deduced simply by looking at temperature. The atmosphere can absorb immense amounts of energy and not change a single degree.


So please tell us your evidence that the "energy" in the atmosphere has increased over the last 17 years.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
Correct. But it's overall effect is practically negligible.


Please provide a scientific explanation as to why you think this is true.


Again? Why not? (It's telling that you don't provide any counter argument at all, though.)

The rate of atmospheric CO2 increase is at it's highest ever, ergo, if CO2 is the primary driver, heat must also be increasing at it's highest (or close to it's highest) ever. We know temperature isn't increasing (from NOAA) and we know ocean's aren't absorbing any more heat than they were prior to the temperature flat line (also NOAA).

So where's the heat?

Here's how science works. You make an hypothesis. You make predictions off of that hypothesis and then collect data. If the data matches (or is at least close) your hypothesis is supported. If not, an actual scientist would come up with a new one. AGW's model predictions haven't been right. Ever. Why should we trust what they predict 100 years out?
gkam
2.1 / 5 (27) Feb 27, 2015
Confused is afraid to discuss Ocean Acidification as proof of excess CO2.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
ceh4702
So we don't even know what caused the last ice age or what made it end.


I am so reminded of Bill Oreilly. "Tides come in, and tides go out - and we don't know why that happens".....

I am so reminded by your stupidity. Lone neuron comes in, crap comes out - and I know exactly why. I would say you have been brainwashed by your AGW Cult, but then that would require you to have a brain.
ConfoundedSociety
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
Confused is afraid to discuss Ocean Acidification as proof of excess CO2.


Middle school science fairs deal with proving there's more CO2 in the atmosphere than there used to be. That's an accepted fact that no one anywhere is still trying to prove (except you apparently.) It's your claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere proves man is causing warming that is laughable.
rockyvnvmc
1.3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
"30 years of above-average temperatures means the climate has changed";

The climate is constantly changing, due to changes within our Sun. Yet there hasn't been any significant climate changes in the last several decades. Certainly not enough to warrant all of the hoopla about it. The UN official purportedly in charge of climate change activities recently came out and admitted that it's not about the climate, but about altering our economic system.
Something that a lot of us already knew.

So called "man-made climate change' is one of the greatest Hoaxes ever perpetrated upon mankind. The only greater one, is that Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah/Bounel (or Whatever his Real Name is) is actually eligible to be President of the USA, given that he was, admittedly, born with dual British and American citizenship. A Dual citizen can never be a 'Natural Born Citizen', as our Framers understood the term to mean.
parcite
4.2 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2015
So please tell us your evidence that the "energy" in the atmosphere has increased over the last 17 years.


That statement is so imprecise it is almost meaningless.

The amount of energy in the atmosphere is constantly in flux. Energy is constantly being added and constantly escaping.

The concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere determines the upper boundary of how much energy the atmosphere can absorb at any one time and also the rate at which that energy can escape.

The difference between and dry heat and a humid heat is really just a difference in the concentration of a greenhouse gas.

Study the thermal differences between iron and aluminum. Iron absorbs heat slowly and releases it slowly. Aluminum does this much faster.

More greenhouse gasses makes for a more "iron" like atmosphere while less makes for a more "aluminum" like atmosphere.

Greenhouse gasses change how heat works within the atmosphere. They doesn't simply warm it.

parcite
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
Middle school science fairs deal with proving there's more CO2 in the atmosphere than there used to be. That's an accepted fact that no one anywhere is still trying to prove (except you apparently.) It's your claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere proves man is causing warming that is laughable.


What is laughable is that you misunderstand the science to such a degree that you focus on temperature.

Focusing on temperature to see total energy content is as useful as using only wind speed in a plane to determine speed over land.

There are other factors that will be completely lost on anybody that simply focuses on temperature or simple, "warming."

When the heat exchanger in your furnace exchanges thermal heat with the atmosphere in your home, which molecules is it better able to exchange thermal energy with? If you don't know the answer to that you have no business saying whether climate change is, "man made," or not.
gkam
2.4 / 5 (28) Feb 27, 2015
" It's your claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere proves man is causing warming that is laughable."
------------------------------------

You must be the only one laughing. The rest of us are more concerned with the science and reality than your politically-inspired views.
ConfoundedSociety
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
So please tell us your evidence that the "energy" in the atmosphere has increased over the last 17 years.


That statement is so imprecise it is almost meaningless.


In other words, you have zero data backing up your claim that the "energy" is still increasing even though temperature isn't. This is just another attempt to grasp at straws just like the claim that all the heat was going to the deep oceans (which we know it's not).
ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015

What is laughable is that you misunderstand the science to such a degree that you focus on temperature.

Focusing on temperature to see total energy content is as useful as using only wind speed in a plane to determine speed over land.


Still waiting for you to provide all this data you claim to have showing "energy" increasing.
sdrfz
1.3 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2015

The author of this article receives government funding for his research. So of course he has a monetary interest in seeing that the theory of AGW is accepted.
gkam
2.5 / 5 (29) Feb 27, 2015
Confounded, it is called enthalpy. Look it up. Much of the energy can be stored in changes of state.

ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
Confounded, it is called enthalpy. Look it up. Much of the energy can be stored in changes of state.


So you can provide data backing up your claim. Let's see it.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
"30 years of above-average temperatures means the climate has changed";

The climate is constantly changing, due to changes within our Sun. Yet there hasn't been any significant climate changes in the last several decades. Certainly not enough to warrant all of the hoopla about it. The UN official purportedly in charge of climate change activities recently came out and admitted that it's not about the climate, but about altering our economic system.
Something that a lot of us already knew.

So called "man-made climate change' is one of the greatest Hoaxes ever perpetrated upon mankind. The only greater one, is that Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah/Bounel (or Whatever his Real Name is) is actually eligible to be President of the USA, given that he was, admittedly, born with dual British and American citizenship. A Dual citizen can never be a 'Natural Born Citizen', as our Framers understood the term to mean.

Another of the "There is no warming because Democrats?Gore/Obama" crowd.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
Another of the "There is no warming because Democrats?Gore/Obama" crowd.


Another of the "anyone who denies man is causing global warming is denying there's been any warming" lies.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
The rest of us are more concerned with the science and reality than your politically-inspired views.


Concerned with science? So you admit AGW has been proven false. Thank you.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2015
It's all hogwash, it's made up numbers and made up data, who determined what is "average", only ONE day can ever be average, anything else is abnormal. Anyone can arbitrarily set a temperature and call it average then complain about the abnormal results.

Set the average to a temperature say 6 million years ago when Antarctica was a tropical paradise, then we're basically in another Ice Age.

Is human activity changing the temperatures? YES

Would the temperatures vary if no humans were here? YES

Give it up.

One of the "It's warming. and we're responsible. but it's not bad" crowd.

I swear, we need a point system :/
parcite
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
Still waiting for you to provide all this data you claim to have showing "energy" increasing.


Made no such claim. I claimed the thermal capacity of the atmosphere was changing due to increases of greenhouse gasses. This is 100% accurate and all you need is basic physics to understand that fact.

If you have yet to understand it you need to read more physics. Or perhaps you have everything you need to come to the right conclusion and your biases are fogging your good judgement. It happens. Don't feel bad.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2015
30 years? Perception has changed, not the weather. Weather varies, as do perceptions.

I came to Chicago in 1971. Compared to my hometown of Pittsburgh, it was very cold in Chicago. In 1982, for example, temperatures hit -30F. Then a warming trend started. Winters got very mild, little snow, warming in March not April.

Today, and for the past 3 or 4 years, it is getting cold, again. It has been colder each of those past 4 years or so. Warming is perception, like an elephant in a room with 5 blindfolded people trying to determine what they were feeling (never knowing of elephants). Depends on where you live.

Eventually, the cold in Chicago will cease and the arctic will get cold again, and I guess it might take 30 more years.

Perception over the previous 30 years will most likely change over the next 30 years... and so on and so on and ....


One of the "It's cold/winter/snowing outside, so there isn't global warming" crowd.
parcite
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
So you can provide data backing up your claim. Let's see it.


What data would prove these facts of physics to you? I doubt you even know what data you need to test it. If you did know then we wouldn't be having this conversation. :)

In fact you could prove several of these concepts by your self with a thermometer, a Styrofoam cup and a good head on your shoulders.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
Pseudoscientific chicanery reported last year by Steven Goddard's Real Science blog illustrates shameless manipulation of some of the world's most influential climate records.

...Blah blah...

In doing so, original recorded temperatures were subsequently lowered, thereby exaggerating warming in recent decades by comparison. Whereas the original records show that the U.S. has actually been cooling since the 1930s, the hottest decade on record, NOAA's manipulated graph based nearly half on fantasy data projects a high warming rate in excess of 3 degrees Celsius per century.


blah blah..same contrived data, but ratcheted up the hot spin cycle even more.

One of the "There's no global warming because CONSPIRACY" crowd.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2015
Maggnus, I hate to tell you this but I am well educated with a degree in Chemical Engineering. The problem with people like you is that you look at one side and if it agrees with what you want to believe, you go running off the cliff with the other sheeple. The global warming alarmist started with a conclusion and then worked backward to formulate the data so that it would fit the conclusion. I've read arguments on both sides and both sides have good points. I've also done a lot of research myself. Check these graphs out:
One of the "I'm an engineer/physicist/expert blah blah and because I don't see/understand/believe it, it isn't true" crowd.
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2015
antigoracle
I am so reminded by your stupidity.

So - a comment is made that we "don't even know what caused the last ice age or what made it end." To which I respond (as the FACT is that we do understand the drivers of the glacials and inter-glacials). Here is a primer
Glacials and interglacials occur in fairly regular repeated cycles. The timing is governed to a large degree by predictable cyclic changes in Earth's orbit, which affect the amount of sunlight reaching different parts of Earth's surface. The three orbital variations are: (1) changes in Earth's orbit around the Sun (eccentricity), (2) shifts in the tilt of Earth's axis (obliquity), and (3) the wobbling motion of Earth's axis (precession)

From http://geology.ut...ages.htm
Antigoracle childishly attacks me - makes stupid comments about not having a brain - and of course says nothing about the actual science. All on the comments section of a SCIENCE site!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (24) Feb 27, 2015
GKAM
The rest of us are more concerned with the science and reality
-Uh huh.

Explain please why you feel you can make up bullshit like this:
Most complex systems can sustain a stable state until perturbed, then they oscillate, out of control, and eventually reach another different stable state, which may not be conducive to the life in the previous stable state
-and still claim to be concerned with 'science and reality'.

And all smelly mutual buttrubbers runrig, thermodynamics, Mike_Massen, Maggnus, Vietvet, sdrfz - explain please why you choose to encourage such a liar and fabricator? Are you all too lazy to check postings before rating them? Or only when you disagree with them?
parcite
4.7 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2015
Explain please why you feel you can make up bullshit like this:
Most complex systems can sustain a stable state until perturbed, then they oscillate, out of control, and eventually reach another different stable state, which may not be conducive to the life in the previous stable state
-and still claim to be concerned with 'science and reality'.


That is technically accurate. The climate is a far-from-equilibrium, complex, adaptive and self-organizing system that evolves to more efficiently dissipate energy.

You can see a concrete example of this if you study the Benard cell. You think it sounds like rubbish because you've not studied non-equilibrium thermodynamics but I assure you it is solid science.

It is funny that unless you specifically have heard of something it is made up garbage.
ConfoundedSociety
1.4 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
Made no such claim. I claimed the thermal capacity of the atmosphere was changing due to increases of greenhouse gasses. This is 100% accurate and all you need is basic physics to understand that fact.


The capacity is irrelevant. You are claiming a higher content. Moving a cup of water from a quart container to a gallon container doesn't affect how much water there is.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2015
Antigoracle childishly attacks me ..blah..blah.

The fact is we have theories on what starts/ends ice-ages. If we knew, then you would be able to tell me when the next will start and end.
parcite
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
If you want to admit to the myth of AGW, then we can talk about ocean acidification.


AGW, as you understand it, is a full on myth. That's because your understanding of AGW is full of bias and misunderstanding.

AGW, as understood by the experts, is a dangerous reality that will have bigger economic consequences than simply limiting fossil fuels could ever have.
parcite
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2015
The capacity is irrelevant. You are claiming a higher content. Moving a cup of water from a quart container to a gallon container doesn't affect how much water there is.


You'd like it very much if the thermal capacity of the atmosphere were irrelevant but you can't change physical laws.

Global warming has always been about thermal capacity. The word, "warming," was used by the media to help explain a very complex issue to people with a far-from-adequate understanding of the science.

This has very little to do with temperature and everything to do with energy.

I noticed you never mentioned what data would satisfy you. Maybe you just haven't posted that bit yet. I'm looking forward to it.
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
antigoracle
The fact is we have theories on what starts/ends ice-ages. If we knew, then you would be able to tell me when the next will start and end.


So you are saying that we do not know what causes the glacials and the inter-glacials - despite the fact that the science community clearly says they do know. Nice hubris.

Also - the fact that we understand what caused something in the past - does not necessarily mean we can predict when it will happen in the future. That seems very basic to me. We can tell you with great precision what caused the recent blizzard that hit the north east U.S.A. But we cannot predict when the next one will hit.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
GAnd all smelly mutual buttrubbers runrig, thermodynamics, Mike_Massen, Maggnus, Vietvet, sdrfz - explain please why you choose to encourage such a liar and fabricator? Are you all too lazy to check postings before rating them? Or only when you disagree with them?
While I can't speak for all, but for myself I agree that
Most complex systems can sustain a stable state until perturbed, then they oscillate, out of control, and eventually reach another different stable state, which may not be conducive to the life in the previous stable state
is essentially correct, and is well founded in science, from chaotic weather systems, to stellar interiors, to thermodynamics. I would have given him a 5, except that he included the "may not be conductive to life" part, which I think takes it a step too far.

Now answer my question: why do you feel the need to bully others and/or throw out childish taunts like some grade school mean girl?
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
AGW, as you understand it, is a full on myth. That's because your understanding of AGW is full of bias and misunderstanding.

AGW, as understood by the experts, is a dangerous reality that will have bigger economic consequences than simply limiting fossil fuels could ever have.


You can of course, tell us all the difference between what I understand and what the "experts" understand.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
Global warming has always been about thermal capacity. The word, "warming," was used by the media to help explain a very complex issue to people with a far-from-adequate understanding of the science.

This has very little to do with temperature and everything to do with energy.

I noticed you never mentioned what data would satisfy you. Maybe you just haven't posted that bit yet. I'm looking forward to it.


Again, you are claiming that a cup of water increases in volume when put in a larger container.

Where are you measurements of the total "energy" in the atmosphere over time that proves it's increasing?
parcite
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
You can of course, tell us all the difference between what I understand and what the "experts" understand.


I've been trying to but you simply deny the facts as I present them to you. Given that, perhaps we can go the other way.

What is your definition of global warming? Answer that and we can begin getting to the root of where you've gone wrong.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
You can of course, tell us all the difference between what I understand and what the "experts" understand.
When it comes to climate science, you understand essentially nothing. You display all of the characteristics of Dunning-Kruger syndrome, in that you know so little about the subject you don't even understand how little you know.

Experts in climate science, on the other hand, have given years of study to their subject, and understand how the different aspects of climate science has established beyond a reasonable doubt that mankind's CO2 loading of the atmosphere is causing heat energy to build up in the climate system, and that such loading will have consequences.

It is further clear that you do not understand that you are unable to learn about, nor comprehend the science, because you are blinded by your political belief, and the need to confirm and maintain your preconceived belief that it cannot be true because taxes. Or Al Gore. Or some similar nonsense.
parcite
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
Again, you are claiming that a cup of water increases in volume when put in a larger container.

Where are you measurements of the total "energy" in the atmosphere over time that proves it's increasing?


Why oh why would anybody ever need detailed measurements of embodied energy in the atmosphere to understand that thermal capacity goes up with the concentration of greenhouse gasses?

Oh yes that's right... They would need that if they didn't understand the science in the first place.

This is the same reason that creationists demand to see every transitional fossil before they'll believe in evolution.

The embodied energy can be calculated pretty easily if you know the average temperature and the concentrations of different gasses in the atmosphere. That is the beauty of science.

Even if the exact amount of energy can't precisely be determined we can still know whether embodied energy will go up or down using simple physics.
parcite
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
Where are you measurements of the total "energy" in the atmosphere over time that proves it's increasing?


If you have $100 in an account and know that you'll be paid a 3.5% compound interest rate you can easily calculate how much money you'll have in 10 years.

What you're asking for is proof of every single red cent being deposited before you'll accept the calculation.

That sounds just plain silly to me.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
What is your definition of global warming? Answer that and we can begin getting to the root of where you've gone wrong.


We aren't discussing Global Warming. We are discussing your claim that man made carbon emissions are responsible for the majority of warming over the last 135 years. That is what has been proven false.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
Experts in climate science, on the other hand, have given years of study to their subject, and understand how the different aspects of climate science has established beyond a reasonable doubt that mankind's CO2 loading of the atmosphere is causing heat energy to build up in the climate system, and that such loading will have consequences.


This is actually a true statement. You have no clue why it doesn't support your claim at all, though, do you?
parcite
4.7 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2015
We are discussing your claim that man made carbon emissions are responsible for the majority of warming over the last 135 years.


I never made that claim. I'm not sure I've heard anybody here claim that. It sounds like you're bringing your own easy-to-knock-over claim into the debate in order to... easily knock it over.

Ever heard of a straw-man in the context of logic?

Here is what I will claim. CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are increasing the thermal capacity of the atmosphere. This is causing normally stable thermodynamic patterns (patterns our economy relies upon) to change and become unstable.

These climate changes will cause great harm to economies of scale world-wide. This, along with resource depletion, will lead to economic catastrophe and a large decline in human populations.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
If you have $100 in an account and know that you'll be paid a 3.5% compound interest rate you can easily calculate how much money you'll have in 10 years.

What you're asking for is proof of every single red cent being deposited before you'll accept the calculation.

That sounds just plain silly to me.


Finally.

When, after ten years (or 17 in this case) you look at your bank account and find that it's still only $100, you should stop assuming that there's interest being paid.

You are desperately trying to make that the base assumption and argue everything on top of it. But it's your base assumption that's wrong.

My water analogy probably works better. You are saying the container is increasing in size and that there is a drip into the container increasing what it contains (that would be the interest in your analogy.)

There is no drip. There is not interest. And that's my point. For you be right, there must be. And there isn't.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
We are discussing your claim that man made carbon emissions are responsible for the majority of warming over the last 135 years.


I never made that claim. I'm not sure I've heard anybody here claim that. It sounds like you're bringing your own easy-to-knock-over claim into the debate in order to... easily knock it over.


Then, you agree with me that the AGW hypothesis is false.

Here is what I will claim. CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are increasing the thermal capacity of the atmosphere. This is causing normally stable thermodynamic patterns (patterns our economy relies upon) to change and become unstable.

These climate changes will cause great harm to economies of scale world-wide. This, along with resource depletion, will lead to economic catastrophe and a large decline in human populations.


Now all you have to do is convince the IPCC and the AGW people to go with your idea instead of the one they've had for the last few decades.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
Where are you measurements of the total "energy" in the atmosphere over time that proves it's increasing?


If you have $100 in an account and know that you'll be paid a 3.5% compound interest rate you can easily calculate how much money you'll have in 10 years.

What you're asking for is proof of every single red cent being deposited before you'll accept the calculation.

That sounds just plain silly to me.


Yes, that's the fallacy of Plurium Interrogationum. You see it used often in these discussions.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
Antigoracle childishly attacks me - makes stupid comments about not having a brain - and of course says nothing about the actual science. All on the comments section of a SCIENCE site!

Greenonions;
Which is why I have he/she/it on ignore.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2015
antigoracle
The fact is we have theories on what starts/ends ice-ages. If we knew, then you would be able to tell me when the next will start and end.


So you are saying that we do not know what causes the glacials and the inter-glacials - despite the fact that the science community clearly says they do know. Nice hubris.

Also - the fact that we understand what caused something in the past - does not necessarily mean we can predict when it will happen in the future. That seems very basic to me. We can tell you with great precision what caused the recent blizzard that hit the north east U.S.A. But we cannot predict when the next one will hit.

Greenonions:
He/she/it has been "told" countless times in the 7+ years I've been on here. He/she/it does not want to assimilate it..... for whatever reason. Answers on a postcard.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (24) Feb 27, 2015
GKAM

Explain please why you feel you can make up bullshit like this:
Most complex systems can sustain a stable state until perturbed, then they oscillate, out of control, and eventually reach another different stable state, which may not be conducive to the life in the previous stable state
-and still claim to be concerned with 'science and reality'.

And all smelly mutual buttrubbers runrig, thermodynamics, Mike_Massen, Maggnus, Vietvet, sdrfz - explain please why you choose to encourage such a liar and fabricator? Are you all too lazy to check postings before rating them? Or only when you disagree with them?
-and explain, yyz, thermodynamics, parcite, Maggnus, Vietvet, greenonions, any one of you, why youre willing to support gkam when he makes up verifiable BULLSHIT about, in this case, complex systems. You really need to do this.

Do you all have so little regard for science? Then none of you deserves to be on this site.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
Most complex systems can sustain a stable state until perturbed, then they oscillate, out of control, and eventually reach another different stable state, which may not be conducive to the life in the previous stable state
-and still claim to be concerned with 'science and reality'.

Do you all have so little regard for science? Then none of you deserves to be on this site.


I already answered you.
Now answer my question: why do you feel the need to bully others and/or throw out childish taunts like some grade school mean girl?


Trolling like a childish little mean girl on another thread doesn't make you any less like a childish little grade school mean girl.
parcite
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
We are discussing your claim that man made carbon emissions are responsible for the majority of warming over the last 135 years.


No they've been saying about the same thing I just said. And it is important to note that disagreeing with your straw-man doesn't mean I'm disagreeing with the science.

Your statement implies that CO2 is the source of the energy on the planet. No scientist would ever claim that since CO2 is not a source of energy.

We all know that the sun is the actual source of the energy that the atmosphere holds on to.

We all know that the atmosphere is able to hold on to some of that energy because it has a thermal capacity.

We all know that the climate will change if the thermal capacity of the atmosphere changes.

We all know that changing the concentrations of greenhouse gasses changes the thermal capacity of the atmosphere.

Relatively simple.

Gimp
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
Is human activity changing the temperatures? YES

Would the temperatures vary if no humans were here? YES

Give it up.

Please. If you understand nothing about how statistical analysis works don't comment on climate scienec. Just don't. It's just garbage and you're embarassing yourself in front of everyone.


And this chest thumping and posturing of academic Bully's isn't? God you people are so full of yourselves it's down right disgusting. Maybe we need a new Church of the Phys.org Overlords.

P.S. learn how to spell, getting thumped by an idiot is just too funny.
parcite
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
And this chest thumping and posturing of academic Bully's isn't? God you people are so full of yourselves it's down right disgusting. Maybe we need a new Church of the Phys.org Overlords.

P.S. learn how to spell, getting thumped by an idiot is just too funny.


Allow me to rephrase your comment...

"You're guilty of the behavior you are complaining about. Now watch me also do it but try to do it better."

:)
Gimp
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
I make no claim to know why the climate is changing, I admit humans have a hand in it, but using the argument "We all know" for everything is quaint, if we all know something, there would be no argument.

Relatively simple.
parcite
4.1 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2015
I meant all scientists. That is still probably wrong because I bet you'll find a few people with a PhD who have let their biases get in the way of their ability to clearly see the problem.

Find those few and I'd love to talk to them.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. :)
parcite
4.1 / 5 (13) Feb 27, 2015
TheGhostOfOtto1983 said:
Do you all have so little regard for science? Then none of you deserves to be on this site.


Speaking of science, do you know what an energy gradient is and how energy gradients are related to the behavior of complex systems?

Find that information and you'll understand why his comment about complex systems is completely valid.

Or you could look up Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics. Or simply observe a Benard convection cell like I suggested to you before.

It is amazing the effort you will go to in order to make no effort at understanding this concept.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
greenonions, I don't want to keep highlighting your stupidity, since for all I know you were dropped as a baby or just born that way, thus making it not your fault. But please try to educate yourself.
The causes of ice ages are not fully understood for either the large-scale ice age periods or the smaller ebb and flow of glacial–interglacial periods within an ice age

http://en.wikiped.../Ice_age
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
I make no claim to know why the climate is changing, I admit humans have a hand in it, but using the argument "We all know" for everything is quaint, if we all know something, there would be no argument.

Relatively simple.

You're not saying that because we don't know everything then we must know nothing are you? It's not quite that, I think, it's almost like you are suggesting that because we know a lot, there is no need to find out more.

I admit, you got me stumped with this one. Can you rephrase it, if you don't mind?
gkam
1.8 / 5 (24) Feb 27, 2015
otto, . . . relax.

Why are you so hostile? I know those experiences were unusual, but so was the rest of my life.

Sorry. I tried to be normal and boring, but it never worked out. Some of us think and speak differently. I was always outside of that box the rest of you are now all trying to get out of.

We had very different experiences in life. That does not mean we are liars.

Send me an address, and I'll send you proof.

Will that shut you up? Will I get an apology?
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2015
antigoracle - what part of the word "fully" do you not understand? That would be like saying - "we do not fully understand cancer - therefore I will make a blanket statement - that we do not understand what causes cancer". Do you understand the difference? We do understand what causes cancer - just as we understand what causes the ice ages. Science puts in the word 'fully' - to acknowledge that there are still many factors we are continuing to study. In truth - we do not 'fully' understand anything. If you knew anything about science - that would be something you were very comfortable with.

Interesting how you keep piling on the ad hominem - calling everyone else childish names - and throwing the 'stupid' word around - but you posts just keep highlighting your lack of understanding of science - on a science site.
parcite
4.3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
My water analogy probably works better. You are saying the container is increasing in size and that there is a drip into the container increasing what it contains (that would be the interest in your analogy.)

There is no drip. There is not interest. And that's my point. For you be right, there must be. And there isn't.


My analogy was only to point out how some things can be calculated and understood without resorting to measuring every unit of the system as you are requiring.

It was not a climate model. It almost seems like you misunderstand intentionally to derail the conversation.

parcite
3.8 / 5 (11) Feb 27, 2015

@TheGhostOfOtto1983

For your analogy to work there must be a hole at the bottom of the container to account for energy that dissipates to space.

As the container grows the hole grows too but not as fast as the container. The ratio between container size and hole size actually gets smaller and smaller.

If the sun is the source of water in this analogy then it isn't a drip we're talking about. It is a torrent of water which completely fills any size container very quickly.

It is still a very poor climate model but at least now it is a little more accurate when it comes to the realities on the ground.
gkam
2 / 5 (24) Feb 27, 2015
Gimp, there is no absolute agreement about this - nobody asserts we have absolute truth of the matter. We have to go where the evidence takes us.

