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

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.)

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

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

This story is published courtesy of The Conversation (under Creative Commons-Attribution/No derivatives).The Conversation

Citation: 30 years of above-average temperatures means the climate has changed (2015, February 26) retrieved 19 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-02-years-above-average-temperatures-climate.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
567 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 26, 2015
Do people STILL try to deny this?


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?

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.

Feb 26, 2015
parcite

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

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!

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.

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.

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.

Feb 26, 2015
parcite, we understand enthalpy. It is taken into consideration.

To whom is it new?

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?

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.


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.

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?

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.

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!

Feb 26, 2015
Let's use Ocean Acidification as one measure of environmental Carbon Dioxide.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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
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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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

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.

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

Feb 26, 2015
So why were the 1930s warmer than today?

Time is running out for this scam...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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"

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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
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%.


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.

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!!!

Feb 26, 2015
runrig, BS!!

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.

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.

Feb 26, 2015
runrig, BS!!

QED

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.

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

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.

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

Feb 26, 2015
runrig, why not look up the NASA paper on ocean warming, NOT, out is june of last year.

Feb 26, 2015
Sorry Maggnus ... Finger trouble and hit a 1 by mistake

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.

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.

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?


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.

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.

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?

Feb 26, 2015
If you weren't laughing after the first sentence, you are either not sane or not educated.

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?

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?

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?

Feb 26, 2015
Is ConfusedSociety ready to discuss the Acidification of the Seas as proof of excess Carbon Dioxide?

KDK
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!

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?

Feb 26, 2015
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "....Joseph Goebbels.

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. ;)


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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 ....

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Feb 27, 2015
Confused is afraid to discuss Ocean Acidification as proof of excess CO2.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

Feb 27, 2015
Confounded, it is called enthalpy. Look it up. Much of the energy can be stored in changes of state.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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 :/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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."

:)

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.

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. :)

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.

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

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?

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?

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.


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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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."

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.

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.

Feb 27, 2015
Hrm... This is parcite, btw. It seems I have two accounts.

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.


Feb 27, 2015
ConfoundedSociety...

Define AGW.


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.

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.

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




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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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]

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/

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 ?

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.

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?

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.

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]

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?


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?


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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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 :-)

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 ?

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 s