Some may disagree on the meaning of said evidence or what constitutes evidence. I usually follow those with the most education and experience in that field, unless I have other knowledge of my own.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
Your statement implies that CO2 is the source of the energy on the planet. No scientist would ever claim that since CO2 is not a source of energy.

We all know that the sun is the actual source of the energy that the atmosphere holds on to.

We all know that the atmosphere is able to hold on to some of that energy because it has a thermal capacity.

We all know that the climate will change if the thermal capacity of the atmosphere changes.

We all know that changing the concentrations of greenhouse gasses changes the thermal capacity of the atmosphere.

Relatively simple.


You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

The whole point of AGW is that increased CO2 is the primary cause of extra heat being trapped in the system. That's the part that that's not true.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
I meant all scientists. That is still probably wrong because I bet you'll find a few people with a PhD who have let their biases get in the way of their ability to clearly see the problem.

Find those few and I'd love to talk to them.

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. :)


A heck of a lot more than "a few". Over 9000 at last count, and that's just on the petition.

http://www.petitionproject.org
gkam
2.1 / 5 (26) Feb 27, 2015
"The whole point of AGW is that increased CO2 is the primary cause of extra heat being trapped in the system. That's the part that that's not true."
----------------------------------------------

You are deliberately setting up a straw man here. You bring in the word "primary", where it was not used before. Nobody says that is the primary reason for Climate Change, but one we cause, and one we can control.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
Today, and for the past 3 or 4 years, it is getting cold, again
@al_hopfer
1- science is not based upon conjecture, nor anecdotal evidence
2- read this: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
if the study is too technical, this video explains it and is the same scientist presenting the study: https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs
Yet there hasn't been any significant climate changes in the last several decades
@rockyvnvmc
several usually means more than two
last three decades temps: http://www.woodfo...60/trend

I swear, we need a point system
@Maggnus
here's one: http://math.ucr.e...pot.html
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
You are deliberately setting up a straw man here. You bring in the word "primary", where it was not used before. Nobody says that is the primary reason for Climate Change, but one we cause, and one we can control.


Really? Try reading anything published by the IPCC.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
"The whole point of AGW is that increased CO2 is the primary cause of extra heat being trapped in the system. That's the part that that's not true."
----------------------------------------------

You are deliberately setting up a straw man here. You bring in the word "primary", where it was not used before. Nobody says that is the primary reason for Climate Change, but one we cause, and one we can control.


Confused: Can you please explain what you find to be wrong with the statement you consider not true? Does it have to do with absorption of radiation by the atmosphere or are you stuck on the word "primary?" If you have a technical issue can you bring it up so we can identify what you consider wrong with the "theory."
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2015
Confused: Can you please explain what you find to be wrong with the statement you consider not true? Does it have to do with absorption of radiation by the atmosphere or are you stuck on the word "primary?" If you have a technical issue can you bring it up so we can identify what you consider wrong with the "theory."


If atmospheric CO2 is only responsible for an extra 2% (or less) of the warming we've seen, why is it going to cause extinctions and deaths around the world? How does eliminating fossil fuels do anything beneficial?

Please tell me what percentage you think it causes and/or what percentage it needs to be before eliminating the use of fossil fuels does anything at all.
Logicalunatic
3.9 / 5 (14) Feb 27, 2015
ConfoundedSociety wrote:
You really have no clue what you're talking about, do you?

The whole point of AGW is that increased CO2 is the primary cause of extra heat being trapped in the system. That's the part that that's not true.


LOL that is a hilarious statement.

It is a fact that increasing the thermal capacity of something changes the amount of energy (in joules) that it can retain over time.

It is a fact that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gas increases the thermal capacity of the atmosphere.

CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas.

Therefore...

Ahem...

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the amount of energy (in joules) that the atmosphere can retain over time.

So CO2 definitely IS a primary cause of the atmosphere's increased capacity to store energy but it isn't an actual cause of, "extra heat," since CO2 cannot be a source of heat. The sun is the source of the heat.
Logicalunatic
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
Hrm... This is parcite, btw. It seems I have two accounts.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2015
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere increases the amount of energy (in joules) that the atmosphere can retain over time.


Wrong. But what you think you said is correct.

So CO2 definitely IS a primary cause of the atmosphere's increased capacity to store energy but it isn't an actual cause of, "extra heat," since CO2 cannot be a source of heat. The sun is the source of the heat.


There is no extra heat. No one is saying that CO2 is the "source" of the heat. AGW states that it's the cause.

Again. Please give the data you claim to have that the "energy" in the atmosphere is increasing.

Logicalunatic
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 27, 2015
ConfoundedSociety...

Define AGW.

Logicalunatic
3.4 / 5 (15) Feb 27, 2015
It is so simple.

The only data necessary to prove it is to somehow show that greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere.

If you can find that data and it shows that the concentrations are increasing then the physics that proves the rest is simple enough to learn at community college.

That is the only data necessary to conclude that burning fossil fuels will change the climate.

That's it. Nothing else is necessary. Claiming otherwise is something you can only do faithfully if you don't understand that physics.

Have fun eating your own tail here.
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2015
The only data necessary to prove it is to somehow show that greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere.

If you can find that data and it shows that the concentrations are increasing then the physics that proves the rest is simple enough to learn at community college.


You can now join gkam in his middle school science fair. The only way anything you say makes sense is if you assume that CO2 is driving warming. And you offer this as evidence that CO2 is driving warming.

It's your base assumption (that CO2 is driving warming) that has been proven false. Showing that there's an increase in atmospheric CO2 (which no one anywhere is denying) means nothing.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2015
@Confused

The only data necessary to prove it is to somehow show that greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere.

You lose.

http://www.esrl.n...ory.html



thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2015
Confused said:
It's your base assumption (that CO2 is driving warming) that has been proven false.


This is an amazing position to take since CO2 has been shown in every way to trap IR. Confused seems to be listing to WUWT instead of scientists. It is clear he does not have the ability to use engineering and science to actually go through the steps himself to see how CO2 is an active molecule in absorbing and re-emitting IR radiation.
ConfoundedSociety
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2015
@Confused
The only data necessary to prove it is to somehow show that greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere.

You lose.

http://www.esrl.n...ory.html


Here's a more relevant site.

http://co2now.org

And why did you post "@Confused" and then respond to a quote from LogicaLunatic?
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2015
Confused said: It's your base assumption (that CO2 is driving warming) that has been proven false.


This is an amazing position to take since CO2 has been shown in every way to trap IR. Confused seems to be listing to WUWT instead of scientists. It is clear he does not have the ability to use engineering and science to actually go through the steps himself to see how CO2 is an active molecule in absorbing and re-emitting IR radiation.


The fact that you completely ignored my previous direct response to your direct question says everything we need to know about what you actually care about. Have your religious leaders banned you from reading responses?
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2015
Confused said: It's your base assumption (that CO2 is driving warming) that has been proven false.


This is an amazing position to take since CO2 has been shown in every way to trap IR. Confused seems to be listing to WUWT instead of scientists. It is clear he does not have the ability to use engineering and science to actually go through the steps himself to see how CO2 is an active molecule in absorbing and re-emitting IR radiation.


The fact that you completely ignored my previous direct response to your direct question says everything we need to know about what you actually care about. Have your religious leaders banned you from reading responses?


Confused: You said that the fraction for CO2 is 2%. However, the reality is that CO2 from humans is 100% of the increase above natural noise level. Do you have any problem with that statement?
ConfoundedSociety
1 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2015
Confused: You said that the fraction for CO2 is 2%. However, the reality is that CO2 from humans is 100% of the increase above natural noise level. Do you have any problem with that statement?


Yes I have a problem with it. It's not true. I've explained that several times now. Have you even read the comments on this article?

And I didn't say it was 2%. I gave an example.
nilbud
5 / 5 (7) Feb 28, 2015
The real problem is how come america is so jammed with morons who fall for any old line of bullshit, pollution has no effect, guns make you safe, magic Jesus tells me what stocks to buy.
deusexmakina
3.5 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2015
yet another article with the human-infection. dubya made it illegal for any academic to use the phrase 'Global Warming' and ever hope to touch, in any way, anything with taxpayer dollars connected to it. (he did the same to history too, outlawing the Trail Of Tears among other 'anti-american' bits of knowledge. Personal Agenda's damage the quest for knowledge more than anything else...even I get impassioned and have thus posted my own in response here. Sorry for only being human. Can this not be moderated to remove our silly 'personalities' from posting? I sincerely mean this.
mooster75
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2015
So please tell us your evidence that the "energy" in the atmosphere has increased over the last 17 years.


That statement is so imprecise it is almost meaningless.


In other words, you have zero data backing up your claim that the "energy" is still increasing even though temperature isn't. This is just another attempt to grasp at straws just like the claim that all the heat was going to the deep oceans (which we know it's not).

What's the point of anyone posting anything for you? You obviously stop reading after the first sentence.
mooster75
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2015
It's all hogwash, it's made up numbers and made up data, who determined what is "average", only ONE day can ever be average, anything else is abnormal. Anyone can arbitrarily set a temperature and call it average then complain about the abnormal results.

Set the average to a temperature say 6 million years ago when Antarctica was a tropical paradise, then we're basically in another Ice Age.

Is human activity changing the temperatures? YES

Would the temperatures vary if no humans were here? YES

Give it up.

One of the "It's warming. and we're responsible. but it's not bad" crowd.

I swear, we need a point system :/

Or a bingo card...
mooster75
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2015


The whole point of AGW is that increased CO2 is the primary cause of extra heat being trapped in the system. That's the part that that's not true.

So what are you proposing as the cause? What has changed in the atmosphere other than the levels of CO2?
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2015
parcite said
..energy (E) of any given atmosphere cannot ever be deduced simply by looking at temperature
Not Alone sure.

I hope u see for given constituents & re specific heat (SH) & assuming small Δconstituents u CAN easily, I showed a procedure & over a reasonable period energy can be known within suitable error bars.

parcite claimed
..atmosphere can absorb immense amounts of energy and not change a single degree
If U mean Air, doubt it & not for long at all, based on
https://en.wikipe...echanics
&
http://en.wikiped...capacity

R u referring to another variant of E supporting your claim ?

parcite observed
My point (which was summed up by Maggnus perfectly above) is that temperature is a poor indicator of the total energy in any given atmosphere.
Its a passable ok indicator for many laypeople given Δconstituents is often fairly small, mere seconds for atmospheric E to run a formula for professionals.

[tbc]
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (12) Feb 28, 2015
ConfoundedSociety stated
The whole point of AGW is that increased CO2 is the primary cause of extra heat being trapped in the system
CORRECT, it has been known for > 100yrs & the precise thermal properties of CO2 & virtually all other greenhouse gases have never been refuted & based on core physics (settled) of molecular vibrational states in conjunction with radiative emissions - principally infra red (IR)

ConfoundedSociety claimed
That's the part that that's not true
NO. U r completely WRONG.

The basis for thermal resistivity re atmosphere is absorbance/re-radiation of IR.

R u claiming CO2 is completely transparent to IR ?

Do u have material property data or NEW experimental procedures which refute last > 100yrs of work showing CO2 DOESNTretain any heat ?

Onus is clearly on u ConfoundedSociety to validate your sad & uneducated claim & especially so as it goes completely counter to most basic physics ?

ie
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Mike_Massen
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2015
parcite claimed
Global warming has always been about thermal capacity
Not quite, sorry.
I commend your attempt to enlighten dogmatic uneducated intellectually feeble deniers but, your phraseology isn't helpful to U & arguably actual atmospheric Thermal Capacity (TC) isn't settled as main causative factor & likely Δ is small, ie if u see TC as dependent primarily on constituent's Specific Heat (SH) ?

With respect, better term relating directly to greenhouses gases (GHGs) re infra-red absorbance/re-radiation is "Thermal Resistivity" (TR) & progresses dialectic more precisely.

parcite observed
..everything to do with energy
Yes, specifically GHGs retard energy/thermal flow by adding resistance..

Re TC.
Assess atmospheric constituents mass & SH, 100yrs ago vs now, useful exercise for uni students

@NTP in KJ/KgK
Dry Air = 1.005
WV = 1.864
CO2 = 0.846

Eg
If only CO2 up then TC down but, WV also goes up, then what r relative weighting re Σ SH ?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (20) Feb 28, 2015
TheGhostOfOtto1983 said:
Do you all have so little regard for science? Then none of you deserves to be on this site.


Speaking of science, do you know what an energy gradient is and how energy gradients are related to the behavior of complex systems?

Find that information and you'll understand why his comment about complex systems is completely valid.

Or you could look up Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics. Or simply observe a Benard convection cell like I suggested to you before.

It is amazing the effort you will go to in order to make no effort at understanding this concept.
And you made no effort to understand the argument. Gkam stated that complex systems tend toward equilibrium and I provided info which proved him wrong.

Why are you supporting an argument without even understanding what it is? You must enjoy getting your belly rubbed as well I suppose.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (20) Feb 28, 2015
otto, . . . relax.

Why are you so hostile?
Well I told you. I don't like liars and bullshit artists.
I know those experiences were unusual, but so was the rest of my life
What experiences? The ones that give you the excuse to fabricate science or to lie about being an engineer or a scientist?
Sorry. I tried to be normal and boring, but it never worked out. Some of us think and speak differently
Ah the crux. You don't want to be boring and so you lie about your past and you make up sensationalist bullshit about science you don't know.
We had very different experiences in life. That does not mean we are liars
You sir are a liar as has been proven many times
Send me an address, and I'll send you proof.

Will that shut you up? Will I get an apology?
Gkam still thinks that his 'life experiences' are an excuse for sloganeering and composing facts as he sees fit. WHY IS THAT??

Where's your evidence for plutonium in the skies over Idaho gkam?
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2015
Ah, satellite series, of surface temp, that isn't, as a satellite can't measure surface temp. It infers it from a complex algorithm ... And we all know what deniers think of algorithms (models).

All temp data that is used is from a "complex algorithm", one that is established for the purposes of proving AGW.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2015
what did the above article say ? since 1975?
89.2 °C (−128.6 °F) Vostok Station 1983-07-21[38][92][94]*
Dome A −82.5 °C (−116.5 °F) Dome A 2005–07[95]
South Pole −82.8 °C (−117.0 °F) Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station 1982-06-23[96]
gkam
1.6 / 5 (21) Feb 28, 2015
Did otto have no life of his own, . . no apparent advanced education, no experience, and no character? He projects his own character onto others, screaming "LIAR", when he gets too excited.

When I offer to substantiate my own experiences, he then changes the tune.

Otto, I mentioned my own experiences to teach you something about the real world, not the academic one you may be in, or whatever it is. You scream "liar", but refuse to view my proofs, SCARED you are wrong , . . again.

Maybe you ran into liars before in this thread, and want to assume everybody lies. Stop it.

How do we get the chronic malcontents, character assassins, and verbal vandals off this site?
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2015
gkam
1.7 / 5 (23) Feb 28, 2015
"Gkam stated that complex systems tend toward equilibrium and I provided info which proved him wrong."
---------------------------------------------------

You did Not. I said they tend toward finding stable states. We have destabilized the complex systems of our environment, and it is affecting the climate. When sufficiently perturbed, the climate will eventually reach a new stable state, perhaps one in which Human Life is not guaranteed.

Where is your proof this does not happen?

ConfoundedSociety
2 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2015
So what are you proposing as the cause? What has changed in the atmosphere other than the levels of CO2?


That's a good question. One which we cannot have any hope of knowing until the idea of blaming man made carbon emissions is given up as false.

Predictions have been made. All of those predictions have been wrong. Yet, this idea that the base assumption is still true is mind boggling.

If there is a danger (big if, based on historical data) and if there is something man is doing that is causing it (another big if, for the same reason) then we need to find out. This blind obsession to try to claim the hypothesis is right and the measurements must be wrong isn't science.
ConfoundedSociety
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed - That's the part that that's not true


NO. U r completely WRONG.

The basis for thermal resistivity re atmosphere is absorbance/re-radiation of IR.

R u claiming CO2 is completely transparent to IR ?

Do u have material property data or NEW experimental procedures which refute last > 100yrs of work showing CO2 DOESNTretain any heat ?

Onus is clearly on u ConfoundedSociety to validate your sad & uneducated claim & especially so as it goes completely counter to most basic physics ?

ie
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/


Perhaps I phrased it poorly. Here's the gist. Are man made carbon emissions responsible for the majority of warming seen over the last 135 years? AGW says yes. We know that's not true.
freeiam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2015
Climate changes all the time, no biggie.
It seems that below and above average is almost balanced out.
So this could all be within normal periodic temperature changes.
Try again when we have a few thousand years of measurements and/or can explain the temperature past in detail.
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed
Perhaps I phrased it poorly. Here's the gist. Are man made carbon emissions responsible for the majority of warming seen over the last 135 years? AGW says yes. We know that's not true.
On WHAT basis do you claim its "not true" and especially so when its been proven for >100 yrs that GHGs have well known thermal properties which increase heat resistivity to Space ?

Please answer the questions I posed, they are simple and direct, Y cannot U answer them ?

Or should I take it that since you refused to address the issue of CO2 thermal properties re IR transparency you accept there is "some" increase in thermal resistivity ?

Or just know nothing about it, because if you know nothing re CO2 yet make a claim U r a fool !

This is Science.

Try to be definitive & that means smarter to deal with the core physics which is profoundly settled, if u have some new experimental evidence PROVING CO2 has no effect on IR then show it ?
Feldagast
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2015
I wonder if the flat earthers who used settled science were as arrogant as the the AGW proponents of today?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2015
freeiam claimed
Climate changes all the time, no biggie
Meaning what ?
Should we ignore CO2 & its thermal property of trapping heat & thus ignore the plight of those living at coastal regions or on pacific islands and continue to spew out massive CO2 ?

freeiam claimed
It seems that below and above average is almost balanced out
Cool, whats your best definition of "almost" and what analysis did U do from your expert training ?

freeiam claimed
So this could all be within normal periodic temperature changes
Maybe over a few years but, u forget climate is 30yrs, noticed CO2 STILL going up, & do u want to look foolish and ignore CO2's thermal properties re trapping heat, got grandchildren ?

freeiam claimed
Try again when we have a few thousand years of measurements and/or can explain the temperature past in detail.
We know NOW CO2 traps Infra-red ie Heat. Good thing is with your dumb mindset U likely have zero influence on world policy :-)
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (15) Feb 28, 2015
Feldagast claimed
I wonder if the flat earthers who used settled science were as arrogant as the the AGW proponents of today?
The so called flat earthers never had any settled science as they never knew about Sol's orbit & gravity - doh, what an immensely stupid comment, is there ANY Science in your blurt or r u a tired angry old anti-science republican who easily sells his integrity to post drivel on Science forum ?

Feldagast, get your best education revved up - can U answer this ?

"How can adding a greenhouse gas such as CO2 to the atmosphere with known & irrefutable thermal properties somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

ie Add a resistor to electrical circuit, it retards current flow whilst dissipating heat.

Feldagast, do u know any Science & Math at all ?

How about addition, how about integration, how about molecular vibrations, seen this:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Tried Community College to actually get an education ?
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (14) Feb 28, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed
.. good question. One which we cannot have any hope of knowing until the idea of blaming man made carbon emissions is given up as false
Wrong.

Lots of people, funded by big oil etc r looking for other reasons, still none found, accepted !

ConfoundedSociety claimed
Predictions have been made. All of those predictions have been wrong. Yet, this idea that the base assumption is still true is mind boggling
Climate models are not wrong as such, they are within error bars, heard of that in Science ?

ConfoundedSociety claimed
If there is a danger (big if, based on historical data) and if there is something man is doing that is causing it (another big if, for the same reason) then we need to find out
CO2 IR properties well known !

ConfoundedSociety claimed
This blind obsession to try to claim the hypothesis is right and the measurements must be wrong isn't science
Why "must be wrong" ?

From where is your particular science ?
freeiam
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2015
Mike, RU Agitated?
It seems like it.

Fear mongering (your first point) is whats wrong about climate politics and has nothing to do with science. The few centimeters increase a year in the worst case scenario (when true, which probably isn't the case) isn't a problem for anyone, and if you need a dike in a few hundreds of years - ask the Dutch.

Your second point is that I have no qualifications, which isn't a scientific argument either (because only valid reasoning (logic) and facts count, not someone's presumed education level, etc.). You didn't deny the fact I mentioned, so maybe there is some hope for you.

Your third point is my grandchildren, fear mongeing again. I don't have them, so I'm not worried, but I do worry about other animals, also closely related. But that's only related to Human cruelty and expansion and has nothing to do with CO2 (except that it is one of the most important building books of nature and essential for life).
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (20) Feb 28, 2015
You did Not. I said they tend toward finding stable states
And I proved you just made that up.

"Due to the strong coupling between components in complex systems, a failure in one or more components can lead to CASCADING FAILURES which may have catastrophic consequences on the functioning of the system."

"Instability is a pervasive phenomenon that has deep implications for virtually all complex
social and technical systems. It occurs when a system responds to external stimuli in a way that makes the system less controllable—with potential negative implications for economic, societal, and technological outcomes... There is a very real possibility that this
pattern of instability may result in the ENTIRE COLLAPSE of the industry"

-You do know what CASCADING FAILURES and ENTIRE COLLAPSE mean? Or do I have to look them up for you as well?
freeiam
1 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2015
And Mike, defining climate as 30 years and expecting nature to comply is beyond laughable.
CO2 has some heat trapping properties, presumably, but that's probably highly overrated (a factor 10?), because so many other temperature effects must be subtracted, like black carbon (maybe even half) and all kinds of climate variability.
The temperature graph shown should be accompanied by a corresponding solar energy input graph to make any sense (but hey, that data isn't known, so let's wait 30 years (you like that number) before we make any hasty conclusions).
But I presume climate 'science' doesn't like data, that takes to long to get a Nobel prize.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Feb 28, 2015
Or a bingo card...
@mooster75
We have one of those too!
here: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
that one is my favorite

I wonder if the flat earthers who used settled science were as arrogant as the the AGW proponents of today?
@Feldagast
there seems to be a HUGE similarity between the arguments as well as the denial of science between the curch, the historical church and the deniers of today!
you can see that here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
and here: http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (20) Feb 28, 2015
Where is your proof this does not happen?
Strawman you liar.

"Metastability describes a system that is in a delicate state of equilibrium – a state where a small change in conditions may precipitate a major change in the system. The chaotic nature of complex systems – and particularly their sensitivity to initial conditions – means that they are often either not in equilibrium or are metastable"

-You yourself continue to scream 'collapse of the ecosystem' due to the dirty deeds of people which is itself a complex system.

BTW paracite
do you know what an energy gradient... Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics... Benard convection cell
I assume that youre old enough to know that simply throwing catchphrases around is not a valid way to refute an argument? I cited excerpts from scholarly papers written by experts who I assume know lots more than you about the subject. Scientists do this sort of thing all the time.

You will need to refute those excerpts, not me.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2015
defining climate as 30 years and expecting nature to comply is beyond laughable
@free-from-thought
no, the normal definition of a trend is 30 years, according to the EPA as well as NOAA,
CO2 has some heat trapping properties, presumably, but that's probably highly overrated (a factor 10?)
except that it is not overrated
there is also the fact that it interacts with water vapor as well in a cycle that also includes a feedback that helps with warming http://www.scienc...abstract

gkam
1.8 / 5 (24) Feb 28, 2015
"Strawman you liar."

Another otto gem of wisdom, restraint, manners, and judgement.

And apparently otto does not understand we are in a metastable system now, due to the perturbation of it by anthropomorphic sources.

He proved nothing but that he can look up phrases.
ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2015
Try to be definitive & that means smarter to deal with the core physics which is profoundly settled, if u have some new experimental evidence PROVING CO2 has no effect on IR then show it ?


I've already answered this several times. I realize your tactic is to just keep asking the same questions over and over, hoping I'll go away, but I'll see how long I can last.

No one is claiming CO2 has no effect. The fact that you claimed I said it proves you either didn't bother to read my posts or you're a liar.

Tell me what percentage you think it causes and/or what percentage it needs to be before eliminating the use of fossil fuels does anything at all.

In the claim you're trying to defend, thermodynamics said 100%. Do you agree?
ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2015
Lots of people, funded by big oil etc r looking for other reasons, still none found, accepted


So, because no one can prove another source, you're claiming that proves you right?

ConfoundedSociety claimed
Predictions have been made. All of those predictions have been wrong. Yet, this idea that the base assumption is still true is mind boggling


Climate models are not wrong as such, they are within error bars, heard of that in Science ?


If that were true, they wouldn't have to be adjusted down every year. Always being in the bottom half of your error band isn't being right. Tell you what. Let's go back and put all of the original data that these models were based on into the current models as they are and see if they accurately predict the last 20 years.
ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed - This blind obsession to try to claim the hypothesis is right and the measurements must be wrong isn't science


Why "must be wrong" ?


Because they don't match your predictions. That's why the so-called scientists are desperately trying to figure out a way to adjust the data to match their models.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (25) Feb 28, 2015
"Let's go back and put all of the original data that these models were based on into the current models as they are and see if they accurately predict the last 20 years."
------------------------------------------

Okay, do it.

Then get back to us with the proof.
ConfoundedSociety
1.4 / 5 (11) Feb 28, 2015
"Let's go back and put all of the original data that these models were based on into the current models as they are and see if they accurately predict the last 20 years."

------------------------------------------

Okay, do it.

Then get back to us with the proof.


One down. You don't even realize it, do you?
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (16) Feb 28, 2015
Ah, it's our new favorite troll, CornholeScanty, here to hairsplit, distract, and make totally unsubstantial claims, whilst hogging half of this thread with quotes from other comments to create the illusion of actual engaged debate.

Classic troll tactics, and very well executed, I must admit.

If you want confirmation of the efficacy of these tactics, here's another recent example of CornholeScanty's work:

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

Wherein are displayed the exact same tactics of hairsplit, distract, and totally unsubstantiated claims.

Note that --at no time-- does ConholeScanty provide ANY rigotous, peer-reviewed research to support his claims that

1. All models have failed to predict Climate.(!)

2. Human activity (CO2 emissions) is not responsible for observed warming. Warming is happening --we just don't know why(!)

3. The entire body of science which supports AGW is wrong.(!!!!!!!!)
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (15) Feb 28, 2015


A heck of a lot more than "a few". Over 9000 at last count, and that's just on the petition.

http://www.petitionproject.org


And this I just couldn't help singling out for grins --I gotta hand it to you, CornholeScanty, you sure know how to provide comic relief!

A cursory examination of the above link quickly reveals that there is absolutely NO CERTIFICATION of the petition signatories' credentials. NONE!

Why, even you, CornholeScanty, could sign that petition, while claiming a post-doc that you may(MAY NOT) possess.

Much less any peer review journal publication history.

Isn't that neat.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (16) Feb 28, 2015
Which brings me to my point.

The troll CornholeScanty is just another one-trick pony --a dime a dozen these days in the comments fora at PHYSorg-- earning their Denierside antiscience shill fees while simultaneously indulging their infantile need to be the center of attention, and Science be damned!

I apologise for the error if CornholeScanty is that rarest of Denierside antiscience troll --one that inflicts this infantile selfishness entirely as a result of overwhelming personal inadequacy, while completely foregoing compensation.

Still --only a matter of degree. Or maybe hairsplitting on my part.
Shootist
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2015
Yep. The climate changes. For 4.5 billion years.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2015
Yep. The climate changes. For 4.5 billion years.


You are absolutely right, Stoopidist! (for once...)

However, it's the 150-200 years since then that are a cause for grave concern for those who have wisdom.

This automatically excludes you, of course.

When there is no bread for you to eat, perhaps you can derive sustenance by ingesting one of those "gold nuggets the size of plover's eggs" that you are always going on about.

Or better yet -choking on it.

mooster75
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2015
So what are you proposing as the cause? What has changed in the atmosphere other than the levels of CO2?


That's a good question. One which we cannot have any hope of knowing until the idea of blaming man made carbon emissions is given up as false.

Predictions have been made. All of those predictions have been wrong. Yet, this idea that the base assumption is still true is mind boggling.

If there is a danger (big if, based on historical data) and if there is something man is doing that is causing it (another big if, for the same reason) then we need to find out. This blind obsession to try to claim the hypothesis is right and the measurements must be wrong isn't science.

So, you have no idea what is going on, but you're 100% certain it's not what 97% of the people who study the subject say it is.
mooster75
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2015
I apologise for the error if CornholeScanty is that rarest of Denierside antiscience troll --one that inflicts this infantile selfishness entirely as a result of overwhelming personal inadequacy, while completely foregoing compensation.

Still --only a matter of degree. Or maybe hairsplitting on my part.

I think so. Surely for one's own mental well-being you'd have to buy into the denialist BS at least a little bit in order to shill for it, no matter how desperate your circumstances. Then again, since they all use the same arguments, in pretty much the same order, maybe there's a guidebook. You know, the previous post seemed to use the term 'peer review' like it meant something...go to page 324...okay, I just post this paragraph here...that sort of thing.
ThomasQuinn
2.5 / 5 (29) Mar 01, 2015
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "....Joseph Goebbels.


Very true. That's the exact premise FOX News (home of climate denialists, creationists and Obama-is-a-Kenyan-communist-Muslim madcaps) is founded on. And that's not even a slur - it's a factual observation.

The AGW-denialists use the exact methods of propaganda described by Goebbels and like-minded Cold War propagandists from both sides of the Iron Curtain.
verkle
Mar 01, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2015
So, you have no idea what is going on, but you're 100% certain it's not what 97% of the people who study the subject say it is.


Ahhh. The 97% lie.
ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2015
Then again, since they all use the same arguments, in pretty much the same order, maybe there's a guidebook.


Right. Because people who are simply repeating the facts tend to say the same things.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2015
Trying to prove that AGW is false by pointing to temperature data is useless given the fact that embodied energy can vary while temperature stays the same.


Which is why I and others on here are constantly referring to the oceans as the repository of ~93% of the climate system's energy storage and the that's it's temperature rise at depth of 10th's of a degree or less is actually a massive amount of energy measured in 10^22 J.

http://www.realcl...000m.png

The top 10 ft of the oceans conatains the same energy as the whole of the atmosphere.

Well, I think this is what you are talking of when applied to Earth's climate system anyway.

Which is exactly why temperature is a terrible indicator.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2015
I apologise for the error if CornholeScanty is that rarest of Denierside antiscience troll --one that inflicts this infantile selfishness entirely as a result of overwhelming personal inadequacy, while completely foregoing compensation.

It is hard to say what ConfoundedSociety's motives are, isn't it? He comes on here and makes statements that are easily shown to be untrue, like:
1. Saying the models have been completely wrong for the last 15 years.
2. Claiming that the MWP was warmer than today (and linking to data showing his claim was untrue).
3. Claiming there has been no warming for the last 17 years.

Now CS has appeared to make the claim that:
1. "Predictions have been made. All of those predictions have been wrong."
2. "Here's the gist. Are man made carbon emissions responsible for the majority of warming seen over the last 135 years? AGW says yes. We know that's not true."
Both of which are nonsense.

Cont.
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2015
I can come up with a number of predictions that have come true, like, polar warming, cooling stratosphere, the fact that the earth continues to heat, etc.

As for CS' 2nd new claim, that's just a straw man. AGW does not say that carbon emissions have been responsible for the majority of warming seen over the last 135 years - the science doesn't depend on that at all. The science just says that increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere will heat up the earth. The data indicates that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate at this time (for the last 40 years or so), though there are clearly other drivers and at times in the past (and likely at times in the future) these other drivers have dominated. Since the earth has warmed ~0.9C since 1885 and ~0.67C since 1975 (about when CO2 began to dominate), you could make a case that CO2 has been responsible for the majority of warming. But if that case doesn't hold up, that doesn't hurt the science at all.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (22) Mar 01, 2015
And apparently otto does not understand we are in a metastable system now, due to the perturbation of it by anthropomorphic sources
Sorry you'll have to provide a source for this as you are no authority on the subject.

How do I know? Well, besides showing that your 'tendency toward stable states' is just as prone to CASCADING FAILURES and ENTIRE COLLAPSE, your pronouncement resembles many previous ones:
... Fukushima explosions could throw reactor parts 120km, that thorium reactor tech is being abandoned worldwide, that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer, that plutonium is raining down on idaho, that high-energy alpha radiation cant penetrate skin, etcetcetc?
-You should really substantiate these cowpies before dropping any more here.

Come on liar. Pick one and do your best.
gkam
1.5 / 5 (22) Mar 01, 2015
Do you really dream of me, otto?

And, . . "ENTIRE COLLAPSE"?? Hilarious, as well as fruity. Lose your terrible need to abuse me, and we can discuss the issues.

Actually, I should like baiting you, so you reveal you have no credibility at all, screaming "LIAR", and other nasties. But instead, I discuss the issues from my 70-year-old perspective of a life-long generalist.

Shall we go over the silly statements you made? I said the real dangers were from the Alpha emitters, with their 5.4 Million electron-Volt energy, which can cause lung cancer. You replied they cannot penetrate skin. I reminded you there is no epidermis in lung tissue. You found that in reactors (not in us), one in a thousand Alpha are high-energy and can penetrate skin, making you want to believe I lied. So you screamed "LIAR!".

I did not say Thorium was being abandoned world-wide, but gave specific examples.
Go here: http://videocast....p;bhcp=1
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2015
So, you have no idea what is going on, but you're 100% certain it's not what 97% of the people who study the subject say it is
@Mooster
doesn't that sound familiar? LOL
maybe he's got Dunning-Kruger!
... possible falsehood of this logic and conclusion
@verkle
1 - http://www.woodfo...60/trend
2- this is SCIENCE, not relidion or a faith... it is not about belief, it is about evidence
3- it is not based upon just 30 years, or even 50
4- the "natural rhythm" has been ruled out, but you already know this as you've already been shown the science and refused to accept it

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (20) Mar 01, 2015
And, . . "ENTIRE COLLAPSE"?? Hilarious, as well as fruity. Lose your terrible need to abuse me, and we can discuss the issues
So who are you laughing at? Me or 'Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld and Eric Rebentisch' who wrote the paper and presented it at 'MIT's Engineering Systems Division External Symposium' in 2003?

I know you have no regard for genuine experts and real facts. But laughing at them only makes you look bad.
You replied they cannot penetrate skin
?? You said 'alpha particles cannot penetrate skin, even high energy ones' and I showed you you didn't understand what high energy was. Google it.
did not say Thorium was being abandoned world-wide, but gave specific examples
You said exactly that and gave no examples. I gave examples which you weren't aware of because you're ignorant of the subject. Google it for the original thread. You think people can't find you on the Internet?

You liar.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2015
The 97% lie
@confounded uba
not a lie if it can be proven with evidence and a scientific study: http://iopscience.../article
and considering that even with all the lies spread by the deniers about this being wrong, it is NOT retracted, deleted or removed

again, you are making a claim counter to almost all the published science and your idea of evidence is your conjecture and interpretation of the science

that is not science, nor how it works

if you have a conjecture or interpretation, you should be able to support it with some hard science that includes empirical evidence and peer reviewed studies in reputable publications... and i say reputable because that last "lord" monckton debacle was a deliberate attempt to publish not only very bad science, but blatantly WRONG science in an attempt to legitimize it for the sake of their masters
http://phys.org/n...ate.html
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Mar 01, 2015
otto once again, in a professional thread: "You liar."

Will somebody help me get this chronic malcontent and character assassin off this site?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (20) Mar 01, 2015
otto once again, in a professional thread: "You liar."

Will somebody help me get this chronic malcontent and character assassin off this site?
You lied in your last post. In a 'professional thread' whatever that is. But if it were a thread for professionals then you would not belong, as you only lie about being a professional.

BTW, WHAT IS your MS in and how do you figure it makes you an authority on fallout-induced lung cancer or nuclear reactor design and operation? Or whatever else you care to bullshit about?
gkam
1.4 / 5 (21) Mar 01, 2015
As I said in another thread, I will send "copies of my story now owned by Smithsonian Air and Space Magazine, plus a copy of the check, and a pdf of Desert Wings, the newspaper of the Air Force Flight Test Center with my picture on the front page, a copy of my business card as Senior Engineer for PG&E."

"I will also send some copies of my AF performance reports, if you continue to challenge me. They contain some embarrassments for you. But you will dismiss all of this in some silly fashion.

And, "If anybody sends me an address, I'll also include recounts of what it was like on the flightline at Edwards AFB, back when we were flying Blackbirds, XB-70's, rocket-powered aircraft, and strange experimental aircraft, some without wings or power."

Let's compare work histories, otto.
Buzz1961
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 01, 2015
@Parcite -Trying to prove that AGW is false by pointing to temperature data is useless given the fact that embodied energy can vary while temperature stays the same.

Thank you, Parcite! ( I apologize for the long post, but I'll get to my point as quick as possible)
I have lurked on these pages for many years (since the "plane on a conveyor" days); always reading the articles, trying to educate myself and increase my understanding of very difficult topics as best I can, but I rarely post because I feel I am not qualified to debate if someone is right or wrong due to my lack of education (I dropped out of HS and joined the workforce in 1978 at the age of 17). I revert to the saying "it is hard to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person" and on this topic (AGW) I am truly "unarmed". Cont'd
Buzz1961
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2015
In my desire to educate myself and further my lay knowledge by reading the articles here and elsewhere, I read the back and forth comments of you all as you argue the merits of the material and I look for patterns in opinions and "facts" presented as well as online searching to try and form a higher level of understanding of the topic at hand. Articles dealing with AGW are arguably the most hotly contested in PO. I see all of the proclaimed scientists, meteorologists, engineers etc... arguing with each other here like school children with all the insults, mud-slinging and name calling that goes on and I think "how in the hell can I (or the average man on the street) come to understand such a complex system as our climate if all of these people working in science and academia can't even carry on a civil conversation about it?" Cont'd
Buzz1961
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2015
All of the previous was simply to set the foundation of where I am coming from as a new poster because I wanted to clarify my understanding to see if I am correct. Again, I'm trying to learn here - maybe a mistake given the sheer volume of vitriol being spewed here, but I'm trying.
In reading this particular article I saw Parcite's initial and subsequent posts and it gave me an "a Ha!" moment. I think I see what he is getting at and wanted to put up an analogy of my own to see if I am correct in my understanding of his quote above 1st and how it relates to AGW. If I light my stovetop burner, I am converting the potential chemical energy of the NG to thermal energy. If I were to hold a thermometer in the air above the open burner, I would see an immediate and very steep increase in air temperature due to the thermal energy being introduced into the "atmosphere" of the stove. - Cont'd
Buzz1961
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 01, 2015
Now, I take a large pot of water and place it on the burner. Although I am still introducing the same amount of thermal energy, if I measure the air temperature above the burner I would not see that major increase in temperature for a much longer period of time because the thermal energy is now being transferred into a heat sink ie; the pot of water. Eventually, due to the 2nd law of TD, the entire system will equalize thermally (entropy?) and I would begin to see the air temps in the area increase. - Cont'd
Buzz1961
3.3 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2015
If I transfer this basic analogy to the earth, I can understand how some here talk about the oceans as a heat sink. The ocean is basically a huge pot of water and the sun is the burner. The earth as a system has always absorbed thermal energy from the sun. Some of this is reflected back into space and some is absorbed by the oceans, plants etc.. In the earth's system natural processes produce the GHGs such as water vapor, C02, Methane, N02, ozone etc... and other natural processes absorb a certain amount of these GHGs as well. Since the thermal properties of GHGs are undisputed in science it stands to reason that as increases in GHGs overload the natural ability for earth to absorb them, there cannot help but to be an increase in thermal energy in the overall system. - Cont'd
VINDOC
2 / 5 (8) Mar 01, 2015
This is information from a group that changes the data to meet their agenda. This is not science. Science is not based on consensus and doctored up data. These people are frauds.
Buzz1961
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2015
Right now it is possible that this "extra" thermal energy is being absorbed by our oceans, not unlike the pot of water in my analogy, which can be an explanation of why average air temperatures have not increased dramatically since this debate on AGW began. I say "dramatically" because to the average person, a temperature increase of only a fraction of a degree is not noticeable or dramatic, hence such skepticism ("it's -17f outside my house right now so global warming is a hoax" - is a common response). However, due to the laws of thermodynamics the heat will, at some point, have to be equalized within the entire system and thus we will see a global warming trend unless there is a reduction or offset of some type in the emissions of GHGs. Is my understanding of all this correct? Thank you for indulging my interest and this long post.
Caliban
3.8 / 5 (16) Mar 01, 2015
@Buzz1961,

Thank you for that very clear exposition upon the fundamental principle underlying AGW --via analogy.

The most astonishing thing I find within this whole "debate", is that it really is JUST THAT SIMPLE. And yet, there is all of the hullaballoo which you bemoaned earlier.

As a long time reader here, I would expect that it would be apparent to you by now just how exasperating it is to continually be faced with comments from those posters here who refuse to acknowledge the simple truth of what you have just posted, and that, therefore, you can also understand how many of us have long since had enough of that ignorance --be it pretend or actual-- after having explained this very simple principle overnovernovernovernovernovernovernoverovernovernovernover...again.

It should also be clear to you that there are a number of those posters who are --for lack of a better term-- "Professionals" at what they do, ie, Deny the Science of AGW,

ctd
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (23) Mar 01, 2015
I will send "copies of my story now owned by Smithsonian Air and Space Magazine, plus a copy of the check, and a pdf of Desert Wings, the newspaper of the Air Force Flight Test Center with my picture on the front page, a copy of my business card as Senior Engineer for PG&E."

"I will also send some copies of my AF performance reports, if you continue to challenge me. They contain some embarrassments for you. But you will dismiss all of this in some silly fashion.

And, "If anybody sends me an address, I'll also include recounts of what it was like on the flightline at Edwards AFB, back when we were flying Blackbirds, XB-70's, rocket-powered aircraft, and strange experimental aircraft, some without wings or power."

Let's compare work histories, otto
Well yours is entirely irrelevant so why bother? We've already proven that a great deal of it is made up, exaggerated, misrepresented, etc.

What's your MS in and how is it relevant to anything?
richard_f_cronin
1 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2015
I wish people would consider that Global Warming is driven from within the earth. Great deal of geothermal energy is being unleashed. USGS data for earthquakes Richter 6 and above, globally: 1975 to 1985 = 1061. '85 to '95 = 1541. '95 to 2005 = 1542. 2005 to 2015 = 1785. Please understand that the atmosphere of our planet is one millionth the mass of the entire earth. The entire conversation about Global Warming has been one (1) discipline ---- weathermen.(aka climatologists). Forecasting out 50 to 100 years no less. IPCC has over 100 different climate "models", and too, too many PhDs have too much invested in this AGW train to walk back their pronouncements.Dr. J. Marvin Herndon's concept of the GeoReactor and other planetary fission reactors caused by planetary accretion when the heaviest elements, the fissionable Actinides settled to the core. Naturally occurring fission is really quite easy. Google: Oklo, Gabon, West Africa. Known site a natural fission reactor, 1.7 billion yrs ago
gkam
1.8 / 5 (24) Mar 01, 2015
"The most astonishing thing I find within this whole "debate", . . . . "

As someone else once put it, regarding evolution: "This is not a matter of debate, it is a matter of measurement".
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2015
ctd

...and actively spread AntiScience, chicanery, fraud, distortion, lies and all manner of self-perpetuating ignorance and willful disunderstanding.

The reason why so many of us here continue to rake them over the coals(besides shaming the devil) is because there are droves of people that visit this site who are looking for just that sort of "A-HA!" moment which you described, but who may --again, like you-- not feel up to entering into the debate to ask questions, but who still read the comments to gain insight.

This ongoing fight is for exactly those people, in the hopes that they won't be gulled by what(we hope) we point out are specious arguments, unqualified "data", dubious hypotheses, and what qualifies as sufficient support for a given claim.

I apologise if at times --probably MANY times-- my comments are a bit offensive to you and anyone else here looking for the truth, but bear in mind --you can't treat gangrene with sugar water.

Hope you understand.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 01, 2015
I see all of the proclaimed scientists, meteorologists, engineers etc... arguing with each other here like school children with all the insults, mud-slinging and name calling that goes on and I think "how in the hell can I (or the average man on the street) come to understand such a complex system as our climate if all of these people working in science and academia can't even carry on a civil conversation about it?"
@Buzz1961
welcome to the fray!
there was only one thing wrong that i could see in your post.. the above quote

if one reads the SCIENCE, then you will see that there IS NO DEBATE
really
the debate comes in because of those with a vested interest in making the scientifically illiterate think there IS a debate, and that the science is wrong
case in point: http://phys.org/n...ate.html
and the study linked in it

to be cont'd
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2015
This is information from a group that changes the data to meet their agenda. This is not science. Science is not based on consensus and doctored up data. These people are frauds.

No science is always fluid, open to change by new scientific discoveries.

However the empirical science of what CO2 does in the atmosphere is like why the sky is blue my friend. That unarguable. Sorry about that.
There are no new discoveries. Just efforts to determine the intricacies of where the heat retained by that GHE is shifting within the climate system.
The "consensus" is a scientific momentum, unarguable with anything that it could be otherwise - except for those with a reason to be contrarian.
Everything points to AGW theory as it stands as being correct. Overwhelmingly so.
If you don't like that, then at the speed at which things are going, you'll live long enough to have admit you've been myopic (to use a kind word).
Captain Stumpy
4.8 / 5 (17) Mar 01, 2015
@Buzz1961 cont'd
so there are people who want to continue to get rich (or richer) by manipulating the stupid or illiterate into thinking the science is wrong

this leads to some VERY bad science (see "lord monckton")
then it snowballs into a political movement, which bleeds over into religion as well
the conspiracy theorists come out then and we get studies like this: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

the conclusion: stick to what you are doing!
you researched it and read up on it
I would suggest only one change: SKIP the politics and religion and other sites... stick with the SCIENCE

if they cannot support their claims with science and studies, then they are not "scientists" or anything else other than trolls and lairs (see ALCHE/water_prophet) regardless of their "claims" made anywhere

the argument should be decided by the science, not the person
Buzz1961
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 01, 2015
@Captain Stumpy and Caliban -Thank you for your replies. I do learn a lot from this site and read it thoroughly daily. I've come to know who the trolls and antagonists are and have been good at sifting through the crap and discovering the actual contributors. I especially appreciate the people who post relevant links to their statements and don't just throw out their opinions without basis in fact. While I have been a AGW doubter in the past my thoughts have changed. You cannot take a closed system like our earth, add 7 billion people and their related support industries to this system without having a profound effect on the system. I am in no way an environmentalist, in fact I despise extremism in any form but it defies logic to think that humankind does not impact this tiny sphere floating in space that we call home.
GaryB
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2015
OH NO! Look at the chart, people! In almost a century, the average temperature has increased by a blistering ... 2 degrees F! You know what this means. In a few more centuries, the planet will be covered by fat guys in speedos. Oh the horror!


Your ignorance is unfathomable, but you were probably the product of some defunded education system in the US. If you live in a colder climate and are in a "big" room -- 25 x 25. Get a space heater and turn it on. It just won't make much difference despite chugging away at 500watts burn. Now, go boil 5 gallons of water. It will a lot of time and heat. Now, think of the whole planet, billions of times larger and more massive with all kinds of stabilization systems that keep change at about 1000 years per tick on the planetary clock. Suddenly we jump the whole system in miliseconds so to speak. It's huge, really unwise, potentially species (or own) ending.
GaryB
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 01, 2015
I wish people would consider that Global Warming is driven from within the earth.


You may be shocked that the scientists do with much much more knowledge than you display. That radioactive decay is part of what keeps the deep earth hot is as old as tectonic theory and not at all in dispute.

Conservatives love to insinuate that scientists are in it for the money -- corrupt people are the ones with the most suspicion of corruption. But, there is much more money to be had if they just get the money from industry. Look at Willie Wei-Hock Soon who is most touted scientific skeptic, but was secretly taking money from the carbon industry.
ConfoundedSociety
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2015
Right now it is possible that this "extra" thermal energy is being absorbed by our oceans, not unlike the pot of water in my analogy, which can be an explanation of why average air temperatures have not increased dramatically since this debate on AGW began..


The fault in your analogy is that the heat source would need to be over top of the pot of water, not under it.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2015
Confounded
The fault in your interpretation of the analogy is that hot air rises because it is less dense. Heat simply goes from higher energy state to lower.
AGreatWhopper
1.5 / 5 (16) Mar 01, 2015
"Do people STILL try to deny this?"

YOU do, by your behavior. Drive? Use AC? Eat factory farmed beef? What miniscule percentage of AGWites can say no to all three? If it's so freaking critical, THEN WHY DO YOU ACT EXACTLY THE SAME???
greenonions
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2015
Whopper
THEN WHY DO YOU ACT EXACTLY THE SAME???


Each person's choices in life are individual. What do my choices in life have to do with the science of the climate? That seems to me like such a childish commentary. Some people are off grid, vegan, pee and poop in the garden, and spend their life in mediation for the health of Mother Gaia (not me by the way). What does that have to do with the science of our climate? This board is much more about discussing the FACTS of our climate. Stop being childish.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 01, 2015
Rules for discussing science on the internet

0) Everyone is fallible, including you.

1) If you make a declarative statement, be prepared to provide an explanation using basic principles, or provide a reference to the peer-reviewed literature.

2) It is reasonable for other people to challenge your statements; it's a valid method for conducting scientific dialog: claim – challenge – defend, repeat as necessary.

3) When challenging claims made by others, be as specific as you can, and provide a clear rationale for your challenge, so that the original poster can respond effectively to your challenge.

4) If you are in the middle of a dialog, try to stay on topic until the specific issue under discussion is resolved, or all parties agree to move on.

[continued]
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 01, 2015
Rules for discussing science on the internet (continued)

5) Be respectful; a little humor is fine, but it's easy to cross the line into sarcastic ridicule; eschew ad hominem attacks completely

6) If you are attacked, don't respond immediately; cool off first, and then decide if there's anything worth responding to; ignore ad hominem attacks, and respond as appropriate with specific refutations of the attacker's points, or questions (e.g. If they say, "You lied.", respond with, "What did I specifically say that led you to conclude that?")

7) Read your posts carefully before hitting "submit"; errors are much easier to correct when you don't make them publicly

8) If you do make an error, admit it, and do your best to correct it. If someone else pointed it out, acknowledge their contribution and thank them. Move on.

That seemed to cover everything when I was writing these up .. did I miss any?
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 01, 2015
I thought of one I missed:

9) One shouldn't bother mentioning "real world" credentials, or expect them to change the discussion; they are irrelevant in an anonymous online forum. No one's opinions about the validity of a given statement will be changed by such claims. The only worthwhile support for one's scientific statements are clear explanations based on fundamental scientific principles, or literature references for complicated or technical points.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2015
That seemed to cover everything when I was writing these up .. did I miss any?
@DLK
there is one i think is relevant
RULE 37
http://dis.4chan....71597138

with a caveat
it should read: there are no "insert professional claim here" on the internet

gkam
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 01, 2015
Gosh, guys, if you are going to trash experience for Wiki, you are going to get more idiots who read something and think they understand it and the implications of it , like otto, the Vandal.

When I brought up my experience, I expected questions of how it worked, what really happened, and the like. Instead I got Wiki-learned idiots each copying and pasting from other sources, and nobody "winning" any argument, with character assassins screaming "LIAR!" and worse.

Go to it, kids. I quit.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (20) Mar 01, 2015
Gosh, guys, if you are going to trash experience for Wiki, you are going to get more idiots who read something and think they understand it and the implications of it , like otto, the Vandal.
Who trashed experience? The point isn't that experience isn't valuable, it's that experience should it make it easier for you to convince people of your expertise through rational discussion. Just look at what happens on here when people make claims that they have "academic crediential X" or "professional title Y" ... all it does is attract ridicule that distracts from actual scientific discourse.

It breaks down like this: if the person you are in dialog with is reasonable, there is no need to give them your credentials, they are already going to listen to your arguments and consider them logically in a scientific context. If the person you are in dialog is unreasonable, they are not going to suddenly accept your arguments based on claimed credentials.
I quit.
I hope not.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2015
Well, DLK,

While I think that your proposed principles of civil scientific debate are laudable and honorable ideals, at the same time, I think that one must acknowledge that this forum isn't exactly a faculty tea.

Personally, I require considerable latitude of operation, and modify my approach with respect to the quality, character, and tone displayed by those with whom I engage. This would quickly result in my running afoul of your principles, which is why I wouldn't willingly bind myself by them; it would be senseless to adopt rules only to (inevitably) break them.

However, having said that, you are free to conduct yourself in any way you see fit, and I would be the very last to say that your principled civility was not welcome here, because I certainly do welcome it.

Happy Hunting!
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2015
Gosh, guys, if you are going to trash experience for Wiki, you are going to get more idiots who read something and think they understand it and the implications of it , like otto, the Vandal.

When I brought up my experience, I expected questions of how it worked, what really happened, and the like. Instead I got Wiki-learned idiots each copying and pasting from other sources, and nobody "winning" any argument, with character assassins screaming "LIAR!" and worse.

Go to it, kids. I quit.
Stop demanding respect without proving your mettle.

You rarely have any real science to add to the discussion.

Caliban
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2015
@Captain Stumpy and Caliban -Thank you for your replies. I do learn a lot from this site and read it thoroughly daily. I've come to know who the trolls and antagonists are and have been good at sifting through the crap and discovering the [...]add 7 billion people and their related support industries to this system without having a profound effect on the system. I am in no way an environmentalist, in fact I despise extremism in any form but it defies logic to think that humankind does not impact this tiny sphere floating in space that we call home.


@Buzz,

You are entirely welcome. And your thoughtful nature is apparent from you posts, which is why I'm puzzled by this:

""...I am in no way an environmentalist, in fact I despise extremism in any form...""

...and hoped for a clearer understanding of your meaning, since your statements up to that point would seem, in broad terms, to be "environmentalist" in themselves.
Caliban
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 02, 2015
Gosh, guys, if you are going to trash experience for Wiki, you are going to get more idiots who read something and think they understand it and the implications of it , like otto, the Vandal.

When I brought up my experience, I expected questions of how it worked, what really happened, and the like. Instead I got Wiki-learned idiots each copying and pasting from other sources, and nobody "winning" any argument, with character assassins screaming "LIAR!" and worse.

Go to it, kids. I quit.
Stop demanding respect without proving your mettle.

You rarely have any real science to add to the discussion.


That is indeed ironic, and bordering upon --if not full-on-- hypocrisy, coming from you, UBYMORON.

See what I mean, DLK?

Buzz1961
2.7 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2015
I'm puzzled by this:""...I am in no way an environmentalist, in fact I despise extremism in any form..."".


Caliban - What I mean is I have no patience for people who would go to extremes to try and "save the earth" through tree spiking or vandalizing cars to put forth some notion that by doing so they are "saving the planet", with little regard to the destruction of private property or danger to other people. I also do not agree with things like the Sierra Club's efforts to remove or drain hydroelectric dams in order to restore a river. One can be cognizant of the impact we have on the environment and take steps to reduce that impact through recycling, not driving gas guzzling or gross polluting cars etc.. without going to extremes. I guess I would consider myself to be environmentally conscious but I do not spend my days on environmental pursuits. Maybe that philosophy makes me an environmentalist by broad definition but I am certainly not an activist for the cause.
petepal55
1.2 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2015
Wow, I have never seen such a lengthy list of comments in here, but then I'm a relative newbie.
Just to put in my un-educated two bits - I have wondered for some decades now what effect the creation of "miniature suns" during the late '40's and '50's might have had on the climate. Not to mention the fission experiments. All that energy released on our planet on a regular basis with no way to tell anymore just how many instances there were much less how many ergs were produced, geez... Perhaps the US government has a record of "all" nuclear tests and their estimated output but one must wonder if they might have missed a few. Not to mention a bothersome tendency of governmental bodies to lie about anything they feel the peones don't need to know.
flying_finn
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2015
Michio was right. This was from 2014, stands true today. Have endured the "new norm" and am going to relocate somewhere between Michigan and New Mexico.

http://www.cbsnew...rt-says/
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (20) Mar 02, 2015
Wow, I have never seen such a lengthy list of comments in here, but then I'm a relative newbie.
Just to put in my un-educated two bits - I have wondered for some decades now what effect the creation of "miniature suns" during the late '40's and '50's might have had on the climate.


It's not an unreasonable question, and it's worth hanging some numbers on it for comparison. According to wikipedia, the total amount of energy released in all nuclear testing is equal to 2.135 million kilotons of TNT, or 2.135x10^18 joules of energy. Let's be conservative and call it 3x10^19 J, a little more that 10 times the "official" value. That would be one-tenth the amount ADDED EACH YEAR to the atmosphere from increased CO2, according to a recent study that directly measured thermal emission from atmospheric CO2 over an 11-year span. (see http://phys.org/n...ct.html)
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2015
In addition to what DarkLordKelvin said, about 4 Hiroshima sized atomic bombs worth of energy are added to the climate every second due to additional heat from the additional greenhouse gases we have added to the atmosphere (http://4hiroshimas.com ). So the nuclear testing we did decades ago are pretty negligible in comparison.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2015
In addition to what DarkLordKelvin said, about 4 Hiroshima sized atomic bombs worth of energy are added to the climate every second due to additional heat from the additional greenhouse gases we have added to the atmosphere
And yet the global temperatures aren't going up.

http://woodfortre....1/trend

How does that work?

TheGhostofOtto1923
4.6 / 5 (19) Mar 02, 2015
Gosh, guys, if you are going to trash experience for Wiki, you are going to get more idiots
-Well your experience has taught you that:
... Fukushima explosions could throw reactor parts 120km, that thorium reactor tech is being abandoned worldwide, that fallout is the main cause of lung cancer, that plutonium is raining down on idaho, that high-energy alpha radiation cant penetrate skin, etcetc
-and it's given you the idea that you can make up shit about things like complex systems which are demonstrably WRONG.

So what good is it?
When I brought up my experience, I expected questions of how it worked, what really happened
Like I say you post here because you're a braggart who wants attention. The people here aren't your family or co-workers who you can bully into submission. Here you need to be able to substantiate what you say.
Go to it, kids. I quit.
-I bet you said this after every failed job you had didn't you?
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2015
ubavontuba doing it AGAIN claimed
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.1/to:2015.1/plot/rss/from:1997.1/to:2015.1/trend
How does that work?
Doesn't u have been advised several times re RSS warning here:-
http://www.remss....eratures
& I quote from last line 1st para
"The denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope."

U have also been told many times climate is 30yr averaged trend, 18 yrs is invalid but, U already KNOW average for last 18 yrs is STILL higher than average for previous 18 yrs, eg as per this link:-

http://woodfortre....1/trend

ubavontuba fails again despite puerile robotic repeats, is he paid ?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2015
Hey mike, go tell that to your leading IPCC AGW Cult "scientist".
http://www.climat...worried/
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2015
antigoracle muttered
Hey mike, go tell that to your leading IPCC AGW Cult "scientist".
http://www.climat...worried/
Keh, what do U think that means ?

U don't seem to have observed here for the last several months that the oceans are gaining tremendous amounts of heat:-
http://upload.wik...012).png

Whilst atmosphere has warmed less, your post goes to show unequivocally u have zero understanding of "Specific Heat" (SH) & "Enthalpy", ie Science !

In respect of SH re oceans is approx 4000x greater than atmosphere, therefore any even small increase in ocean temps given its mass is a huge amount of heat absorption, where from then ?

Please antigoracle get a base physics education, it is smarter to do so & then u won't be marginalized for bad logic fails.
ConfoundedSociety
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2015
In addition to what DarkLordKelvin said, about 4 Hiroshima sized atomic bombs worth of energy are added to the climate every second due to additional heat from the additional greenhouse gases we have added to the atmosphere (http://4hiroshimas.com ). So the nuclear testing we did decades ago are pretty negligible in comparison.


Directly from your link - "The earth has warmed rapidly over the past century due mainly to human activity"

From a previous post -"The data indicates that CO2 is the dominant driver of climate at this time "

Mike_Massen and thermodynamics seem to agree with you. And I see no dissenters.

So we're back to my original point. The fact that warming has slowed instead of accelerated while the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase continues to rise proves you wrong, unless you can come up with the answer to the question - "Where's the heat?"
Mike_Massen
3.2 / 5 (16) Mar 02, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed
So we're back to my original point. The fact that warming has slowed instead of accelerated while the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase continues to rise proves you wrong, unless you can come up with the answer to the question - "Where's the heat?"
Well obviously if you had read my post re specific heat u would understand oceans pull that heat and clearly related to ENSO...

Understandably laypeople Eg yourself have great difficulty with whole irrefutable physics of "Specific Heat" as its not something u encounter everyday, well except for the large amount of electrical energy it takes to heat a small kettle.

Its Y a good education in physics is so essential, when you get it, u r immensely immune to idle shallow narrow propaganda emotively manipulating you regarding various mechanisms that clinical psychologists understand really well.

https://en.wikipe...fic_Heat

Fortunately its mostly multiplication & pretty easy :-)
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2015
Hey mike, I don't want you to burn out that lone neuron you share with the rest of the AGW Cult's Chicken Littles, but first it was 15 years now it's 30 years. Just keep shifting the goal post, that's AGW Cult "science". As for the heat going into the oceans, only you remain blind to the fact that's as big a LIE as they are not cooking the land temperature data. BTW, the "uncooked" temperature data shows the US cooling since the 1930s. Satellite data shows the globe cooling since records began.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 02, 2015
So we're back to my original point. The fact that warming has slowed instead of accelerated while the rate of atmospheric CO2 increase continues to rise proves you wrong, unless you can come up with the answer to the question - "Where's the heat?"
That certainly is an important question, some possibilities are:

1) latent heat absorbed by melting ice
2) latent heat absorbed by vaporizing water
3) heat transferred from the surface ocean into the deep ocean
4) heat lost to space from increased albedo

All of those possibilities are being checked via measurements, but all of them are difficult to check, because climate is a complex system. The long-term trends in 1) and 3) certainly seem consistent with increased heat absorption.

But even if 1-4 are determined not to be happening, then that would mean that

5) heat lost to space from some as-yet-unknown phenomenon

is happening; increased annual heat from GE is real and measurable, and must be going somewhere.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2015
What I mean is I have no patience for people who would go to extremes ...
@Buzz1961
you are not alone
MOST people i know are like this as well... the only ones who aren't are the ones who are either uba-religious, uba-political, uba-paid-for-shills or conspiracy theorists who refuse to acknowledge the science and comprehend the studies out there
(the ones that think there really is a debate in climate science)
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

And yet the global temperatures aren't going up.
How does that work?
@uba
because you cherry picked the data?
the last 30 years (TRENDS are typically 30yrs or more)
http://www.woodfo...60/trend
ConfoundedSociety
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2015
Well obviously if you had read my post re specific heat u would understand oceans pull that heat and clearly related to ENSO…


But the oceans are not absorbing any more heat now than prior to the "pause".
http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

Also, you would have to come up with n explanation for why the heat suddenly was only going to the oceans.

Understandably laypeople Eg yourself have great difficulty with whole irrefutable physics of "Specific Heat" as its not something u encounter everyday, well except for the large amount of electrical energy it takes to heat a small kettle.


If there are actually educated people here (I doubt there are), they must groan every time people like you say stupid things like this.

"https://en.wikipe...ic_Heat"

And now Wikipedia is counted as a valid reference by you guys.
ConfoundedSociety
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2015
1) latent heat absorbed by melting ice


https://sites.goo...egraphs/

4) heat lost to space from increased albedo


That would mean it's not warming and that you're wrong. You can't have excess heat trapped in the system and explain why you can't find it by saying it's getting reflected out of the system.

But even if 1-4 are determined not to be happening, then that would mean that

5) heat lost to space from some as-yet-unknown phenomenon


Same as 4. If it's going into space, it's not being trapped.
ConfoundedSociety
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2015
1) latent heat absorbed by melting ice


Melting would be accelerating. It's not It's even bouncing back since 2012.

2) latent heat absorbed by vaporizing water


Apparently not
http://www.friend...2013.pdf

3) heat transferred from the surface ocean into the deep ocean


No.
http://science.na...t_abyss/
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 02, 2015
1) latent heat absorbed by melting ice


https://sites.goo...egraphs/


There is more ice on Earth than just sea ice. Have you been following what's happening to Greenland and Antartica?

4) heat lost to space from increased albedo


That would mean it's not warming and that you're wrong. You can't have excess heat trapped in the system and explain why you can't find it by saying it's getting reflected out of the system.

But even if 1-4 are determined not to be happening, then that would mean that

5) heat lost to space from some as-yet-unknown phenomenon


Same as 4. If it's going into space, it's not being trapped.


Well, sort of .. it means that it's not being added to the overall "global system", which was my point .. that possibility needs to be investigated as well. However, there is no doubt that LOCAL trapping is going on .. it has been measured.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 02, 2015
1) latent heat absorbed by melting ice


Melting would be accelerating. It's not It's even bouncing back since 2012.
There is some evidence that sea ice has recovered, but absolutely none that land-supported ice has recovered.
2) latent heat absorbed by vaporizing water


Apparently not
http://www.friend...2013.pdf
First of all, that's not a published article. Second, it actually shows that WV increased overall in the atmosphere between 1990-2001. Third, it doesn't address the time period of the "pause" to any significant extent.
3) heat transferred from the surface ocean into the deep ocean


No.
http://science.na...t_abyss/


Sorry, but no. There is plenty of deep ocean that is not "abyss" .. that is only the layers below 4000m. See link below, for example:
http://www.carbon...-hiatus/
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2015
@Captain Stumpy and Caliban -Thank you for your replies. I do learn a lot from this site and read it thoroughly daily. I've come to know who the trolls and antagonists are and have been good at sifting through the crap and discovering the actual contributors. I especially appreciate the people who post relevant links to their statements and don't just throw out their opinions without basis in fact. While I have been a AGW doubter in the past my thoughts have changed. You cannot take a closed system like our earth, add 7 billion people and their related support industries to this system without having a profound effect on the system. I am in no way an environmentalist, in fact I despise extremism in any form but it defies logic to think that humankind does not impact this tiny sphere floating in space that we call home.

This was well said. I think you speak for a silent majority.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2015
A small interjection, to this:
There is some evidence that sea ice has recovered, but absolutely none that land-supported ice has recovered.
if we are talking about Arctic sea ice, then the "recovery" is actually an illusion of cherry picking. While the Arctic sea ice levels have modestly gone up from their lowest extent ever recorded in 2012, as of Jan 2015 it was still a good 2 standard deviations below the 1981-2010 average (which itself is well below the 19th century average) . It's really not a recovery. See here: http://www.climat...aIce.htm
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2015
heat transferred from the surface ocean into the deep ocean


No.
http://science.na...t_abyss/


Sorry, but no. There is plenty of deep ocean that is not "abyss" .. that is only the layers below 4000m. See link below, for example:
http://www.carbon...-hiatus/


DLK:
Here is a study of abyssal temps that shows warming:

http://uwpcc.wash...2010.pdf
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2015
Hey mike, I don't want you to burn out that lone neuron you share with the rest of the AGW Cult's Chicken Littles, but first it was 15 years now it's 30 years. Just keep shifting the goal post, that's AGW Cult "science". As for the heat going into the oceans, only you remain blind to the fact that's as big a LIE as they are not cooking the land temperature data. BTW, the "uncooked" temperature data shows the US cooling since the 1930s. Satellite data shows the globe cooling since records began.
Well Give them RADAR-GUIDED SKEE-BALL LANES and VELVEETA BURRITOS!! Then those pesky AGWites may finally read the satellite data correctly for a change you think?
Hmmm... a CRIPPLED ACCOUNTANT with a FALAFEL sandwich was HIT by a TROLLEY-CAR... What are the ODDS? About the same as your mother teaching your two brain stems (one in each bun) to do kindergarten MATH with PIXIE sticks!

Today CO2 was 400.95 ppm. Same time last year was 398.34 ppm. Keep denying and Al Gore will get you.
ConfoundedSociety
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2015
There is more ice on Earth than just sea ice. Have you been following what's happening to Greenland and Antartica?


90% of the ice mass on the planet is in Antarctica. Let's look at that…
http://www.ncdc.n...w/2015/1

The Southern Hemisphere is setting records for snow and ice.

Same as 4. If it's going into space, it's not being trapped.


Well, sort of .. it means that it's not being added to the overall "global system", which was my point .. that possibility needs to be investigated as well. However, there is no doubt that LOCAL trapping is going on .. it has been measured.


The arguments used against the MWP is that is was only local (which there's now evidence against that.) Local is meaningless if the heat of the entire system isn't growing at a greater rate. If you can show that all the local plusses and minuses add up to an accelerated increase, then fine. But the onus on your side to show where the heat is.
ConfoundedSociety
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2015
There is some evidence that sea ice has recovered, but absolutely none that land-supported ice has recovered.


See my previous post about the Southern Hemisphere.

First of all, that's not a published article.

It links directly to the NASA data, which goes up to 2009. However, the drop in water vapor over the last 60 years, which doesn't match up with AGW predictions.

Second, it actually shows that WV increased overall in the atmosphere between 1990-2001.


Not anywhere near at the rate predicted.

Third, it doesn't address the time period of the "pause" to any significant extent.


See above.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 02, 2015
There is more ice on Earth than just sea ice. Have you been following what's happening to Greenland and Antartica?


90% of the ice mass on the planet is in Antarctica. Let's look at that…
http://www.ncdc.n...w/2015/1

The Southern Hemisphere is setting records for snow and ice.


That link only covers sea ice in the SH, there is no mention of snowfall there. Furthermore, it's summertime there now .. I checked back to July of 2014 on the same site, and there's no mention of snowfall in Antarctica .. perhaps it is not measured reliably there? Meanwhile, the land-supported glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate.

http://news.natio...science/

East Antarctica too: http://www.antarc...tarctica
howhot2
4.4 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2015
The confounded_igorant says
The Southern Hemisphere is setting records for snow and ice.
Huh? References? Are you talking accumulating snow and ice/ If so, is it enough that it's replacing all of the melt ice that's also occuring? and the follows up with this little ZINGER;
But the onus on your side to show where the heat is.
I have many CHARTS and DIAGRAMS! "These are DARK TIMES for all mankind's HIGHEST VALUES!"... "These are DARK TIMES for FREEDOM and PROSPERITY!",,, BUT WOW! "These are GREAT TIMES to put your money on BAD GUY to kick the CRAP out of MEGATON MAN!!!"
The answer is The heat is in your MAMA's pants! When you get your PH.D. will you get able to work at BURGER KING?

The Southern Hemisphere is setting records for snow and ice.
And at the same time Greenland and the Antarctic are melting faster than ever as satellite imagery shows demonstrating global warming. And that is old news from 2012. Deniers are nutty fruits.



ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2015
Sorry, but no. There is plenty of deep ocean that is not "abyss" .. that is only the layers below 4000m. See link below, for example:
http://www.carbon...-hiatus/


The chart shown is in conflict with the link I provided (straight to NOAA, not a site funded by the ECF.) http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/
(look at 1990 on both)

There's also this from your link -

"Recent research suggests water below 2,000m isn't showing signs of warming. Below about 4,000 m - known as "the abyss" - the ocean may even cooling slightly."

So it seems we agree that only the upper 2000m are relevant. According to my NOAA link, there has been no acceleration in the warming in the upper 2000m. According to your link, they don't know.

Even if you can show all of the heat was suddenly going into the oceans, you'd have to explain why that suddenly started happening. Here's why… (cont'd)
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (21) Mar 02, 2015
The arguments used against the MWP is that is was only local (which there's now evidence against that.) Local is meaningless if the heat of the entire system isn't growing at a greater rate. If you can show that all the local plusses and minuses add up to an accelerated increase, then fine. But the onus on your side to show where the heat is.


*Sigh* How come people keep telling me what "side" I am on? I would think that my posts have made it clear that I am on the side of objective, well-reasoned science that is supported by evidence, and grounded in fundamental principles. Read them carefully, and you will see I am allowing for the fact that the GE effect heat is BALANCED by some other losses. I haven't seen any evidence to support it yet, but the POSSIBILITY needs to be accounted for in any objective analysis, so I included it in my list of mechanisms explaining where the GE heat was going, which is what YOU asked for.
ConfoundedSociety
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2015
The solutions you are proposing will cripple economies, including third world developing ones. (Every time you say it's OK to make exemptions, you damage your own argument about how much of a danger the human race is in.)

Take into account also that you've never been right. We are now at a point where almost 100% of all of the simulations run by every climate model is wrong. None of them predicted a pause of this length. Even we assume you suddenly now have it right, the safe assumption is that your low range will be right (about 2 degrees over the next 100 years).

To simply base this claim on a shoulder shrug doesn't make sense. The whole basis for the claim that the heat must be somewhere is because you are assuming all you measurements and base assumptions are true. That's backwards. When your data doesn't match up to reality, it's time to question your instruments and base assumptions, not reality. (cont'd)

ConfoundedSociety
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2015
The whole basis of your predictions also assumes that nothing will change over the next 100 years (even though people on you side have tried to claim we only have 50 years of fossil fuels left anyway).

100 years ago, the top speed of cars was around 50 mph. The first commercial air passenger flew.

100 years before that, George Stephenson put his very first steam locomotive into service.

Japan is planning to have an orbital solar power collector in place in less than 20 years. That means a practical application of orbital solar power collectors is probably only 50 years away. In 100 years, it will probably produce the plurality of power for the Earth, if not the majority. It takes about ten years for the Earth to start wiping out any excess CO2 in the atmosphere, and it does it quickly.

Even if everything you say is correct (and it's about time you accept that it isn't), none of your predictions will ever even be close to coming true.
ConfoundedSociety
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2015
Meanwhile, the land-supported glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate.

http://news.natio...science/

East Antarctica too: http://www.antarc…tarctica


There's only one glacier shown as actually melting in those links. And they only really started looking at that glacier in 2005. There's no claim that it suddenly started in the last 17 years.

Evidence of the Earth warming isn't relevant unless you can show it's more than it used to be.

And neither link disputes my link that the Southern Hemisphere is seeing record ice.

And how about this?

http://journals.a...f=R&

Antarctic ice is still growing, despite the glaciers.
ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2015
*Sigh* How come people keep telling me what "side" I am on?


In this discussion, you have taken the side of pro AGW. If not, why are you responding to me instead one of the others?

Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 02, 2015
antigoracle claimed
.. but first it was 15 years now it's 30 years
Really ?
When did anyone ever claim climate was 15 yr period & when do u imagine it was changed to 30 ?

antigoracle claimed
Just keep shifting the goal post, that's AGW Cult "science"
How was any so called goal post changed with climate assessment period of 30 yrs ?

antigoracle claimed
As for the heat going into the oceans, only you remain blind to the fact that's as big a LIE as they are not cooking the land temperature data. BTW
How is empirical data re oceans somehow dependent upon land data, can u show that ?

antigoracle claimed
.. the "uncooked" temperature data shows the US cooling since the 1930s
Entirely possible as u SHOULD know, yet clearly need to be reminded, US has massive amount of ice to its north Canada ? (2nd largest country) & arctic ?

U forget heat moves to cold.

antigoracle claimed
Satellite data shows the globe cooling since records began
Prove it ?
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed
But the oceans are not absorbing any more heat now than prior to the "pause".
http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/
Beg pardon ?
The link YOU posted shows exact opposite of your claim ie, 1,2,3 !

R U unwell ?

ConfoundedSociety claimed
And now Wikipedia is counted as a valid reference by you guys
Its viable for laypeople as a useful introduction to technical concepts, good thing u can observe r the references linked at page bottom.

If u r interested in an education in physics then also wikipedia is a good start as all core physics is based upon empirical evidence :-)

Please get a grip on; specific heat & statistical mechanics, wikipedia is fine for that BUT, obviously u can find tutes from university sites & here is the key thing u will notice - wikipedia pages on the issues I have raised offer the SAME physics !

Specific heat is easy to understand, its simple multiplication based on material properties :-)
Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed
It takes about ten years for the Earth to start wiping out any excess CO2 in the atmosphere, and it does it quickly
Beg pardon ?
U are claiming to 'start wiping out', not particularly precise. If CO2 was not added as we are now, then sure it will start to decline but as to 'wiping out' - please quantify ?
ie. General consensus is it takes approx 100 years to 'wipe out'...

Also what do u specifically mean by 'does it quickly' - is >100 yrs quick in your book ?

Glancing through your posts which unfortunately just follow deniers & doesn't show u have a handle on physics I have to remind u where u where did u address my Q:-

"How can ADDING a greenhouse gas such as CO2, with known & proven thermal properties of absorbancy & re-radiation, to the atmosphere somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

ie.
We know CO2 traps heat & we KNOW oceans absorb huge amount -Your link & therefore we know the globe as a whole is warming.

If not Y ?
ConfoundedSociety
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed - But the oceans are not absorbing any more heat now than prior to the "pause".
http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/


Beg pardon ?
The link YOU posted shows exact opposite of your claim ie, 1,2,3 !


Wrong. The data clearly shows a steady increase, meaning no additional heat is being absorbed. It is absorbing heat at the same rate as it was prior to the pause.

Specific heat is easy to understand, its simple multiplication based on material properties


It's also irrelevant.
ConfoundedSociety
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 02, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed - It takes about ten years for the Earth to start wiping out any excess CO2 in the atmosphere, and it does it quickly


Beg pardon ?
U are claiming to 'start wiping out', not particularly precise. If CO2 was not added as we are now, then sure it will start to decline but as to 'wiping out' - please quantify ?
ie. General consensus is it takes approx 100 years to 'wipe out'…


http://iopscience...4002.pdf

Glancing through your posts which unfortunately just follow deniers & doesn't show u have a handle on physics I have to remind u where u where did u address my Q:-


Not sure how you would define physics to claim I'm the one without a handle on it.
ConfoundedSociety
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2015
"How can ADDING a greenhouse gas such as CO2, with known & proven thermal properties of absorbancy & re-radiation, to the atmosphere somehow NOT increase thermal resistivity ?"

ie.
We know CO2 traps heat & we KNOW oceans absorb huge amount -Your link & therefore we know the globe as a whole is warming.

If not Y ?


I've answered it several times. Thanks for proving my point on your tactics.

Here it is again. What percentage of the warming are the man made carbon emissions responsible for? No one is denying that there is a greenhouse effect from CO2. It's your claim that it's responsible for the majority of warming that has been proven false. If it were responsible for only 2% of the warming, then there's nothing to be done about it.

Stop limiting yourself to one side of the discussion.

http://www.nipccr...nce.html
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed in ref to GE
Correct. But it's overall effect is practically negligible
That's a BIG claim, how can U prove it Eg in Watts per square meter ?

General consensus AND esp evidence of CO2 & WV's thermal properties has been known, proven & never refuted for > 100 yrs !

Unfortunately for bulk of those missing physics its very hard to understand how a gas with vibrational states can affect infra-red light & thus ADD resistance to heat flow by way of that IR & interaction re collisions with main constituents ie N2 & O2, this is Y education in physics and absolutely Essential !
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Can U see ?

ConfoundedSociety claimed
If there are actually educated people here (I doubt there are), they must groan every time people like you say stupid things like this
What can possibly be stupid urging u to grasp physics re Specific Heat ?

Because I'm educated I notice U r not, its so very clear, sorry :-(
ConfoundedSociety
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed in ref to GE - Correct. But it's overall effect is practically negligible


That's a BIG claim, how can U prove it Eg in Watts per square meter ?


Can you? It's on you to prove, not me. I've stated the facts numerous times now showing that you're wrong. Where's your data saying otherwise?
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 02, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed
I've answered it several times
No & no tactic, please converge.

U mislead by asking a tangential follow up question which does not answer !

ConfoundedSociety asked
Here it is again. What percentage of the warming are the man made carbon emissions responsible for?
This doesn't relate to the question as it doesn't address thermal resistivity in units necessary to compare with Eg % of Total Solar Insolation !

ConfoundedSociety accepted
No one is denying that there is a greenhouse effect from CO2
Good.

Issue therefore is QUANTIFY it, do U agree this is absolutely essential ?

ConfoundedSociety claimed
It's your claim that it's responsible for the majority of warming that has been proven false
No. It hasn't been proven & esp so NOT by vague relative intuitive interpretations.

In discipline of Physics, U NEED to show it in substantive & definitive units ie Watts/m^2

Your nipccreport link is not a physics calculation :-(
ConfoundedSociety
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2015
General consensus AND esp evidence of CO2 & WV's thermal properties has been known, proven & never refuted for > 100 yrs !


Asked and answered. Thanks for continuing to prove my point.

Unfortunately for bulk of those missing physics its very hard to understand how a gas with vibrational states can affect infra-red light & thus ADD resistance to heat flow by way of that IR & interaction re collisions with main constituents ie N2 & O2, this is Y education in physics and absolutely Essential !
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Can U see ?


Again, irrelevant. And don't try to use words you don't understand. You look silly when you use them incorrectly.
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 02, 2015

But the oceans are not absorbing any more heat now than prior to the "pause".
http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/


And CornholeScanty makes the scene with yet another sickening display of Willful Disunderstanding. The same Willful Disunderstanding --the EXACT same-- as has already been displayed in a couple hundred posts on other threads.

Your link shows a steady --and increasing-- upward trend in global ocean temperature, which has, in fact, accelerated since your so-called "pause". A "pause" that never happened.

Meanwhile, every segment of the water column that is sampled(from YOUR LINK!) shows increasing temp, but you refuse to acknowledge the significance of this fact: the amount of retained heat that this increase represents is MASSIVE, and accounts for virtually all of the so-called "missing heat" from the so-called "pause".

ctd
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (17) Mar 02, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed
Can you? It's on you to prove, not me. I've stated the facts numerous times now showing that you're wrong. Where's your data saying otherwise?
Your claim of facts are inferences only...

Sorry but, u have your Science protocol backward, this is why a uni education is helpful to ensure a dialectic process that converges whereas your & vast bulk of AGW deniers who r unfortunate to miss physics education instead diverge & go off on tangents.

U make a specific claim re CO2 only vague attempt to support by interpretation, not with any calculations or evidence re anything re material properties.

Please understand; Total Solar Insolation in units W/m^2 therefore claims re CO2 need to be same units.

Onus is on YOU to prove YOUR claim, thats how it works, sorry :-(

I'm not atmospheric scientist or physical chemist as some have claimed, I'm an electronic engineer & food scientist & working, sorry, can u find it Eg google scholar ?
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 03, 2015
ctd

Meanwhile, the huge additional amount of heat necessary to melt those 1.7 TeraTonnes of Antarctic land&sea glacier, alone, and in addition to Greenland ice, Arctic ice, and Land-based glaciers is still unaccounted for, as far as I know, but ANYONE with even the faintest glimmer of intelligence and understanding of the specific heat and heat capacity of H2O will understand that the heat required to do all this melting of ice and heating of the oceans is STAGGERING.

Everyone, that is, but CornholeScanty a moron of such colossal stupidity that the understanding of this one simple fact miraculously eludes "him" again and again, no matter how many times "he" is presented it.

Of course, my saying that is doing "him" a favor.

CornholeScanty's game is Willful Disunderstanding.

Admission of the obvious fact of all that retained heat would blow his selfish, denier dog'n'pony show right out of the (increasingly warming) water.

And there would go CornholeScanty's paycheck.
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (17) Mar 03, 2015
ConfoundedSociety being obviously misleading
Asked and answered. Thanks for continuing to prove my point
Your point being u agree with me properties of CO2 are well known & never refuted - I'm glad U agree :-)

Can U now converge & move forward to QUANTIFYing those properties in Watts/m^2

ConfoundedSociety claimed
Again, irrelevant. And don't try to use words you don't understand
What words do u imagine I don't understand, please try to assist all of us to converge by pointing out what U see as my misunderstanding, from a lay perspective or from a technical definition ?

ConfoundedSociety observed
You look silly when you use them incorrectly
Really, ok then show up my silliness by pointing out with your precision just where please - as that would help us both converge as its entirely possible in my haste & 20+ other forums I have missed the necessary precision useful to impart useful understanding to you AND to those observing this interaction ?
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 03, 2015
I've stated the facts numerous times now showing that you're wrong.

Not once my idiot friend, not once.

@confused

It takes a special kind of stubbornness to achieve your level of stupidity.
,
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 03, 2015
When I pointed out to ConfoundedSociety
.. hard to understand how a gas with vibrational states can affect infra-red light & thus ADD resistance to heat flow by way of that IR & interaction re collisions with main constituents ie N2 & O2, this is Y education in physics and absolutely Essential !
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Can U see ?
Then ConfoundedSociety claimed
Again, irrelevant
Beg Pardon ?

How is mechanism of CO2's thermal properties "irrelevant" to address issue of that which you accept "CO2 traps heat" ?

It's absolutely CENTRAL to basis quantifying YOUR claim "..effect is practically negligible.", where did u get notion its "negligible" ?

ConfoundedSociety also claimed
..ocean's aren't absorbing any more heat than they were prior to the temperature flat line (also NOAA)
Your own link PROVES u wrong, heat STILL going up.

Therefore quantifying CO2's effect is absolutely essential.

Y would anyone sane argue against that ?
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 03, 2015
ConfoundedSociety claimed in respect of
http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/
sublinks 1,2,3
The data clearly shows a steady increase, meaning no additional heat is being absorbed
Beg Pardon ?

Oceans are a liquid, when heat is absorbed then temperature rises, it IS additional heat because it wasn't rising prior to the development of the industrial revolution when CO2 started to trap more & more heat.

ConfoundedSociety claimed
It is absorbing heat at the same rate as it was prior to the pause
That may be, now I see your problem. So-called 'pause' mainly in respect of atmospheric & land temps as before the 'pause' rate of rise was higher

When I stated
Specific heat is easy to understand..
ConfoundedSociety claimed
It's also irrelevant.
NO. Its central to understanding comparative effect of heat on temps.
Eg. Raise water temp by 0.01 deg C equates to raising atmosphere by 40 deg C !!!!

We r so LUCKY to have oceans sinking bulk of heat !
jjd
1.5 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2015
Junk science; witness Ontario's 2015 February.

Oh, you want me to only consider a certain [different] window?

Oh, I think your sweeping generalisation as title "tells" your desire to "be [seen to be] saying something about global warming".

Such bad interpretations undermine the real scientists, no matter "what side they're on", who have enough trouble, without crap like this sullying the field.
zz5555
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2015
Junk science; witness Ontario's 2015 February.

So you're saying that the short term weather in one small part of the world is representative of the long term climate over the entire globe? Did you mean to sound as silly as you did?

Oh, you want me to only consider a certain [different] window?

Well, sure. To avoid cherry picking, you'd want to look at the climate over long periods (~30 years) and over the entire earth. Or you can cherry pick and continue to look silly. After all, there's likely to be somewhere on the earth that's below average temperature at any point in time - even if you need to change that location every month or so.
greenonions
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 03, 2015
jjd
Such bad interpretations undermine the real scientists, no matter "what side they're on",


There are no 'sides'. The facts are the facts. The system is warming.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2015
antigoracle claimed
.. the "uncooked" temperature data shows the US cooling since the 1930s
Entirely possible as u SHOULD know, yet clearly need to be reminded, US has massive amount of ice to its north Canada ? (2nd largest country) & arctic ?

Ha..ha..mike you're too funny.
Yes I do know.
Boy, I got to tell yuh, in Canada all that massive amount of ice is a terrible problem. Everyone is hoping and praying for that global warming thing to get here.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2015
*Sigh* How come people keep telling me what "side" I am on? I would think that my posts have made it clear that I am on the side of objective, well-reasoned science that is supported by evidence, and grounded in fundamental principles. Read them carefully, and you will see I am allowing for the fact that the GE effect heat is BALANCED by some other losses. I haven't seen any evidence to support it yet, but the POSSIBILITY needs to be accounted for in any objective analysis, so I included it in my list of mechanisms explaining where the GE heat was going, which is what YOU asked for.
B.S.. It is clear what "side" you are on.

And as for your science, you didn't even understand the simple principles of evaporative cooling.

ThomasQuinn
2.6 / 5 (30) Mar 06, 2015
You keep screaming "B.S.", yet you never provide anything of substance to back up your peculiar claims and refuse to provide anything other than abuse in response to actual data disproving your claims. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up, yet you seem to believe that your claims require NO evidence. Needless to say, you are very, very wrong.
ThomasQuinn
2.4 / 5 (28) Mar 07, 2015
Remarkable how quiet ubavontuba goes when he gets called out on his utter failing at a meaningful discussion. I would have expected a little abuse and accusations of being Al Gore using a pseudonym.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2015
You keep screaming "B.S.", yet you never provide anything of substance to back up your peculiar claims and refuse to provide anything other than abuse in response to actual data disproving your claims.
This is a lie. Why is it AGWites have to lie (rhetorical)? Is it because the only way to support a lie, is with more lies?

I regularly offer all sorts of references. Here's one of my favorites:

http://woodfortre....1/trend

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to back them up, yet you seem to believe that your claims require NO evidence. Needless to say, you are very, very wrong.
Non sequitur. What's extraordinary about saying the climate is behaving ordinarily?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2015
Remarkable how quiet ubavontuba goes when he gets called out on his utter failing at a meaningful discussion. I would have expected a little abuse and accusations of being Al Gore using a pseudonym.
Oh, please. You think you called me out? Many have tried, all have failed.

But I do have an actual job protecting the environment. ...I mean, someone's got to do it while the rest of you waste your efforts twiddling on your keyboards.

But go ahead, razzle dazzle me with the "science." I'm waiting.

Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 07, 2015
@ubavontuba

dialog box munted the link:-

http://woodfortre....1/trend

Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 07, 2015
ubavontuba claimed
Here's one of my favorites: "an 18year period"
U have OFTEN been shown U are WRONG to trot out outright LIES & these reasons:-

1.Climate over 30 yr period, your link - Far too short !
&
2.Worst u ignoramus, warning from the agency which provided the data, it has been shown to u so VERY often, you're ignoring it makes U stupid !
http://www.remss....eratures

I quote
..denialists really like to fit trends starting in 1997, so that the huge 1997-98 ENSO event is at the start of their time series, resulting in a linear fit with the smallest possible slope
U COULD be genuine & show truthfully show that Average of last 18yrs STILL hotter than previous 18yrs average as per my last post,

http://woodfortre....1/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2015
@chatterbot Mike_Massen
U COULD be genuine & show truthfully show that Average of last 18yrs STILL hotter than previous 18yrs average as per my last post,
When have I ever claimed otherwise?

However, why don't you explain how the all powerful and ever increasing CO2 has failed to dramatically affect temperatures these last 18 years? Did it lose its mojo?

Mike_Massen
2.9 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2015
ubavontuba
When have I ever claimed otherwise?
Obviously by virtue of implication in posting an 18yr period. If instead u had been genuine u would have posted correct 30yr period, clearly showing warming
http://woodfortre....1/trend

So Y post period only 18yrs AND starting exactly where u should not as per RSS denialist warning ?

That's 2 Q's ubavontuba did U see my use of the word 'AND' :-)

1. Y post only 18 yrs ?
&
2. Y fall into trap posted by the very company supplying data ?

ubavontuba asked
However, why don't you explain how the all powerful and ever increasing CO2 has failed to dramatically affect temperatures these last 18 years?
Trying reading, its IN the link I last posted "..the huge 1997-98 ENSO event.."

ubavontuba asked
Did it lose its mojo?
Doubt it, CO2 has known & irrefutable thermal properties re infra-red, see link above

&
3. Unless U can refute CO2 physics ?
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2015
Uba
However, why don't you explain how the all powerful and ever increasing CO2 has failed to dramatically affect temperatures these last 18 years? Did it lose its mojo?


But that has been explained - over and over. Look at the first 3 charts on this site - and you will see that the system is clearly still warming - http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

Glaciers continue to melt - http://www.climat...-balance

Arctic and Antarctic ice is melting http://takvera.bl...ing.html

And of course - sea levels continue to rise - http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2015
ubavontuba
When have I ever claimed otherwise?
Obviously by virtue of implication in posting an 18yr period. If instead u had been genuine u would have posted correct 30yr period, clearly showing warming
That you have to add additional years to show any warming only serves to prove it has not warmed the last 18 years.

Trying reading, its IN the link I last posted "..the huge 1997-98 ENSO event.."
So let's eliminate that as a factor, and what do we get...

http://woodfortre....1/trend

...cooling for 15 years without the ENSO event.

So again, has CO2 lost its mojo?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2015
But that has been explained - over and over. Look at the first 3 charts on this site - and you will see that the system is clearly still warming – http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

Glaciers continue to melt - http://www.climat...-balance

Arctic and Antarctic ice is melting http://takvera.bl...ing.html

And of course - sea levels continue to rise - http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
LOL.

Temperatures refuse to climb:

http://woodfortre....1/trend

Antarctic ice continues to creep northward:

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:

http://www.telegr...sts.html

And STILL the AGW alarmists whine. What will it take to satisfy them?

Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2015
Uba-
So I'd like your perspective:
It is very obvious to me why temperature is not a good indicator of climate change:
1. Surface temperature of the Earth doesn't represent the Earth, it has massive heat transporting oceans.
2. These oceans are in good equilibrium, on a year-to-year cycle with the poles. Ice melts, temperature remains stable.

I mean, so it would take changes in the Sun to affect temperature.

Regardless of how much CO2 man has entered into the environment by killing ocean oxygen generating plankton, it is still not enough to effect relevant change.

So do you see climate changing?
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2015
Uba - Let's just take one of your claims - to show that you do not know what you are talking about.
Antarctic ice continues to creep northward:


Here is a recent NASA article on the subject - http://www.nasa.g...mVOEllnR

And a recent Physorg article - http://phys.org/n...rth.html

I quote "Ice is gaining in East Antarctica, where the air and water are cooler, but not nearly as much as it is melting to the west."

So once again Uba - you try to cherry pick information - but broadcast to the world your lack of understanding of the issue - despite compulsions to say things like
Many have tried, all have failed.


I think that statement goes along with "I am a legend in my own mind"

greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2015
Uba
And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:


I would love to see you support this statement - with data from established scientific organizations.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2015
For all those who were claiming how cold February was in the US - no records for cold were broken, and February did not even make the top 10 coldest for the E USA: http://www.livesc...old.html

Yep, it was winter. And for most of the world, it was one of the warmest Februarys ever. The US saw a number of record warm days, and despite the brutal cold over the Eastern US, average US temperatures were about 2F warmer than the 20th century average.

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2015
Uba
And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:


I would love to see you support this statement - with data from established scientific organizations.

Or with data from anything. Even the WUWT crowd would laugh you out of the room over this one!!
zz5555
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2015
Uba
And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:


I would love to see you support this statement - with data from established scientific organizations.

Ubavontuba loves those short-term cherry picks. I'm sure he's well aware that Arctic sea ice extent is close to record lows (http://nsidc.org/...icenews/ ) and is sorry for spreading the misinformation of the Telegraph. ;) (That's sarcasm for the humor impaired.)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2015
Uba-
So I'd like your perspective:
It is very obvious to me why temperature is not a good indicator of climate change:
1. Surface temperature of the Earth doesn't represent the Earth, it has massive heat transporting oceans.
The oceans aren't the globe, and not climate as defined by "global warming."

2. These oceans are in good equilibrium, on a year-to-year cycle with the poles. Ice melts, temperature remains stable.
Not true. The oceans are too big to be globally affected by ice melt in the short time span we're discussing in the way you envision. It is not like a bowl of water with ice in it. And it generally does not transport significant amounts of heat into the troposphere – certainly not over land and ice.

I mean, so it would take changes in the Sun to affect temperature.
This is one way.

cont...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2015
...contd:

I mean, so it would take changes in the Sun to affect temperature.
This is one way.

Regardless of how much CO2 man has entered into the environment by killing ocean oxygen generating plankton, it is still not enough to effect relevant change.
Speculation. There's no empirical evidence that plankton is endangered.

So do you see climate changing?
Not really. I've seen some unusual temperatures, both cold and hot, but nothing which entails a permanent change in climate.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2015
Uba - Let's just take one of your claims - to show that you do not know what you are talking about.
Antarctic ice continues to creep northward:
Here is a recent NASA article on the subject - http://www.nasa.g...mVOEllnR

And a recent Physorg article - http://phys.org/n...rth.html

I quote "Ice is gaining in East Antarctica, where the air and water are cooler, but not nearly as much as it is melting to the west."
Ridiculous scaremongering assertions. If this were true, sea level rise would be ramping up. It isn't. This supposed ice volume must go somewhere. Therefore, even if the Antarctic glaciers are disgorging more ice, it must be made up for in the water cycle, i.e. more ice is also being deposited.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2015
Uba
And the Arctic ice has recovered so abruptly scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand:


I would love to see you support this statement - with data from established scientific organizations.
I provided an article, did you read it?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 07, 2015
Ubavontuba loves those short-term cherry picks. I'm sure he's well aware that Arctic sea ice extent is close to record lows (http://nsidc.org/...icenews/ ) and is sorry for spreading the misinformation of the Telegraph. ;) (That's sarcasm for the humor impaired.)
This is just stupid. The entire Arctic ocean is frozen over. The land masses surrounding it limit its growth. If not for the Polar Vortex settling over land instead of the few open Arctic Sea routes, the Arctic Sea ice cap would be normal this year.

But this isn't a global picture. Globally...

"the globally-averaged sea ice extent during January was 21.08 million square km (8.14 million square miles), 7.06 percent above the 1981-2010 average and the second largest January global sea ice extent on record."

http://www.ncdc.n...al-snow/

greenonions
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2015
Uba
Ridiculous scaremongering assertions.


An assertion - with no support. I provided research articles - that support the assertion that Antarctica is losing ice. You provide no support - no data - no research - nothing that is scientific in nature.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2015
UBA
I provided an article, did you read it?


Yes I did. It was not a scientific article - it was from a daily newspaper. It did quote one meteorologist. You have not provided any links to established climate organizations - such as NOAA, MET, JMAA, NASA.

You are also unable to address the more important points - the ice sheets continue to melt, the oceans continue to rise, the oceans continue to increase in temperature, and the glaciers continue to melt. All FACTS. If you wish to dispute those FACTS - please provide DATA - not links to newspaper articles that can quote contrarian scientists. I can find you individual scientists that believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and humans walked among the dinosaurs.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2015
Uba
"the globally-averaged sea ice extent


Once again you quote sea ice 'extent'. More obfuscation. You have been told over and over that quoting sea ice extent shows that you do not understand the complex dynamics of the Antarctic. I provided you two very recent research articles, that stipulate that current scientific understanding is that Antarctic ice MASS is declining.
Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 07, 2015
"When combining the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere sea ice extents, the globally-averaged sea ice extent during January was 21.08 million square km (8.14 million square miles), 7.06 percent above the 1981-2010 average and the second largest January global sea ice extent on record. This was 170,000 square km (60,000 square miles) smaller than the record large January Global sea ice extent that occurred in 1979, when both the Antarctic and Arctic monthly sea ice extents were above average. Global sea ice extent during January is decreasing at an average rate of 1.0 percent per decade."

Uba even cherry picks his quotes
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2015
Uba
Ridiculous scaremongering assertions. If this were true, sea level rise would be ramping up. It isn't.


But it is.

http://news.disco...0115.htm

Once again you are shown to be wrong.
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
Uba-
Melting polar icecaps don't have to affect the globe...

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

That is where the CO2 is coming from, not our burning fuels...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
Uba
Ridiculous scaremongering assertions.
An assertion - with no support. I provided research articles - that support the assertion that Antarctica is losing ice. You provide no support - no data - no research - nothing that is scientific in nature.
You're a fool. What I provided was the purest science.

As it is your claim the Antarctic is disgorging more ice, it is your responsibility to bring the science which shows where all that mass is going. Do you think it just disappears? ...or is irrelevant?

Your stupid doom and gloom claim has no validity without identifiable consequences.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
Yes I did. It was not a scientific article - it was from a daily newspaper. It did quote one meteorologist.
It seems you missed some content. Try again.

You have not provided any links to established climate organizations - such as NOAA, MET, JMAA, NASA.
I have in the past. They all agree the Arctic ice recovered significantly from 2012 – 2013. If you are suggesting otherwise, provide the research.

You are also unable to address the more important points - the ice sheets continue to melt, the oceans continue to rise, the oceans continue to increase in temperature, and the glaciers continue to melt. All FACTS. If you wish to dispute those FACTS - please provide DATA
And without evidence of sea rise ramping up, none of this is consequential. If this is the case, why even bring it up?

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
chatterbot Mike
@Mike Massen
you now you've won the argument when uba starts calling you a chatterbot
it means she has failed to find scientific evidence supporting her claims so must resort to lies and calling people bots

The solutions you are proposing will cripple economies, including third world developing ones
@ConfoundedUba
how can argument from politics undermine or refute scientific evidence?
it can't
politics is like religion, but with less corruption

I regularly offer all sorts of references
NOPE again, uba
you supply data and interpretations, and articles as well as cherry picked graphs

the 30 yr trend
http://www.woodfo...60/trend

How come all the studies i linked are not retracted or corrected?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2015
Once again you quote sea ice 'extent'. More obfuscation. You have been told over and over that quoting sea ice extent shows that you do not understand the complex dynamics of the Antarctic. I provided you two very recent research articles, that stipulate that current scientific understanding is that Antarctic ice MASS is declining.
Idiot. zz5555 and I were discussing sea ice.

But here are some papers on ice sheet mass:

http://www.scienc...14005068

http://ntrs.nasa....20013495

And here's a video of Jay Zwally discussing the ICESat data and that Antarctic ice mass gains exceed losses:

https://vimeo.com/46429608

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2015
"When combining the Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere sea ice extents, the globally-averaged sea ice extent during January was 21.08 million square km (8.14 million square miles), 7.06 percent above the 1981-2010 average and the second largest January global sea ice extent on record. This was 170,000 square km (60,000 square miles) smaller than the record large January Global sea ice extent that occurred in 1979, when both the Antarctic and Arctic monthly sea ice extents were above average. Global sea ice extent during January is decreasing at an average rate of 1.0 percent per decade."

Uba even cherry picks his quotes
Idiot. The AGWite editorial at the end is obviously not applicable to this year.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2015
Uba
Ridiculous scaremongering assertions. If this were true, sea level rise would be ramping up. It isn't.
But it is.

http://news.disco...0115.htm

Once again you are shown to be wrong.
No, it is not. This is obvious AGWite data manipulation. They use a "novel method" to get the results they wanted. It is not from empirical data. It is conjecture. Your article even states this study has not been validated.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2015
Uba-
Melting polar icecaps don't have to affect the globe...
In relation to any claim it significantly impacts global climate, it must.

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

That is where the CO2 is coming from, not our burning fuels...
Again, you seem to be confusing a regional issue with global climate. To even begin to get there from here, you're going to have to show this matches observed acidification in both content and circulation.

greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
Ubavonatuba
You're a fool. What I provided was the purest science.
You know - just saying something does not make it a fact. In support of your assertion that the ice in in the Antarctic is "going north" in other words growing - you provide a newspaper article. You stipulated that "scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand" and used that article to support your claim. That article quotes one meteorologist who makes such a claim. This is your idea of providing "the purest science"??? I provided recent research that asserts that Anarctic is losing ice mass. See the difference? Now YOU claim that this cannot be true - as ocean level rise is not accelerating. But it is accelerating. So you just keep looking stupid.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
Ubavonatuba
And here's a video of Jay Zwally discussing the ICESat data and that Antarctic ice mass gains exceed losses:


Oh - and you just did not happen to notice that he was talking 1992 - 2008. The references I gave you were from this past year.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
Ubavonatuba
And without evidence of sea rise ramping up, none of this is consequential. If this is the case, why even bring it up?


Well - several reasons - firstly because you keep trying to tell us that warming has stopped. So it refutes your nonsense. Secondly - because ocean levels are rising - and that rise is accelerating. I provided you reputable data to support that point. So I bring it up - because it refutes your nonsense - and counter to your head in the sand denialism - climate change is a very serious issue - and has potentially catastrophic consequences for our earth. So it is time for us to shut the anti science denialists down - and let the experts study the issue - and keep us informed about developments.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
In support of your assertion that the ice in in the Antarctic is "going north" in other words growing - you provide a newspaper article.
Are you having trouble with the content?

In support of the ice expanding northward in the Antarctic, I provided a SEA ICE graph, and a SEA ICE snippet from the NOAA. There's generally no room left for land ice.

You stipulated that "scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand" and used that article to support your claim.
Non sequitur. I provided an article on the abrupt turnabout of Arctic ice. The " scientists are beginning to fear a period of global cooling is at hand," although it is an accurate representation of the article's content, was a bit of cheeky anti-AGWite-alarmist fun on my part. But chatterbots don't understand irony.

That article quotes one meteorologist who makes such a claim.
Are you having trouble counting to as high as two?

cont...

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
This is your idea of providing "the purest science"???
Non sequitur. That quote is taken out of context. And I could easily ridicule you for providing even worse references, like providing an article on unvalidated data and presenting it as fact.

I provided recent research that asserts that Anarctic is losing ice mass.
The first of which is easily invalidated as it states, "the melt rate of glaciers there has tripled" which is physically impossible in a below freezing environment, except via pressure as a result of increasing accumulation, or under ice, heat sources. And it states, "are the most significant Antarctic contributors to sea level rise" which again makes an unfounded assertion, with no evidence of the consequence. And they are looking at discharge rates, which do not necessarily reflect an ice mass loss over all. It's bad science.

The Phys.org article is just a news report on the same bad science.

See the difference?
Indeed I do.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 08, 2015
@Ah, Uba, indeed we do not need to consider all those things, acidification, etc.. No way to stay on topic. Certainly they are related. But one thing at a time.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
Now YOU claim that this cannot be true - as ocean level rise is not accelerating. But it is accelerating.
Again, an unvalidated claim.

So you just keep looking stupid.
You don't need me for this. You're doing a fine job on your own.

Oh - and you just did not happen to notice that he was talking 1992 - 2008. The references I gave you were from this past year.
Why are the AGWites so hypocritical?

Your stupid article only used comprehensive data from 2003 to 2009.

And I might point out my other reference used data to October 2010.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
And without evidence of sea rise ramping up, none of this is consequential. If this is the case, why even bring it up?
Well - several reasons - firstly because you keep trying to tell us that warming has stopped. So it refutes your nonsense.
Non sequitur. Sea level and atmospheric temperature are at best only loosely correlated, and certainly not the same thing.

Secondly - because ocean levels are rising - and that rise is accelerating. I provided you reputable data to support that point.
So it's your intent to just keep asserting this unfounded lie?

So I bring it up - because it refutes your nonsense - and counter to your head in the sand denialism - climate change is a very serious issue - and has potentially catastrophic consequences for our earth.
Climate has been changing for billions of years, and yet the earth seems to just keep spinning along.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
So it is time for us to shut the anti science denialists down - and let the experts study the issue - and keep us informed about developments.
Why do you only believe the "experts" who support your doom and gloom philosophy?

ThomasQuinn
2.4 / 5 (25) Mar 08, 2015
So it is time for us to shut the anti science denialists down - and let the experts study the issue - and keep us informed about developments.
Why do you only believe the "experts" who support your doom and gloom philosophy?



Why do you only believe the "experts" who support your nothing-to-see-here philosophy?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
Why do you only believe the "experts" who support your nothing-to-see-here philosophy?
Because by defintion...

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

Global temperatures: http://woodfortre....1/trend

...there is nothing to see here.
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
That definition is pretty cool isn't it?
Hang it on a variable that would require every corner of the Earth to dramatically change before it registers?
Why not use humidity? A much better variable. Why not take a more local approach? Temperatures could easily change hotter in some places and colder in others.

I mean realistically, what is AGW going to do in the tropics? Not a darn thing. How could it? (Think about a mechanism.) That's 25% of the Earth that can never be proven to have an impact via AGW.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
Ubavonatuba
Why do you only believe the "experts" who support your doom and gloom philosophy?


I think that is a mischaracterisation. I don't 'support' anyone. I am interested in science - sadly recognize that my education was not a very good one (British education system - that in my opinion is total shit) - and I am trying now to educate myself - especially in regard to science, and also history. I think that it is good to develop a sound bullshit meter. One of the main triggers for my bullshit meter - is people who claim to know better than all the experts on a subject. This often seems to go hand in hand with religious people, and also very ideologically driven people. I respect the community of scientists - who are clearly much better educated than me - and really understand critical thinking. I think the outliers should be viewed with great skepticism - although of course there are plenty of examples of outliers - who turn out to be right (cont).
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
However - as we move forward in time - and the body of science continues to grow at a staggering rate - I think the outliers who turn science on it's head - become fewer and fewer. You certainly don't get to turn science on it's head by posting comments on an internet site. Now some people like to support the outliers (see otto and his support of e-cat). I am comfortable staying with the consensus - and if you want to refute the consensus - I think you better has some good qualifications - and have put in some hard work. What are your qualifications - and your hard work in the field of climate science?
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
Uba -
So it's your intent to just keep asserting this unfounded lie?


Not at all - I provided support for my claim - and I stand by my claim - the sea level rise is accelerating - that is a FACT.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
That definition is pretty cool isn't it?
It's a good 'un.

Hang it on a variable that would require every corner of the Earth to dramatically change before it registers?
What's not to understand about "global?"

Why not use humidity? A much better variable. Why not take a more local approach? Temperatures could easily change hotter in some places and colder in others.
Generalized regional climate change is an ongoing and never ending process. It's irrelevant to the the concept; "global."

But a good variable to use which is mostly ignored is atmospheric volume.

I mean realistically, what is AGW going to do in the tropics? Not a darn thing. How could it? (Think about a mechanism.) That's 25% of the Earth that can never be proven to have an impact via AGW.
Irrelevant. "Global" means the whole globe, taken as one.

Vietvet
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 08, 2015
@Uba

Just made my biggest screw up in a long time by mistakenly giving you a "5".
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
I think that is a mischaracterisation. I don't 'support' anyone.
This is obviously false, as you do not act randomly in dismissing and accepting the science. You have an agenda.

I am interested in science - sadly recognize that my education was not a very good one (British education system - that in my opinion is total shit) - and I am trying now to educate myself - especially in regard to science, and also history.
An honorable goal, to be sure.

I think that it is good to develop a sound bullshit meter. One of the main triggers for my bullshit meter - is people who claim to know better than all the experts on a subject.
if you knew anything about the history of science, you'd quickly realize just how wrong this statement is.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
This often seems to go hand in hand with religious people, and also very ideologically driven people. I respect the community of scientists - who are clearly much better educated than me - and really understand critical thinking. I think the outliers should be viewed with great skepticism - although of course there are plenty of examples of outliers - who turn out to be right (cont).
Again, you obviously have much to learn about science. All science should be viewed skeptically. Skepticism is the very heart and foundation of science.

However - as we move forward in time - and the body of science continues to grow at a staggering rate - I think the outliers who turn science on it's head - become fewer and fewer.
You REALLY need to read a little more hstory as it pertains to science.

You certainly don't get to turn science on it's head by posting comments on an internet site.
I thought the Brits understood and enjoyed free speech as well as us Yanks.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
Now some people like to support the outliers (see otto and his support of e-cat). I am comfortable staying with the consensus
See? You do have an agenda. Support "the consensus."

- and if you want to refute the consensus - I think you better has some good qualifications - and have put in some hard work. What are your qualifications - and your hard work in the field of climate science?
In two words. Free speech.

Uba -
So it's your intent to just keep asserting this unfounded lie?
Not at all - I provided support for my claim - and I stand by my claim - the sea level rise is accelerating - that is a FACT.
So belief in the lie, and repeating the lie, in spite of the long term "consensus science" somehow makes it true?

Didn't you just claim you want to abide by the consensus?

Do you even have a clue how unreasonable you're being?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
@Uba

Just made my biggest screw up in a long time by mistakenly giving you a "5".
OCD much?

Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
Don't you wish you had that kind of life?

Don't worry Uba, I just made big mistakes in my life to, I accidentally went through this post and gave you all "5's".

Because it matters so much.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
Oh - and you just did not happen to notice that he was talking 1992 - 2008. The references I gave you were from this past year.
Another ubathemoron tactic - link to posts you haven't actually watched/read and claim they say something they don't. At about the 3:21 mark of the video, the lecture ends. From there, Dr. Zwally discusses the meanings of the various terms he is using, and states: "..there's a strong tendency towards dynamic thinning for example would be something initiated by a change in the ice flow. We're defining it somewhat differently because, you know, there is no real definition of what we are calling a dynamic thickening here. Both of the terms are essentially the same." He goes on to discuss how the measurements of surface height changes may be the result of increased snowfall, which is increasing the height of the snowpack, but due to the lack of weight which corresponds to the higher incidence of new snow, the actual thinning of the icesheet..cont
Water_Prophet
1.3 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
So, then Uba, there are many ways to change the climate, temperature is a darn silly variable.

How then should climate change be defined.
Globally, humidity is up 2.2%, or 435 ppm. Since this does not actually effect the tropics, 25% of the Earth, it must be dramatically effecting the rest of it.

Climate is a local effect. If Australia changes, climate has changed. If New England changes, climate has changed. The fact is, just about every clime has changed, few have gotten warmer, probably many have gotten just as cold. Silly to apply a standard to the globe. The tropics will not change, for example.

You can't define away reality this side of a bureaucracy.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 08, 2015
That definition is pretty cool isn't it?
I don't see uba posts anymore, so I can only guess that the silly dictionary definition restricting warming to the atmosphere got trotted out again. Any scientifically meaningful definition would also include the oceans, of course.
Hang it on a variable that would require every corner of the Earth to dramatically change before it registers?
Huh? It's been "registering" for decades now .. what do you think those graphs of global temp that people keep linking to are showing?
Why not use humidity? A much better variable.
Use humidity for what, the definition of global warming? Probably because warming quite literally means "increasing temperature", so temp seems pretty a pretty natural measure of that. What would be improved by "using humidity"?
Why not take a more local approach?
To define "global" warming?
..hotter in some places and colder in others.
Thus the emphasis on AVERAGE global temperatures.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
Don't you wish you had that kind of life?
What, and spend my life being as irascible and downright ornery as Vietvet? No thanks.

Don't worry Uba, I just made big mistakes in my life to, I accidentally went through this post and gave you all "5's".

Because it matters so much.
LOL. Yes, it is ever so important. LOL.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
So, then Uba, there are many ways to change the climate, temperature is a darn silly variable.
I disagree.

How then should climate change be defined.
Globally, humidity is up 2.2%, or 435 ppm. Since this does not actually effect the tropics, 25% of the Earth, it must be dramatically effecting the rest of it.
Climate change is readily defined, just don't confuse it with global warming.

Climate is a local effect. If Australia changes, climate has changed. If New England changes, climate has changed. The fact is, just about every clime has changed, few have gotten warmer, probably many have gotten just as cold. Silly to apply a standard to the globe. The tropics will not change, for example.
Same as above.

You can't define away reality this side of a bureaucracy.
*

DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 08, 2015
I mean realistically, what is AGW going to do in the tropics? Not a darn thing.
Are you serious with that? What on earth makes you think that the tropics are somehow "topped out" in terms of how hot they can get? What, pray tell, do you think is stabilizing tropical temperature, so that they will not be affected by an overall increase in the GLOBAL temperature
How could it? (Think about a mechanism.)
How about the greenhouse effect? Why do you think that somehow can't affect the tropics? How about destabilization of cyclical weather patterns due to global climate change? Have you heard of El Nino and La Nina? They tend to have a pretty big impact on the tropics, right? How about more powerful or more frequent hurricanes, due to more energy being available to them when they are forming? Wouldn't that "affect the tropics"?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
I can only guess that the silly dictionary definition restricting warming to the atmosphere got trotted out again...

...Huh? It's been "registering" for decades now .. what do you think those graphs of global temp that people keep linking to are showing?

...To define "global" warming?

,,,Thus the emphasis on AVERAGE global temperatures.
LOL. First DLK denies the definition, only to accept it is required! That's too funny!!!!

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
continues, He mentions that the West sheet and the peninsula sheets are thinning much more rapidly. Reading more about his findings, there is this from NASA's Cryospheric Sciences Laboratory, http://icesat4.gs...ions.php wherein they discuss changes in the ice sheet elevation is a function of a number of factors, including higher snowfall levels, and conclude that " We show that using an average (or 'effective') density to convert elevation change to mass change is not valid where the accumulation and the dynamic elevation changes are of opposite sign.". So he is not actually talking about ice mass per se. Furthermore, using gravitational measurements, which is what really does measure ice mass, Simon Williams et al used GRACE measurements to confirm an overall mass LOSS from the Antarctic ice sheets. http://www.scienc...3005797. An accelerating mass loss to boot.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
Uba-Yeah, so "Warming" absolutely. They engineered the title of the phenomenon to be deliberately contentious. Absolutely, change is not warming. But the name of the phenomenon is "warming."
I have trouble not vomiting myself.
But you are absolutely wrong, temperature is a silly variable. Look up the defition of temperature. Look how it is measured. Look how even simple systems can change dramatically without temperature changing. Say we increased radiation to a little above Chernobyl globally.

DLK, you've complained, you've referenced (non-germane) things, but you haven't shown a mechanism.
And you can't. Water vapor is almost constantly >60x the concentration of CO2. How will CO2 even remotely effect that?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
Uba-Yeah, so "Warming" absolutely. They engineered the title of the phenomenon to be deliberately contentious. Absolutely, change is not warming. But the name of the phenomenon is "warming."
I have trouble not vomiting myself.
But you are absolutely wrong, temperature is a silly variable. Look up the defition of temperature. Look how it is measured. Look how even simple systems can change dramatically without temperature changing. Say we increased radiation to a little above Chernobyl globally.
"Temperature" is germane to the people living in the environment. But you are correct, it is not the best method to measure total latent energy.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2015
So, then Uba, there are many ways to change the climate, temperature is a darn silly variable.
Assuming it was the same definition I saw before, it was for global warming, not climate change, where temp was referenced. Also, since temperature is a measure of average kinetic energy, and that energy is the source of both climatic and weather changes, tracking global temperature as one of the INDICATORS of global climate change seems pretty sensible.
How then should climate change be defined.
Globally, humidity is up 2.2%, or 435 ppm. Since this does not actually effect the tropics, 25% of the Earth,
There you go again with that. Why do you think this is true? Do you actually think the tropical atmosphere is saturated with WV ALL the time? Even if that were the case, do you really think it couldn't get hotter? Do you realize that humidity is TEMPERATURE DEPENDENT, so that when temperature rises, the max. humidity goes right up with it? Ever been in a sauna?
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
Furthermore, using gravitational measurements, which is what really does measure ice mass, Simon Williams et al used GRACE measurements to confirm an overall mass LOSS from the Antarctic ice sheets. http://www.scienc...3005797. An accelerating mass loss to boot.
First, I am SHOCKED to see Maggnus actually discussing science! I didn't know he had it in him.

Secondly, GRACE does not measure the mass of the ice. It is measuring the distortion of the earths gravitational field. This includes the mass caused by distortion of the crust underneath the ice. And GRACE uses an ad hoc (can you say, "fudge factor") tectonic subsidence calculation ...aka, the GRACE ice mass results are pure conjecture.

DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2015
DLK, you've complained, you've referenced (non-germane) things
you asked how climate change could affect the tropics, so I gave you several examples
but you haven't shown a mechanism.
Well, I gave you several, actually, but I guess that's not what you mean

And you can't. Water vapor is almost constantly >60x the concentration of CO2.
It's closer to 12x, probably .. about 0.5% on average
How will CO2 even remotely effect that?
This has been explained to you, by myself and others, many times. To wit, water is condensible and has a very low residence time in the atmosphere, therefore it cannot be a driver of warming, although it can respond to other sources of warming. That is basic physical chemistry. See here, for example:http://www.acs.or...co2.html You continue to ignore our explanations, silently I think, at least I can't recall a counter-argument from you.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
You're right Uba, I am an idiot. Evaporation/condensation is not more powerful than any GH effect.
The dynamics of the tropics are not saturated all the time. Humidity is not a function of temperature and availability. The tropics don't have little variation over the seasons, most of the equatorial region is covered by land, so there is almost no water availability.

Anywhere else you want to make a point?

https://wiki.brow...etherley
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2015
You're right Uba, I am an idiot. Evaporation/condensation is not more powerful than any GH effect.
What do you mean by "more powerful"? Also, you do realize that evaporation consumes heat and condensation releases it, so overall they are in very close balance, right?
https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/display/Fall07GEOL0580/Global+Warming+and+Humidity+-+By+Erin+Wetherley

Did you read that post? Do you realize that it echoes almost everything those of us who actually understand the science have been telling you about why water vapor cannot be a driver of warming? You should particularly note the final paragraph where the student gives a nicely concise description of the feedback mechanism for water vapor via the GH effect.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
In addition to the findings from GRACE, the ESA's GOCE satellite is also measuring significant ice mass loss in Antarctica. It also uses measurements of gravity over time to measure the effect of mass loss on the Antarctic continent, and as of June 2014 they measured an average loss of some 125 cubic KILOMETERS a year. So, again, taking Zwally's comments regrading higher snowfall level, it is expected that there will be higher precipitation in Antarctica, a projection in every IPCC report. The question was once whether that higher precipitation would balance, or even reverse, the loss of ice mass from melting and increased ice flow. Based on the GRACE and GOCE measurements, the answer is clearly no. So we have water being added to the oceans from both major ice sheets, which is reflected in the higher ocean levels detected by NASA's GRACE and other satellites.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
Uba
Again, you obviously have much to learn about science.


Sure - I admit I have a lot to learn about all subjects - it seems that an open minded student would certainly admit that. Do you think that you do not have a lot to learn about science?

See? You do have an agenda. Support "the consensus."


How do see supporting the consensus as being equivalent to having an agenda? I do not know as much as the experts on a subject - so feel it is appropriate to defer to their knowledge. Let me give you an example - I am arguing with Ren on another thread - about evolution. The consensus in biology today is the theory of evolution. That is why every intro biology text book teaches evolution. Do you think it would be appropriate for me to make up my own theory - and argue on physorg that I know better than the body of science? This is what you do - over and over.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
DLK,
What do you mean by "more powerful"? Also, you do realize that evaporation consumes heat and condensation releases it, so overall they are in very close balance, right?

NOOOOO! they are not even remotely in close balance. Where do they occur? How do they occur?

Evaporation conveys roughly 4x the energy that the GHE does. It takes it from the ground to the atmosphere. Where it releases that heat. It also, in the case of storms, takes that energy from the tropics, etc., to colder regions.
Balance?

I am glad you understand so much.
So humidity has increased. A 435 ppm increase globally of a powerful GHG. and yet a weak GHG has increased by 135 ppm, and this is causing all the trouble.

Do none of you understand feedback? Really, do the math, even if you make it up, you will understand it, why don't you try?
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2015
DarkLordKelvin offered re Water_Prophet
This has been explained to you, by myself and others, many times. To wit, water is condensible & has a very low residence time in the atmosphere, therefore it cannot be a driver of warming, although it can respond to other sources of warming. That is basic physical chemistry. See here, for example:http://www.acs.or...co2.html You continue to ignore our explanations, silently I think, at least I can't recall a counter-argument from you.
Water_Prophet fails yet again, so very often & so sad :-(

Your post DarkLordKelvin is excellent & I commend your patience, I've been reminding this Water_Prophet person for ages, he desperately needs an education in Physics & especially so in relation to AGW issue here:- http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/

Irony is Water_Prophet claims to have "4 technical degrees" incl. "Physical Chemistry", so sad !
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
Uba -
Do you even have a clue how unreasonable you're being?


I think I am being very reasonable. You keep asserting that there is no warming. I countered that by pointing out the oceans are warming, the ice sheets are melting, the glaciers are melting. You then asked what relevance this has - being that ocean levels are not 'kicking up'. I countered by showing you that ocean level rise is accelerating - and providing support that assertion. You call me unreasonable.
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 08, 2015
You're right Uba, I am an idiot.
Hey, I agree with Water Pfffttt on something!
What do you mean by "more powerful"? Also, you do realize that evaporation consumes heat and condensation releases it, so overall they are in very close balance, right?
Did you read that post? Do you realize that it echoes almost everything those of us who actually understand the science have been telling you about why water vapor cannot be a driver of warming? You should particularly note the final paragraph where the student gives a nicely concise description of the feedback mechanism for water vapor via the GH effect.

Another good review of WV in the atmosphere: http://www.atmos....7_3.pdf.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
Winter variation of the PROOF you can create at home discounting CO2's power vs. humidity.

You'll notice that you need to increase your thermostat in winter to feel as warm as you do other times in the year. Why? Because most water condenses below freezing.

This is why you dry out.

Now, in the morning you feel especially cool. Even though, in the am because of stagnation, CO2 is very high compared to other parts of your day.

Watch what happens when you boil two pints of water in the microwave and put them in a wide bottomed container (like a broiler pan). Notice within just a few minutes how warm the room feels.

If you have an indoor humidity and thermometer you can quantify. If you have a CO2 meter, you can dispel the myth once and for all.
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
So humidity has increased. A 435 ppm increase globally of a powerful GHG. and yet a weak GHG has increased by 135 ppm, and this is causing all the trouble.
Do none of you understand feedback? Really, do the math, even if you make it up, you will understand it, why don't you try?
Yet more proof U have negligible Physics understanding !

Whats more U imagine "even if you make it up" is a sensible proposition - r u that mad ?

Water_Prophet claims "4 technical degrees" incl Physical Chemistry. I asked him to prove his claim CO2 is a "red-herring" & "anemic" but, very best he could do is trot out a (qualitative) variation of his phrase re 435ppm etc.

ie. His "proof" is "WV is more powerful than CO2, therefore CO2 is a red-herring" & he stated we were "monkeys trying to understand a watch" - LOL !

But, can't quantify CO2 thermal resistivity in essential units of Watts/m^2 to compare directly with insolation.

Water_Prophet - so sad :-(
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2015
Water_Prophet with even MORE proof he could NOT have "4 technical degrees" esp Physical Chemistry
Watch what happens when you boil two pints of water in the microwave and put them in a wide bottomed container (like a broiler pan). Notice within just a few minutes how warm the room feels.
If you have an indoor humidity and thermometer you can quantify. If you have a CO2 meter, you can dispel the myth...
U have been told this before MANY times !

U have Zero understanding of "Experimental Methodology", there are so many naive & immature assumptions u just cannot appreciate - u appear (again) immensely uneducated !

No scientist with any credibility would ever propose such a shallow illustration, it is so overwhelming qualitative & also completely ignores runrig's advice to u re "path-length" etc...

Water_Prophet, u were shown by runrig the formula for CO2's thermal resistivity ie Watts/m^2.

Why can't u evaluate it & prove your claim re CO2 so very easily ?

so sad
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
Here everyone, I'd like to demonstrate another way to disprove it. An experiment you can do right in your home.
Get some white vinegar (defined as being 3-5% acetic acid, CH3COOH), and baking soda, NaHCO3.

NaHCO3 + CH3COOH --> CO2 + H2O + NaOCH3CO

Is there anyone who thinks they can't run an experiment at home? Now you can control CO2. If you have a CO2 meter you can quantify it. You can measure thermal resistivity right in your own home to.

You can use you senses and develop a scale. Range from you stove for example, measured. Define your scale. Accuracy? Morons will complain. If you can notice a difference, you have sufficient accuracy. This doesn't reflect the atm. they will continue.

Insulation works best up close. Heating effects occur near ground. Temperature falls off at 1/(height) squared. How important is it up there?

It is important they will insist, because otherwise their religion melts away like so much snow.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
You can also see that well before you reach an amount of CO2 you note thermally. It makes you sick.

Don't make yourself sick, please.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
Uba-
I am curious, is sea level rise a climate change? Because, I tell you what. It, unlike temperature, is a very useful metric.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
DLK, no in the tropics 25% of the Earth, the ratio of water vapor to CO2 is definitely closer to 60x, as a lower bound. But thank you for playing.

Here let me explain evaporation/condensation and water vapors effects in a way every one can understand:

Treat them as separate effects. They are two different effects. The average amount of humidity does not change in a relevant amount over time, over seasons. It is never below 6x CO2 (in the driest desert), >70%, ocean, of the Earth is at 100% humidity all the time. The remaining bits of land have 20x more water vapor on average.

Approach it from the minimum amount of humidity of any region at any given time. It still trumps and obliterates any effect of CO2, by sheer magnitude!

Try doing a little math OK. You don't even need to be accurate.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
Ubavonatuba
So belief in the lie, and repeating the lie, in spite of the long term "consensus science" somehow makes it true?


The lie you are referring to here is my assertion that sea level rise is accelerating.

Here is a quote from a wiki article "From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009"

Now I imagine you will have problems with Wiki - despite being quite happy to post references from the Daily Telegraph. The Wiki data is from an AAAS article - it is available for you to read. Please feel free to post your own science references if you want to dispute my claim that the sea level rise is accelerating.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2015
Uba - here is a quote from the EPA "After a period of approximately 2,000 years of little change, average sea levels rose worldwide throughout the 20th century, and the rate of change has accelerated in recent years"

http://commons.wi...A%29.png
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2015
@Water_Prophet

I guess you just don't get this, but the following two statements can be true AT THE SAME TIME!

1) WV is a "more powerful" GHG than CO2 in the sense that it has a broader absorption spectrum in the IR, and is also present at a higher concentration in the troposphere.

2) CO2 is more important than WV *AS A DRIVER* of global climate change/global warming via the GH effect.

Why can both statements be true at the same time? BECAUSE WATER VAPOR IS A CONDENSIBLE GAS WITH A SHORT RESIDENCE TIME IN THE ATMOSPHERE, THEREFORE IT CANNOT DRIVE LONG TERM TRENDS! See the link I posted earlier, or just about any possible resource you can think of on atmospheric or climate science, if you need further details to understand this.

Also, if you think the above is wrong, please provide some sort of detailed answer as to why. Because this gets at the source of why all the other stuff you post about DIY experiments and humidity is basically irrelevant.
Caliban
3.6 / 5 (14) Mar 08, 2015
You keep screaming "B.S.", yet you never provide anything of substance [...] This is a lie. Why is it AGWites have to lie (rhetorical)? Is it because the only way to support a lie, is with more lies?

I regularly offer all sorts of references. Here's one of my favorites:

http://woodfortre....1/trend


Of course it is one of "Velvet Ears" ubyMoron's cherrypickins, since the RSS satellite derived dataset is of TROPO temps and hence VERY NOISY.

When an INSTRUMENTAL data set is used(also availble, but never --natch-- used by UBYMORON), the exact same 15 year period most definitely exhibits a continuing warming trend:

http://woodfortre....1/trend

This is exactly why UBYMORON's spiritual father, Roy Spencer , makes use of the RSS data in his denierside rants.

Like Spiritual Father -like UBYMORON.

DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2015
you do realize that evaporation consumes heat and condensation releases it, so overall they are in very close balance, right?
NOOOOO! they are not even remotely in close balance. Where do they occur? How do they occur?
Ok, stop for a second. Clarification is needed ... when I claimed they must be in close balance, I meant that over any reasonably long time period (say one month), the total amount of water evaporation must be essentially equal to the total amount of water condensation, when averaged globally. Furthermore, I am saying that as you increase the length of the time period, that "balance" becomes a better and better approximation, with the discrepancy amounting to the change in overall atmospheric WV during that period. Is that the statement that you are claiming is incorrect? If so, what evidence are you using?
Evaporation conveys roughly 4x the energy that the GHE does.
You have claimed this before; what basis are you using for that value of 4x?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
The short residence time in the atmosphere is a misinterpretation of the IPCC definition.
Residence time refers to how long it takes a GHG to decay chemically.
Water does not decay chemically, so other approximations must, and ARE used by the IPCC to compensate for this.
Water is always present in concentrations that only vary with season. It is more prevalent where GHG are important, near the ground.

Let's just do some math, OK. According to common belief, water is 7x more powerful than CO2, (I say 40x). But its is, on average globally, 45x more prevalent than CO2. So lets do this, 7x45 = 315x more powerful than CO2. In other words, CO2 changes can't drive it!

Now, evaporation and condensation are 4xstronger than GHG effects. So a 435ppm change in WV compensates for a 135ppm change in CO2. A 20000ppm WV changes CO2 into unmeasurable background noise.

You see, I get this better than anyone.
You probably have objections, but this is a good start.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
DLK, RE
Ok, stop for a second.

See, here is where I see you understand what's going on, but are not integrating it. What you're saying is essentially true. But WV will transport more heat if there is more heat.

WV, CO2 etc., can have the same claims...

I think I'll leave it there for now.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 08, 2015
The short residence time in the atmosphere is a misinterpretation of the IPCC definition.
Residence time refers to how long it takes a GHG to decay chemically.
Water does not decay chemically, so other approximations must, and ARE used by the IPCC to compensate for this.

.. snip ...

You see, I get this better than anyone.
You probably have objections, but this is a good start.


No, just .. no. Before this goes any further, please read carefully this link from the American Chemical Society website to understand what scientists mean when they say WATER VAPOR (specifically) has "a low residence time in the atmosphere".

http://www.acs.or...co2.html

See? It's exactly the evaporation/condensation cycle that you love to mention so often that PREVENTS water vapor from being a DRIVER of climate change.

Or do you have specific scientific objections to the content of that link?
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 08, 2015
DLK, RE
Ok, stop for a second.
See, here is where I see you understand what's going on, but are not integrating it. What you're saying is essentially true. But WV will transport more heat if there is more heat.
BASED ON WHAT SCIENTIFIC MECHANISM? You can't just claim random crap without justification! The whole basis of the evap/cond hydrological cycle is that heat is ABSORBED during evaporation and RELEASED during condensation. You can't possibly release MORE heat than was absorbed (other things being equal), without violating the first law of thermodynamics! So both the amount of MASS and ENERGY participating in the hydrological CYCLE have to be balanced ... that why it's CALLED a CYCLE in the first place!
WV, CO2 etc., can have the same claims...
What is that supposed to mean? We were talking about evaporation/condensation cycles .. what does that have to do with CO2? CO2 never condenses naturally on Earth, that's why it CAN drive long term trends.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
The 4x is just how the Earth retains heat. I've been using it a while now, so I forget where I got it. It took a while.
Sun. takes us from 0K to 153(?)K
The Earths rotation takes us to
Vertical atm mixing
Horizontal atm mixing. Take us ro about -40C
Evaporation/Condensation takes us to about ambient.
GHG effects are very small, it is negligible.

It's a worthy investigation.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2015
Many mechanisms.
Sublimation, how does it work? The water isn't boiling. But it is taking away that much more heat if it is hotter. If it is hotter more water can go into the air. The heat capacity of water is amazing.

What I said, or at least meant, is that it will transport more heat if there is a bigger gradient, or more heat available.

Conservation of energy is a dear principle to me.

"Making same claims..." compare apples to apples. CO2 is not a special GHG, nor is water vapor.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 08, 2015
Many mechanisms.
Sublimation, how does it work? The water isn't boiling. But it is taking away that much more heat if it is hotter.
Actually, each molecule takes away less heat when the water is hotter .. the enthalpy of vaporization of water decreases with increasing T, however
If it is hotter more water can go into the air.
and the saturation vapor pressure goes up exponentially with T, so overall evaporation of warm water into warm air will carry more total heat into the atmosphere.
The heat capacity of water is amazing.
Perhaps, but it's irrelevant here, since heat capacity and latent heat are different concepts.
What I said, or at least meant, is that it will transport more heat if there is a bigger gradient, or more heat available.
Not precisely, but I guess you really meant what I wrote above.
...compare apples to apples...
Condensible vs. non-condensible is not "apples to apples" .. READ THE LINK FROM ACS I POSTED FOR YOU (TWICE), PLEASE!
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2015
All I see you doing now is quibbling.

The ACS article is wrong. Clouds retain heat. Water Vapor retains heat. Evaporation/Cond is another, separable effect.
Do you know how to do feedback math? I am going to guess, yes. Apply it yourself.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2015
The 4x is just how the Earth retains heat. I've been using it a while now, so I forget where I got it. It took a while.
Sun. takes us from 0K to 153(?)K
The Earths rotation takes us to
Vertical atm mixing
Horizontal atm mixing. Take us ro about -40C
Evaporation/Condensation takes us to about ambient.
GHG effects are very small, it is negligible.

It's a worthy investigation.


So basically, you made it up? Your argumentation above isn't even sensible or consistent. If the hydro cycle took us from -40C to ambient, that would be about 59 degrees C. And you are saying that is 4x CO2, which would make CO2 about 15 degrees C. Then you say "GHG effects are negligible" ... *sigh*. For what it's worth, CO2 AND WV feedback are generally agreed by SCIENTISTS on BOTH sides of the 'climate debate', to have contributed about 33 degrees C to the mean global temp. via the greenhouse effect. And yes, it's the CO2 that drives the change .. WV just amplifies it.
DarkLordKelvin
2.6 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2015
[Not sure what happened .. this post came through garbled for me .. I am deleting and re-entering it]
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 08, 2015
The ACS article is wrong.
Holy crap dude, are you serious? Find me any scientific resource anywhere that says anything significantly different than what is in that ACS piece! You seriously believe your own "let's just wing it and pray we get it right" deductions over the ENTIRETY of the climatology and meteorology fields? This isn't even something that the most ardent climate skeptics (who are also scientists) disagree about!
Clouds retain heat.
Not clear at all .. net effect is uncertain because they also increase albedo, and so reflect more incoming solar radiation back to space.
Water Vapor retains heat
via the GHE .. which you apparently doubt now? .. it's honestly hard to tell
Evaporation/Cond is another, separable effect.
which is cyclical, and drops out of the "warming" calculation entirely due to energy conservation
Do you know how to do feedback math?
The math is done .. you just don't understand driving vs driven aspects .. and so deny it.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2015
Negative on all counts.
High clouds reflect cool, true.
Clouds also warm the ground underneath if they persist. I don't know what you do and don't know about everything.

And no, I didn't make it up. I never make anything up. My MO is to use physical principals to show how and why AG Change is occurring. Do some research, check out how much heat is retained by what mechanism, you have no need to believe me anyway, BUT, you have a need to understand these mechanism in order to have a reasonable opinion.

You did the feedback math did you? No, you didn't. If you did you'd understand that CO2 can not be a driver. I can do feedback math in my head.

33 degrees from GHGs, that's laughable.

Sorry:
Sun.
Earth's rotation.
Atmosphere.
Vertical mixing.
H. Mixing.
Evap/Cond.
The earths oceans
GHG

and virtually every natural process stores and buffers heat, I haven't begun to examine these myself.

It's worthy bit of research.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2015
@Water_Prophet

Let me clue you in to something to use with DLK. He did not understand evaporative cooling and its effect on global climate.

Here's a reference:

https://carnegies..._climate

DarkLordKelvin
2.8 / 5 (18) Mar 09, 2015
And no, I didn't make it up. I never make anything up. My MO is to use physical principals to show how and why AG Change is occurring. Do some research, check out how much heat is retained by what mechanism, you have no need to believe me anyway, BUT, you have a need to understand these mechanism in order to have a reasonable opinion.
It's science .. some is straightforward science .. your approach is giving you completely different answers and "mechanisms" than EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIST who has devoted their lives to the fields of climatology, meteorology, physical chemistry, atmospheric science, etc., and yet there you stand, stubbornly insisting that YOU must be right, and that the rest of us "just don't understand" or "can't do the math".
33 degrees from GHGs, that's laughable.
Once again .. a standard result, uncontested by any scientist on either side of the "debate" who understands the basics, but you call it "laughable". Are you trolling, or do you really mean it?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2015
Residence time refers to how long it takes a GHG to decay chemically.
Holy lord tunderen jeezus Margret is this what you think "residence time" means? No wonder you are having trouble understanding why H2O cannot be a driver of warming temperatures at the average temperatures experienced on the Earth! Greg, for gawd's sake, learn what "residency" means!

And you make a big deal because you thought I didn't know what a mole was.

Residency has nothing, at all, to do with chemical decay. It has to do with the length of time it takes for a chemical to be removed from the atmosphere. The residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is 6 hours. The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is on the order of 1000 years.

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2015
Aww isn't that cute, the ubamoron is going around giving comments a 1 vote. Such a cute little moron, barely able to add his checkbook, but thinks that offering all us bad people he thinks are smarter than him low votes on an anonymous website on the internet is showing us all something.

You are a moron. You are a despicable and dishonest phony and every person who tried to have a conversation with you ends up finding out the same thing.

You know, the difference between the ubamoron and water pfftttt is that every now and then, on the order of a mole of seconds, seemingly by accident. water pffftttt will say something worth considering. The ubamoron, on the other hand, can't even claim those momentary blips of something approaching intelligence.
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2015
Uba, I noticed he doesn't understand evaporation, but, your evap link says, "Globally, this cycle of evaporation and condensation moves energy around, but cannot create or destroy energy. So, evaporation cannot directly affect the global balance of energy on our planet."

What malarky. Water evaporates from the ground, goes into the atmosphere, condenses and releases a great amount of heat into space. How is this not affecting the global balance? If it is warmer, this is about the only mechanism that can by-pass atmospheric mixing.

Water is also a very efficient medium for transferring heat via storms, etc, from the equator to the poles. It is much smaller than atmospheric mixing, but it has the advantage again of bypassing it. Water being a gas to transport, then a liquid to deliver energy.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2015
DLK, straightforward science. Look up how the Earth retains heat. Lotsa good info there, important info., you should know it. Research it.
It doesn't give me different answers than every scientist. Regardless, they can't contradict basic physics.

Did you even look at the IPCC and water vapor?
Here: http://en.wikiped...r_vapour
ThomasQuinn
2.5 / 5 (26) Mar 09, 2015
Why do you only believe the "experts" who support your nothing-to-see-here philosophy?
Because by defintion...

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

Global temperatures: http://woodfortre....1/trend

...there is nothing to see here.


I see your grasp on statistics is as tenuous as your grasp on decent behaviour (referring to the vast amounts of abuse you hurl at people). One cherry-picked graph referring to a small region and using debatable data serves, in your mind, to disqualify mountains of cross-checked, peer-reviewed studies, heaps of non-controversial data and a consensus that is considerably more solid (>97%) than that on, for instance, the reality of time and gravity. Yet somehow, I doubt you disbelieve the existence of time and gravity.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2015
@deniers; Its only one minute long.

https://www.youtu...cNmYf2Rg
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2015
ThomasQuinn
I see your grasp on statistics is as tenuous as your grasp on decent behaviour (referring to the vast amounts of abuse you hurl at people)


Uba is proving out to be quite the bully.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2015
ThomasQuinn
I see your grasp on statistics is as tenuous as your grasp on decent behaviour (referring to the vast amounts of abuse you hurl at people)


Uba is proving out to be quite the bully.


No, not a bully I think. He is just unbelievably dense. It takes a special kind of imbecile to continue to make the same arguments over the course of several years, when even the ones you started with have moved up and beyond.

He is the classic Dunning-Kruger. Seriously, he knows so little about the subject he has no idea how little he knows.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 09, 2015
Uba, I noticed he doesn't understand evaporation
Oh what delicious irony .. apparently uba and WP now think I have a problem understanding evaporation? Oh please, enlighten me as to the nature of my confusion, o Great Sages of Science!
but, your evap link says, "Globally, this cycle of evaporation and condensation moves energy around, but cannot create or destroy energy. So, evaporation cannot directly affect the global balance of energy on our planet."
Yep ... yet another source that confirms what you've had pointed out to you umpteen times before .. and more irony .. this time it's uba's link (evidently).
What malarky. Water evaporates from the ground, goes into the atmosphere, condenses and releases a great amount of heat into space.
Another bold claim .. no evidence, no citation ... and again suffering from that pesky little detail that all the actual scientists who study this stuff would have to be wrong for said claim to be correct. [ctd]
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 09, 2015
[cont'd]

If it is warmer, this is about the only mechanism that can by-pass atmospheric mixing.
This is a strange statement .. convection is considered one of the mechanisms of atmospheric mixing, so it's hard to see how deep convection could be bypassing it ...
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2015
DLK, if you won't get it, you don't get it.

Sing it with me; When water vapor condenses in the troposphere and stratosphere it releases heat with very little blocking it from being emitted to space.

No evidence? How can you even claim this? It is what happens. Water absorbes heat to evaporate, releases heat to condense. It by-passes atm mixing by condensing high above ground. The heat gets released see.

You really need to go over your physics baseline, my friend.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2015
@Water_Prophet
DLK, if you won't get it, you don't get it.

Sing it with me; When water vapor condenses in the troposphere and stratosphere it releases heat with very little blocking it from being emitted to space.

No evidence? How can you even claim this? It is what happens. Water absorbes heat to evaporate, releases heat to condense. It by-passes atm mixing by condensing high above ground. The heat gets released see.

You really need to go over your physics baseline, my friend.
You are absolutely correct, and this is some of what I was trying to describe to DLK before he bugged out on me. But what he specifically didn't understand, which is in the article, is that evaporation generally cools the lower troposphere it evaporates into, particularly in daylight. It's not less latent heat over all, but it is an immediate cooling effect.

cont...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2015
...cont:

The part about the water vapor delivering heat to the upper atmosphere and space, strangely seems to be ignored by most mainstream climatologists. There's very little about it on the web. It's as if they believe heat can't escape into space from the atmosphere. I don't think they, like DLK, understand basic physics very well, either.

"As ...water forms from the vapor, the water molecules become organized in a less random structure, which is less random than in vapor, and heat is released into the atmosphere as a result."

http://water.usgs...ion.html

For the AGWites: So after the condensing water releases its heat into the upper troposphere, where do you think all that heat goes?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2015
I see your grasp on statistics is as tenuous as your grasp on decent behaviour (referring to the vast amounts of abuse you hurl at people).
What abuse?

And what about the barrage of abuse I get from the likes of you? Didn't you, in your first two posts to me, lie about me "never providing anything of substance to back up my peculiar (!) claims," and "call me out," (amongst other unfounded accusations)?

One cherry-picked graph referring to a small region
You think "lower trop." means "tropics," don't you? Try, "troposphere."

http://en.wikiped...posphere

and using debatable data
What's to debate about it?

howhot2
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2015
@ubavonstupa; everyone bugged out because because we all learned about water vapor in atmospheric physic 101. It's a course I think you missed. Just about everything you say in your vain attempt at arguing for a beautiful and lovely climate forever and ever, has been proven to be lies, made up BS and pure crapola of the most foul kind. My question Ubavonstupa is what is your motive for being the denier A** you are?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2015
@ThomasQuinn
to disqualify mountains of cross-checked, peer-reviewed studies, heaps of non-controversial data and a consensus that is considerably more solid (>97%) than that on, for instance, the reality of time and gravity. Yet somehow, I doubt you disbelieve the existence of time and gravity.
Here in lies the greatest and most repeated fallacy of the AGWites. You think a bandwagon fallacy is somehow convincing, or even relevant.

"argumentum ad populum[/url] (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so.'"

http://en.wikiped..._populum

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2015
@ubavonstupa; everyone bugged out because because we all learned about water vapor in atmospheric physic 101. It's a course I think you missed. Just about everything you say in your vain attempt at arguing for a beautiful and lovely climate forever and ever, has been proven to be lies, made up BS and pure crapola of the most foul kind. My question Ubavonstupa is what is your motive for being the denier A** you are?
What is your motive for just being an A**?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2015
@greenonions
Uba - here is a quote from the EPA "After a period of approximately 2,000 years of little change, average sea levels rose worldwide throughout the 20th century, and the rate of change has accelerated in recent years"

http://commons.wi...A%29.png
Did you not notice the graph doesn't show any significant recent acceleration?

Seriously, at least TRY to give me something consistent.

Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2015
For the AGWites: So after the condensing water releases its heat into the upper troposphere, where do you think all that heat goes?

Just spit balling here, but because below the cloud, and in it is >100% humidity, and a powerful GHG, I'm gonna guess at least 60% goes into space.

Think we can trust an AGW-er to do the actual math, or should I?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 09, 2015
For the AGWites: So after the condensing water releases its heat into the upper troposphere, where do you think all that heat goes?

Just spit balling here, but because below the cloud, and in it is >100% humidity, and a powerful GHG, I'm gonna guess at least 60% goes into space.

Think we can trust an AGW-er to do the actual math, or should I?
Definitely, give it a shot. I think the percentage is higher, as to send the energy down and around would prevent additional water vapor from condensing, to begin with.

howhot2
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2015
So @ubavonstupa who picks your cloths? Is it the same one who picks your science references? Stevie Wonder? My friend @Waterprofit; please go and read this link and come back;

http://www.skepti...-gas.htm

If your back, then what you will realize is that while talking about water as a greenhouse gas, you assume it's the only green house gas. That is not the case. Water is a feed back mechanism from global warming of the planet. So as CO2 traps more heat, more water vapor is created from evaporation more heat trapping occurs. CO2 lingers in the atmosphere so for the next 1000 years, it will be evaporating more water make the global warming effect just that much more pronounced. So the point is water is a very critical aspect of global warming's impact on the planet. What temp will tip the scales and cause gloibal mass extinction? That is the question you should ask, and then what role does water play in it.

DarkLordKelvin
2.9 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2015
When water vapor condenses in the troposphere and stratosphere it releases heat with very little blocking it from being emitted to space.
You made the critical parts of that up .. i.e. the parts about significant amounts of water condensing high enough in the troposphere, and ESPECIALLY "in the stratosphere", so that latent heat from cond. is released directly to space. If not, let's see a reference for it.

Do you understand thermal lapse rate, or its effect on humidity? Deep convection actually leads to REDUCED radiative cooling of the atmosphere (locally), because the condensation happens at higher (i.e. colder) altitudes. This is why the tropopause is colder and drier in the tropics than elsewhere. Thus there is LESS TOTAL RADIATIVE COOLING of the atmosphere over regions where there is MORE EVAPORATION from the oceans .. this is confirmed by measurements or outgoing long wave radiation. IOW, actual SCIENCE says precisely the opposite of your claim.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2015
For the AGWites: So after the condensing water releases its heat into the upper troposphere, where do you think all that heat goes?
Just spit balling here, but because below the cloud, and in it is >100% humidity, and a powerful GHG, I'm gonna guess at least 60% goes into space.
You are, unsurprisingly, quite wrong. Much of the latent energy released during condensation goes to warming the atmosphere, and basically all the rest of it is converted to the work necessary to lift the denser moist air higher into the atmosphere during deep convection (remember conservation of energy?). As I mentioned in my last post, the amount of outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) from regions where deep convection is active is LOWER than in neighboring regions, where the atmosphere is subsiding.

Look at it this way, the surface of the Earth ALREADY radiates more heat than is released into space, the hydro-cycle only *increases* net heat into the atmosphere, how can that drive cooling?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2015
So @ubavonstupa who picks your cloths? Is it the same one who picks your science references? Stevie Wonder? My friend @Waterprofit; please go and read this link and come back;

http://www.skepti...-gas.htm


For you howhot. I read, now you listen:
The short lived thing is a misinterpretation!!!! Skepti is lying to you! Water is not short lived. The IPCC has special definitions for water vapor! Short lived refers to decomposition of methane etc., chemically.

It's realistic minimum is 12000ppm, over arctic seas, and 36000ppm in the tropics. Over the sea, it's 100% humidity. The lowest value you can expect over the arctic sea is 6000ppm.

So a 135 ppm of CO2 effects a 435ppm change on water vapor.

Instead let's say 1ppm increase in CO2 incurs a 1ppm in H2O. It should be clear now. The filth of Skeptiman should be washing away.
Water_Prophet
1.1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2015
Water is, according to AGWers 7x more powerful than CO2. It is also ~20x more prevalent. So 1 ppm CO2 has an equivalent of 140x increase in H2O. Which is preposterous.

Good to start?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2015
Global temperatures: [url]http://www.woodfortrees.org/[/url]
...there is nothing to see here
@Uba
nice cherry picked graph
Trends are typically 30 years, and you and i already argued that point which you lost

last three decades temps: [url]http://www.woodfortrees.org/[/url]plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60/from:1985/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/from:1985/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/from:1985/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/from:1985/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:360/trend/from:1985/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/trend

same site
you should have read the instructions on main page
Beware sharp tools

However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others.
[url]http://www.woodfortrees.org/[/url]
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2015
[ALCHE SAYS]That definition is pretty cool isn't it?
[UBA replies]It's a good 'un
@both trolls
wow!
your inability to understand language vs the science
fascinating...

the word Pedophile=an adult who is sexually attracted to young children
http://dictionary...edophile

this means, by your description of the definition of GW above, that if the pedo actually graduates to rape, molestation or sodomy, he/she is no longer a pedophile per your insistence on static description

so, taking this into account, your insistence that the GW definition cannot be accurate (due to your delusional interpretation of the scientific evidence that it cannot be real)
or we are not in a warming trend claims (though your cherry picking in THAT respect has been proven false)
is nothing more than your FAILURE to recognize the science for your political, religious or denialist and obfuscation purposes

SCIENCE trumps semantics & games
ALWAYS
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2015
Uba
Did you not notice the graph doesn't show any significant recent acceleration?


Yep I did Uba. And I also noticed that the same experts who posted that graph - also said this - "After a period of approximately 2,000 years of little change, average sea levels rose worldwide throughout the 20th century, and the rate of change has accelerated in recent years"

Well - that quote is in line with all the other scientific data I have wasted my time referencing for you - and so I thought I might dig a little deeper - you know - be sciency like - and try to understand what may appear to be a contradiction. So a little more digging easily resolved the issue for me - all completely in line with that quote. Here is just one of the articles I recently read http://academics....tain.pdf

Cont.

greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2015
cont. A quote from the research -
"From 1993 to the end of 2006, near-global measurements of sea level (between 66"N and 66"S) made by highprecision satellite altimeters indicate that the global average sea level has been rising at 3.1 ± 0.4 mm year-1...This rate is faster (by almost a factor of two) than the average rate of rise during the 20th century, which, in turn, was an order of magnitude larger than the rate of rise over the two millennia prior to the 18th century"

That would qualify as accelerating - you are not only wrong - but it is also becoming clear that you are a bully - I concurr with the above comment regarding Dunning Kruger.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
Do you even have a clue how unreasonable you're being?
@uba
so, when someone accepts validated peer reviewed literature that is not debunked and cannot find anything wrong with the data, math, logic, conclusions or anything else, it is being "unreasonable"?
ROTFLMFAO
i love it!

there are different levels of evidence:
the worst is anecdotal or eye-witness testimony because of the wide range of fallibility (this is the level you've been giving the site)
the best is empirical data supported by the scientific method in peer reviewed studies presented in reputable publications impacting the subject

SO @uba @ALCHE
How come none of those studies i linked to you are pulled, changed, retracted or debunked, despite your "claims" to have done exactly that?

scientists compete to prove each other wrong for status
this is WELL known
take it from a scientist
https://www.youtu...bQIlu4mk

Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
...How will CO2 ...effect..
@ALCHE/greggie
you will simply refuse to acknowledge the scientific evidence within presented, regardless of the power of the publication, the observations, experiments or predictability, just like you did with me
you and uba both have Dunning-Kruger and are trying to obfuscate actual science with political, religious and other rhetoric, as well as flooding minutia and making ridiculous claims based upon delusional beliefs... that is NOT science
that is called conjecture without evidence
it is not logical to ignore scientific evidence for the sake of a faith/belief in something because you don't understand what is being said in the science
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
and every time you post you validate the above linked study & support this one
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2015
For the AGWites: So after the condensing water releases its heat into the upper troposphere, where do you think all that heat goes?

Just spit balling here, but because below the cloud, and in it is >100% humidity, and a powerful GHG, I'm gonna guess at least 60% goes into space.

Think we can trust an AGW-er to do the actual math, or should I?


Well, Whiffen_Poof, no one here --UBYMORON included-- can trust you to do the math, as you are, to date, exactly 0-2 in that regard, having bailed twice when challenged by @thermodynamics to solve a couple of different PC calculations, one of which he was actively collaborating with you to solve.

Why should we think this time would or will be any different?

The chained dog barks the loudest...
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
Holy crap dude, are you serious? Find me any scientific resource anywhere that says anything significantly different than what is in that ACS piece! You seriously believe your own "let's just wing it and pray we get it right" deductions over the ENTIRETY of the climatology and meteorology fields?
@DLK
yep, they really, truly do

he doesn't just spout his crap here, but he even did it on facebook!

both uba and ALCHE/wp believe that their "wing it" conjecture is scientific and that they truly have refuted the bulk of scientific knowledge...
uba even has claimed to have found a refute for Einstein... you should let her tell you about THAT one

maybe we should let them get together and turn lead into gold?
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2015
Ah, Cali, I accepted thermo's challenge and conquered. I used pure thermodynamics, he used tables.

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

Scroll to bottom and whine.

I'll accept the challenge anytime again, but we go back to my objections to the approach, now that I know you all are of one opinion, my one opinion means thermy needed to address my concerns, or be wrong. You also never discounted my 'proofs,' either, just said, "wait for thermo," well I waited, and was not impressed. This means the score is 4 to 0. My favor.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
No, not a bully I think. He is just unbelievably dense. It takes a special kind of imbecile to continue to make the same arguments over the course of several years, when even the ones you started with have moved up and beyond.
He is the classic Dunning-Kruger. Seriously, he knows so little about the subject he has no idea how little he knows
@Maggnus
i am not so sure its just that

there is no way someone with even moderate intelligence can ignore scientific evidence with such blatant stupidity...

this falls NOT ONLY into the Dunning-Kruger, but also into a fanatical religious type!

but i also think uba is being PAID to undermine and obfuscate the science
and i think ALCHE is also a paid shill
considering their argument type, blatant lies and intentional stupidity ignoring the studies that debunk them

it's not like we don't know they're out there: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

it points to them being paid 4 liars
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
ThomasQuinn said: to disqualify mountains of cross-checked, peer-reviewed studies...
@UBA -Here in lies the greatest and most repeated fallacy of the AGWites. You think a bandwagon fallacy is somehow convincing, or even relevant
argumentum ad populum
@Maggnus
you see what i mean about the PAID FOR shill?
take uba's comment above
she dismisses the scientific studies simply because there is a preponderance of evidence against her and calls that "argumentum ad populum"

it is NOT about belief
those are STUDIES, not horoscopes
so she blatantly LIED

those studies contain empirical evidence, observations, experiments and validation of claims or other studies (oftentimes) and to dismiss them out of hand is to blatantly OWN your paid 4 status

her rationale for dismissal is because there is overwhelming evidence supporting the AGW and warming situation

so, instead of looking thru the SCIENCE, she simply calls it conspiracy, or a belief, and dismisses it
EPIC FAIL
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2015
@Water_Prophet

Let me clue you in to something to use with DLK. He did not understand evaporative cooling and its effect on global climate.

Here's a reference:

https://carnegies..._climate


UBYMORON, from your(4year old) article:

"Globally, this cycle of evaporation and condensation moves energy around, but cannot create or destroy energy. So, evaporation cannot directly affect the global balance of energy on our planet."

and then:

"The team led by George [...]. Using a climate model(UH-OH!), they found that increased evaporation actually had an overall cooling effect on the global climate."

...it certainly can't be both, so which is it?

Since there aren't any numbers, and there hasn't been any follow-up to this research, I guess we'll just have to call this a moot result, and probably just a case of muddled thinking(at best).

The lack of quantification I find particularly disturbing.

ctd
Caliban
3.3 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2015
ctd

...but do keep providing these citations, UBYMORON, as they are pretty solid proof of your desperation. You are batiin' a thousand in terms of links that obviate your ridiculous claims.

Which is certainly no suprise, since there simply isn't any rigorous, credible research that supports your denierside trolling.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2015
@greenonions
Did you not notice the graph doesn't show any significant recent acceleration?
Yep I did Uba. And I also noticed that the same experts who posted that graph - also said this - "After a period of approximately 2,000 years of little change, average sea levels rose worldwide throughout the 20th century, and the rate of change has accelerated in recent years"
So you don't see that the graph, ostensibly derived from empirical data, falsifies that statement?

Do you just believe everything every AGWite tells you, in spite of the empirical data?

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2015
Ah, Cali, I accepted thermo's challenge and conquered. I used pure thermodynamics, he used tables
@ALCHE
NOT!
you FAILED as ALCHE, so you changed your name to waterbaby
you are FAILING AGAIN as waterbaby, what are you going to change your name to now?

but WAIT.... didn't you also post here under the moniker prometheus?

i know others have discussed prometheus and his EPIC failure to comprehend anything scientific
especially with regard to climate science

we already know you will simply change to another SOCK puppet as soon as you are totally debunked and start up another argument with the same stupidity under a different name

Because that is how you started posting as WP and dropped the ALCHE moniker... because Thermodynamics absolutely outed you as an imbecile

that is how all the trolls and liars always do it
when you die in flames as WP, you will simply change the name and start trolling again as another
SEE ZEPHIR for details
OR
ALCHE

greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2015
Uba -
So you don't see that the graph, ostensibly derived from empirical data, falsifies that statement?


No it does not - Duning Kruger. Do you think the experts - who posted the graph, and the quote that I gave you (that lines up with all the other data, and quotes) are idiots? Or could it be that you are the idiot? I will go with the second option. The graph does not falisify the statement. Of course you may have to parse the time frames being talked about. If the second half of the century is faster than the first half of the century - that is accelerating. And if the graph is just a subset of the second half of the century - that is still consistent. Now - if you take a minute and read the SCIENCE that I just posted - you will see that experts in the field - are in agreement that the sea level rise is accelerating. Duning Kruger.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2015
DLK
Much of the latent energy released during condensation goes to warming the atmosphere, and basically all the rest of it is converted to the work necessary to lift the denser moist air higher into the atmosphere during deep convection (remember conservation of energy?).

No, no, no no! Thermals lift air and water vapor alike.

I think you are either in denial, or being deliberately obtuse.
DarkLordKelvin
3 / 5 (18) Mar 10, 2015
Ah, Cali, I accepted thermo's challenge and conquered. I used pure thermodynamics, he used tables.
Utter BS .. you even said the values from "your tables" were such and such for the CO2 and water dissociation energies. You also got the wrong answer, by a considerable margin, more than 10% off in temperature, and you weren't even close for the relative abundances of CO and CO2. Everything thermo said in his detailed comments to you about your "work" was spot on. You behave like an autocratic autodidact with ADD. Some understanding of the basics but with rather large gaps that you seem completely disinterested in redressing, and no patience for or attention to detail, both of which are absolutely critical to the success of any sort of meaningful scientific endeavor. The sad truth is that you probably could be half-decent at this stuff if you'd just focus more on building a solid understanding of the basics. But I guess you think that wouldn't be any fun ...or something.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2015
By the way Uba - you never did answer the question about your credentials, and the work that you have done - that would qualify to know better than people who have spent their lives immersed in these fields. Please share...
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2015
Uba
Do you just believe everything every AGWite tells you, in spite of the empirical data?


I am quite comfortable accepting the scientific consensus on a subject that I am certainly not qualified to referee scientific papers on - thinking that would be the behavior of an idiot - with Dunning Kruger Syndrome.
DarkLordKelvin
2.9 / 5 (17) Mar 10, 2015
Much of the latent energy released during condensation goes to warming the atmosphere, and basically all the rest of it is converted to the work necessary to lift the denser moist air higher into the atmosphere during deep convection (remember conservation of energy?).

No, no, no no! Thermals lift air and water vapor alike.

I think you are either in denial, or being deliberately obtuse.
Nope .. this is basic physical chemistry, as applied to atmospheric science. Look up dry adiabatic and moist adiabatic lapse rates. What are "thermals" but hot air rising? You act as if they're some magical transport system that can be separated out clearly. Try to comprehend why hot air cools while it rises in the first place (hint: it's doing work) and then try to figure out what's different when there is also condensation occurring within a "parcel" of gas (hint: it can't cool as quickly). Ever wonder why the clouds in the tropics can rise so high? It's all in the physics.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2015
From 1993 to the end of 2006 ...the global average sea level has been rising at 3.1 ± 0.4 mm year
Sure, adjusted data. But here are the tide gauge readings:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-sea-level" title="http://http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-sea-level" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"> http:/sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-sea-level

Do you see a difference? Notice how they try to rationalize the difference? What do you think causes the difference?

That would qualify as accelerating
Excuse me, but wasn't your claim, "that ocean level rise is accelerating ...(as recently as) this past year" How does a straight line trend from 1993 – 2006 show current acceleration?

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

you are not only wrong - but it is also becoming clear that you are a bully
I'm derided for not complying with the "consensus," and suddenly I'm the bully?

I concurr with the above comment regarding Dunning Kruger.
So now you're a psychiatrist AND a bully?

greenonions
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 10, 2015
Uba - more science for you on the subject of the acceleration of sea level rise - http://journals.a...LI2985.1

"the global sea level rise rate has accelerated from 1.5 mm yr−1 prior to 1990 to a present day rate close to 3.2 mm yr−1;"

Course - I imagine you know better than the American Meteorological Society - especially based on those credentials you are going to share with us.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2015
Weird, it won't take the link. Here's a cut and paste version:

http:/sealevel.colorado.edu/content/tide-gauge-sea-level

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2015
I am quite comfortable accepting the scientific consensus on a subject that I am certainly not qualified to referee scientific papers on
Then why do you try so hard to debunk every paper I present?

thinking that would be the behavior of an idiot - with Dunning Kruger Syndrome.
Ah, that explains it.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2015
By the way Uba - you never did answer the question about your credentials, and the work that you have done - that would qualify to know better than people who have spent their lives immersed in these fields. Please share...
I'm immersed in the atmosphere. LOL
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2015
DLK
Much of the latent energy released during condensation goes to warming the atmosphere, and basically all the rest of it is converted to the work necessary to lift the denser moist air higher into the atmosphere during deep convection (remember conservation of energy?).

No, no, no no! Thermals lift air and water vapor alike.

I think you are either in denial, or being deliberately obtuse.
Ask him to explain the mechanics of his version. That ought to be good for a laugh.

Maybe he thinks the heat released from high altitude condensation somehow magically drops below the clouds to lift up more water? Warm air sinks?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2015
Uba - more science for you on the subject of the acceleration of sea level rise - http://journals.a...LI2985.1

"the global sea level rise rate has accelerated from 1.5 mm yr−1 prior to 1990 to a present day rate close to 3.2 mm yr−1;"
Again, not a current acceleration.

Course - I imagine you know better than the American Meteorological Society - especially based on those credentials you are going to share with us.
Credentials? We ain't got no credentials! We don't need no credentials! I don't have to show you any stinking credentials!

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2015
DLK
I think you are either in denial, or being deliberately obtuse.

Denial. Condensation may contribute to it's lift, but you are quibbling again.
ThomasQuinn
2.5 / 5 (21) Mar 10, 2015

You think "lower trop." means "tropics," don't you? Try, "troposphere."



Seriously? You're going to assume I've never heard of the troposphere (and presume I'd think the heading of the graph means "lower tropics global mean", an entirely MEANINGLESS phrase - what on earth would a "global mean" for the "lower tropics" be?) because I say the graph you point to only refers to a small geographic region? Has it occurred to you (don't answer that - it's rhetorical) that I might be referring to the fact that the "global mean" the graph offers does not line up with the official full average from the RSS MSUs, and is therefore apparently only using a subset of that data, i.e. one or more datasets instead of all available data.

If the graph HAD been based on the full available data, you wouldn't have used it - because that shows a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere.

http://commons.wi...ures.png
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 10, 2015
@Water_Prophet:

Here's a cool NASA article that (more or less) describes what we have been saying. There's even a cool graph which shows evaporation delivering heat into the upper atmosphere, and subsequently space.

"The atmosphere radiates the equivalent of 59% of incoming sunlight back TO SPACE as thermal infrared energy, or heat. Where does the atmosphere get its energy? The atmosphere directly absorbs about 23% of incoming sunlight, and the remaining energy is transferred from the Earth's surface BY EVAPORATION (25%), convection (5%), and thermal infrared radiation (a net of 5-6%)."

(EMPHASIS = mine)

http://earthobser...age6.php

@AGWites: So blow that out your tailpipes.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2015
Seriously? You're going to assume I've never heard of the troposphere (and presume I'd think the heading of the graph means "lower tropics global mean", an entirely MEANINGLESS phrase - what on earth would a "global mean" for the "lower tropics" be?) because I say the graph you point to only refers to a small geographic region?
Rationalization. As you just pointed out (after the fact) , it's global, not regional. But don't get too excited. DarkLordKelvin made the same "tropics" mistake.

Has it occurred to you (don't answer that - it's rhetorical) that I might be referring to the fact that the "global mean" the graph offers does not line up with the official full average from the RSS MSUs, and is therefore apparently only using a subset of that data, i.e. one or more datasets instead of all available data.
Another rationalization. It does not claim to be, nor did I claim it to be, other than a lower troposphere data set, covering the period selected.

Cont...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2015
...cont:

If the graph HAD been based on the full available data, you wouldn't have used it - because that shows a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere.
How can that be, when the data I provided shows no statistically significant warming of just the troposphere? And, if you want to eliminate seasonal variation, http://woodfortre...1/trend?

But you are right, the upper atmosphere is cooling even more. But as the troposphere "contains approximately 75% of the atmosphere's mass and 99% of its water vapour and aerosols," the upper atmosphere isn't as relevant to global climate.

DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 10, 2015
DLK
I think you are either in denial, or being deliberately obtuse.

Denial. Condensation may contribute to it's lift, but you are quibbling again.

Prove it then .. you are making claims (as usual) that are grossly at odds with anything in scientific reference materials. If you think differently, prove it with a reference. Not some cherry picked thing that only covers 5% of what you are claiming, but a serious reference, that backs up your claims in totality and in context. Just saying that they're consistent with basic physics won't cut it .. because I have pointed out several specific places where they are not .. you call it "quibbling", but that just goes to show how poor your understanding of the subject matter is.
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
Uba
Again, not a current acceleration.


Well - we did take some reading this morning - and they did support the consensus view - that sea level rise is approx 3 mm per yer - and rising - you did not notice that on the graph I referenced - perhaps your monitor is not big enough to give you the required resolution.

Uba
Credentials? We ain't got no credentials! We don't need no credentials! I don't have to show you any stinking credentials!


And it shows.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2015
DLK, So I am supposed to prove your insanity? OK, but didn't Uba just provide a link that does just that from NASA?
http://earthobser...age6.php

It's a good intuitive picture as well: It shows condensation, clouds and GHG as different phenomenon, AND THEY ARE.

Now imagine that a 0.0135% change in something is affecting this. Hey, methane has increased near 300%, what do you think of that? Water Vapor has increased 4x CO2's amount, and it is a direct part of GHG.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2015
OH, DLK you didn't read to the bottom. All that was wrong was an off set of 298K.

Now you may whine about the 298K, but then why was I so (mistakely) adamant it couldn't be much over 2800? Because the energy ramped up near there, and the off-set just changed that temperature.

Why would you disparage that?
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 10, 2015
DLK, So I am supposed to prove your insanity?
This isn't about anyone but you and your inability to supply a reference that supports your claims.
OK, but didn't Uba just provide a link that does just that from NASA?
I have no idea what that person did or didn't do .. I don't see their posts.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php
That is an excellent link that supports everything I (and a lot of others) have been telling you, and is INCONSISTENT with the bulk of your claims. You will notice at the bottom that they provide an adaptation of the diagram of the solar-Earth energy balance and atmospheric transport from Kiehl and Trenberth's seminal 1997 paper. You have tried to cherrypick the latent heat part of this, and ignore the rest .. it doesn't work like that.
It shows condensation, clouds and GHG as different phenomenon, AND THEY ARE.
Who said they weren't?

Anyway, we still await scientific support for your claims.
Mike_Massen
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 10, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
Now imagine that a 0.0135% change in something is affecting this. Hey, methane has increased near 300%, what do you think of that? Water Vapor has increased 4x CO2's amount, and it is a direct part of GHG.
Instead of "imagining" why don't u PROVE your claims that CO2 is a "red-herring" & "anemic" ?

I asked you ages ago to look at formula for ppm --> W/m^2 & within your claimed capacity
as a Physical Chemist plus your claimed other 3 technical degrees but, nothing !

Instead u harped on about ppm concluding CO2 had no effect because it was less than water vapour, ie Staggeringly invalid logic & not in line with correct units comparable to Total Solar Insolation (TSI).

Subsequently runrig gave you the formula but, instead of performing a simple evaluation to prove your claim, as I reminded you, instead you returned to your uneducated barbs re ppm only - ie a complete fail in terms of knowledge, method & execution !

Y can't U do it ?
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2015
Hey, Uba, if you are still slummin', DLK knows exactly what he is saying, understands the science and deliberately comes down on the wrong side of even the obvious...
There is no other way to interpret his obvious comprehension of the phenomenon.

What do you make of that?
A paid shill with too much conscious to lie convincingly, even on a website?

Very odd, he.
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2015
Hey, Uba, if you are still slummin', DLK knows exactly what he is saying, understands the science and deliberately comes down on the wrong side of even the obvious...
There is no other way to interpret his obvious comprehension of the phenomenon
The more I read your drivel, the clearer it becomes that you are nothing but a harpie, a loud mouthed charlatan, and a ignorant clown. Your own cites are used to show your misunderstanding, and instead of answering the critique, you attack the person trying desperately to explain to you what you are missing and what you need to overcome to have your (stupid) ideas accepted by anyone.

Other than the ubamoron, and really not even him, not one single person who has looked at your stupid idea has agreed. Not one. Ever. Not even once.

You keep on consorting with the ubamoron, you ignorant rube, you and he are cut from the same cloth.

Not one. Never. Not even once. You see those words a lot with this a-hole.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2015
@Water_Prophet
DLK knows exactly what he is saying, understands the science and deliberately comes down on the wrong side of even the obvious...
There is no other way to interpret his obvious comprehension of the phenomenon.

What do you make of that?
A paid shill with too much conscious to lie convincingly, even on a website?

Very odd, he.
Indeed, in one thread he generally admitted it was his intent to be deceptive. And then in this thread he posted "Rules for discussing science on the internet" and immediately proceeded to systematically break them.

He has also "glitched" a few times, like not recognizing, and directly responding to, his own text. And there have been other inconsistencies and schisms. But he has a more normal conversational style than proven chatterbots like Captain_Stumpy and Mike_Massen.

Cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2015
@Water_Prophet ...cont:

So my suspicion is he is a more "advanced" chatterbot, but that's not to say there isn't some human interjection. But he cut off conversation with me pretty quickly when I made these suspicions known, so I didn't get the chance to conduct a thorough interrogation/investigation.

Or, he could be a nutball AGWite with no scruples and psychiatric schisms. But this seems unlikely, as he is much too conversational and he avoids repetitive ranting.

ThomasQuinn
2.6 / 5 (23) Mar 11, 2015
Do you have any clue how insane it sounds to accuse posters of being bots? It makes you sound like a conspiracy nut completely divorced from real life, hiding out in some basement (believing it to be a bunker) and spending two hours re-routing your connection before posting on this forum "so the feds won't know where to find you". I don't mind you putting that picture of you on display, it kinda puts your posts in perspective IMHO, but for someone who makes claims to superior intelligence, it's more than a little silly to make such a mistake. Kinda reminds me of nutters accusing me of being a paid stooge for (depending on who you ask) the CIA, the FSB, the communist party, the 'liberal media', atheist organizations and Christian organizations. If this seems contradictory, that's only because it is.
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2015
ThomasQuinn observed
Do you have any clue how insane it sounds to accuse posters of being bots?
My perception is he is ONLY claiming it so he has justification to ignore content, links or any part that doesn't agree with his opinion, an extension effect of comfirmational bias & likely part of his sad attempt at game play...

His pattern does suggest he is paid 'on a mission' as he hasn't (yet) claimed qualifications & clearly hasn't got a depth of physics knowledge but, tries nonetheless to squeeze out anything remotely plausible & it seems ONLY to cast doubt !

This is right up alley of wealthy denialist propagandists of big oil/coal to muddy the issue.

Actual Science is not ubavontuba's forte & it seems not Water_Prophet's either :-(

For the deniers, things are hotting up & this link directly refutes bulk of claims of more ice:-
http://www.washin...is-year/
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2015
So my suspicion is he is a more "advanced" chatterbot, but that's not to say there isn't some human interjection
@uba
so far, the ONLY times i have seen you play this card is when you have been demonstrably and utterly destroyed by scientific evidence and LOGIC

you play it with ME because i can type fast, i post science and you have NO ability to refute it other than hand-waving personal conjecture which is NOT scientific evidence

even the evidence you TRIED to link is irrelevant, does not apply or has been debunked!

I think Thomas Quinn has you pegged
It makes you sound like a conspiracy nut completely divorced from real life, hiding out in some basement (believing it to be a bunker) and spending two hours re-routing your connection before posting on this forum "so the feds won't know where to find you"
& you continue to validate this study
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2015
More like the COOKING of 30 years of temperature data.
http://appinsys.c...e023.gif
http://appinsys.c...ates.htm
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2015
Thomas, Uba,
I think whomever he is, DLK must have a subconcious scruple. Think Lord Kelvin made Dark, or a corrupter of science. Knows what he is saying, then comes down on the other side.

Absolutely, it sounds insane. But look at Captain Stumpy, Mike Massen, Caliban and Maggnus. They always repeat the same things, and will drown out comments like this one with massive cut and pastes. An Information Warfare tactic, which has been repeated too many times to deny.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 11, 2015
I think whomever he is, DLK must have a subconcious scruple. Think Lord Kelvin made Dark, or a corrupter of science.
Is that some goofy attempt at humor?
Knows what he is saying, then comes down on the other side.
I have always been as clear as I can (although the 1000 char thing can be limiting), about the scientific basis for my reasoning .. and what "other side"? I guess you mean that I usually disagree with YOU, but that's because routinely you take a couple of random facts/data points and then jump to a conclusion that isn't supportable based on fundamental physical principles. You make crazy claims like "the American Chemical Society is wrong" about a basic principle of atmospheric science (WV cannot DRIVE climate change because it's a condensible gas) based on APPLIED PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY! Even if that thought entered your mind for more than a nanosecond, how can you fail to realize that expressing it publicly undermines what little credibility you might have?
Mike_Massen
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 12, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed and its obvious he LIED with
Absolutely, it sounds insane. But look at Captain Stumpy, Mike Massen, Caliban and Maggnus. They always repeat the same things, and will drown out comments like this one with massive cut and pastes. An Information Warfare tactic, which has been repeated too many times to deny.
No.

We have been asking you to prove your claims, thats it !

Besides the posts cannot 'drown out' - there aren't that many - doh !

Water_Prophet, prove your claim CO2 is a "red-herring" & "anemic".

You also claimed graduating as a "Physical Chemist" but missed out after weeks of showing the formula to prove your claim. runrig came up with it - you couldn't, you failed.

Now you can wrestle back some credibility and evaluate the formula for CO2's thermal resistivity & actually NOW go and PROVE your claim don't need to worry about CO2 or even as you said recently not to bother modelling it ?

Show some basic evidence U aren't nuts ?
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2015
look at Captain Stumpy, Mike Massen, Caliban and Maggnus. They always repeat the same things
@ALKIE/greggie boy
maybe that is because you continually bring up the SAME POINTS every single thread...

and maybe it's because you've never once, ever, never, produced any logical or scientific refute...

and maybe because your "claims" are completely fallacious and based upon NO scientific evidence

it is really simple:
IF you were right AND
IF you had evidence AND
IF you could make the predictions you claim AND
IF you were an actual educated scientist AND
IF there was truly a fundamental error in the science
THEN it would be demonstrated by the retraction, deletion correction or OTHER changes to the STUDIES LINKED REFUTING YOU

there would also be a HUGE amount of publicity around YOU as the big oil/$$$ corp's would MAKE SURE that you were noticed

NO CHANGE IN EITHER WAY is concrete evidence that you are another lying denier troll

THAT is simple logic!
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2015
Alche/WP said:
Water is, according to AGWers 7x more powerful than CO2. It is also ~20x more prevalent. So 1 ppm CO2 has an equivalent of 140x increase in H2O. Which is preposterous.

Good to start?


So, how much water vapor is in the atmospheric layers at around 40,000 ft altitude? How much CO2?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2015
How much water vapor is 40k ft above the ground?
How much of your home's insulation is 200 ft off the ground?

If you have a layer of fiberglass insulation 7 ft thick, over your ceiling, do you really think another foot 200 ft above your roof is going to make a difference?

When that effect itself isn't significant to others? The the Sun, the heater in your house, that you mix the air with a fan?

Then consider, temperature, and it's associated gradient, the real driver, falls off at 1/(height) squared. So the effect of CO2 at 40 k ft is driven by a far weaker temperature/heat? gradient and is K*1/1,600,000,000 times less effective than water vapor on the ground.

Is it clear yet?
greenonions
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2015
Ren
Why believe that global worming is man made? [\q]

Maybe because that is what the science is telling us. Several people on this board will give you an in depth primer on how we know that - if you are interested in learning something.
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2015
If you have a layer of fiberglass insulation 7 ft thick, over your ceiling, do you really think another foot 200 ft above your roof is going to make a difference?
Is it clear yet?
ALKIE/greggie boy
1- are you really THIS stupid? yes, another layer of insulation WOULD make a huge difference
2- it is really simple:
IF you were right AND
IF you had evidence AND
IF you could make the predictions you claim AND
IF you were an actual educated scientist AND
IF there was truly a fundamental error in the science
THEN it would be demonstrated by the retraction, deletion correction or OTHER changes to the STUDIES LINKED REFUTING YOU

there would also be a HUGE amount of publicity around YOU as the big oil/$$$ corp's would MAKE SURE that you were noticed

NO CHANGE IN EITHER WAY is concrete evidence that you are another lying denier troll

is THAT clear yet?
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 12, 2015
How much water vapor is 40k ft above the ground?
How much of your home's insulation is 200 ft off the ground?

If you have a layer of fiberglass insulation 7 ft thick, over your ceiling, do you really think another foot 200 ft above your roof is going to make a difference?

When that effect itself isn't significant to others? The the Sun, the heater in your house, that you mix the air with a fan?

Then consider, temperature, and it's associated gradient, the real driver, falls off at 1/(height) squared. So the effect of CO2 at 40 k ft is driven by a far weaker temperature/heat? gradient and is K*1/1,600,000,000 times less effective than water vapor on the ground.

Is it clear yet?

NO! EVERY WORD OF THAT IS UTTER NONSENSE AND COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS BASIC ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICS(e.g. tropospheric thermal lapse rate is LINEAR with height!!!)! CHECK A BLOODY TEXTBOOK, OR TRY STUDYING ONE OF THE HUNDREDS OF LINKS POSTED IN RESPONSE TO YOUR PERSISTENT INANITY!
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2015
If that contradicts basic atmospheric science then basic atmospheric science is wrong. However, basic atmospheric science is not wrong. You are.

Though I imagine you are just doing it to ankle-bite as usual: Temp is is approximately linear, which is probably what you are so sanctimonious about. But thermy and I had had this discussion, and he can describe it to you.

Also, 1/(X1)^2 - 1/(Xo)^2 are you familiar with it's character?
DarkLordKelvin
3.2 / 5 (20) Mar 13, 2015
If that contradicts basic atmospheric science then basic atmospheric science is wrong. However, basic atmospheric science is not wrong. You are.
Prove it then. Provide a reference supporting your pathetic and bizarre claims.
Temp is is approximately linear
How is that consistent with your claim:
temperature, and it's associated gradient, the real driver, falls off at 1/(height) squared
that is your typically imprecise and unclear phrasing, but you either meant that either temp "falls off" as the inverse square of height (wrong), or that its gradient does (even more wrong .. a line has constant gradient) .. in other words, you claimed 1/(x^2) was the right behavior, when the correct claim was "x" or "constant", depending on what you were TRYING to say!

Also, my response was not "sanctimonious" in the least .. it was "provoked" by your insipid disregard for science!
Also, 1/(X1)^2 - 1/(Xo)^2 are you familiar with it's character?
What are you even asking?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2015
DLanklebiter, here's another thing I can't prove: You are writing at an education level far below what you were last week. All you seem to be doing is writing like Mike, or the other idiot, take a sentence, pick it apart and criticize it. It's cheap, accomplishes nothing. Ignored.
DarkLordKelvin
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 13, 2015
here's another thing I can't prove: You are writing at an education level far below what you were last week. All you seem to be doing is writing like Mike, or the other idiot, take a sentence, pick it apart and criticize it. It's cheap, accomplishes nothing. Ignored
Good lord. You are just a troll then .. you responded vaguely, disingenuously, or insultingly to almost all of my attempts to engage with you scientifically. Maybe I just got tired of putting in the work it takes to write detailed posts only to have you kick them to the side dismissively without refuting or addressing their points in an intellectually honest fashion. Furthermore, I respond to your posts in detail, using your specific quotations to establish context. How can you possibly have a problem with that?

I suspect you are actually just tired of having your ass handed to you in a public forum, but that's your own doing .. I encouraged you to engage honestly; you declined.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2015
@ThomasQuinn
Do you have any clue how insane it sounds to accuse posters of being bots?
Have you ever seen statistics on online bot content?

"A couple of years ago I reported that 51% of all website traffic was non-human. The study, undertaken by Incapsula, has been updated. We have become the minority: bot traffic has reached 61.5%. I say "we"; there's only a 38.5% chance you're human."

http://www.sitepo...traffic/

It makes you sound like a conspiracy nut completely divorced from real life, hiding out in some basement (believing it to be a bunker) and spending two hours re-routing your connection before posting on this forum "so the feds won't know where to find you".
Looked at yourself in the mirror again, eh?

...for someone who makes claims to superior intelligence,
When did I supposedly do that?

ThomasQuinn
2.5 / 5 (24) Mar 14, 2015
@uba:

I see you don't even read the 'statistics' (in reality: opinion pieces) that you yourself refer to. From your OWN link:

"The distribution indicates:

38.5% is biological entities. Mostly humans, a few cats and assorted unclassified creatures.
31.0% is search engine and other indexing bots (a rise of 55%).
5.0% is content scrapers (no change). If you're reading this anywhere other than SitePoint.com, you're viewing a lazy copy of the original page. It won't be as lovely an experience!
4.5% is hacking tools (down 10%). Typically, this is malware, website attacks, etc.
0.5% is spammer traffic (down 75%). That's bots which post phishing or irritating content to blogs. Any negative comments below will certainly be from non-humans.
20.5% is other impersonators (up 8%). These are denial of service attacks and marketing intelligence gathering."

I'd make a joke of this, but it already is. In summary: bot-posts are 0.5%, and easy to pick out.