Speed with which temperatures change will continue to increase over next several decades, study shows

March 9, 2015, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

An analysis of changes to the climate that occur over several decades suggests that these changes are happening faster than historical levels and are starting to speed up. The Earth is now entering a period of changing climate that will likely be faster than what's occurred naturally over the last thousand years, according to a new paper in Nature Climate Change, committing people to live through and adapt to a warming world.

In this study, interdisciplinary scientist Steve Smith and colleagues at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory examined historical and projected changes over decades rather than centuries to determine the temperature trends that will be felt by humans alive today.

"We focused on changes over 40-year periods, which is similar to the lifetime of houses and human-built infrastructure such as buildings and roads," said lead author Smith. "In the near term, we're going to have to adapt to these changes."

See CMIP run

Overall, the Earth is getting warmer due to increasing in the atmosphere that trap heat. But the rise is not smooth—temperatures bob up and down. Although natural changes in temperature have long been studied, less well-understood is how quickly temperatures changed in the past and will change in the future over time scales relevant to society, such as over a person's lifetime. A better grasp of how fast the climate might change could help decision-makers better prepare for its impacts.

To examine rates of change, Smith and colleagues at the Joint Global Change Research Institute, a collaboration between PNNL and the University of Maryland in College Park, turned to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. The CMIP combines simulations from over two-dozen climate models from around the world to compare model results.

All the CMIP models used the same data for past and future , pollutant emissions, and changes to how land is used, which can emit or take in greenhouse gases. The more models in agreement, the more confidence in the results.

The team calculated how fast temperatures changed between 1850 and 1930, a period when people started keeping records but when the amount of fossil fuel gases collecting in the atmosphere was low. They compared these rates to temperatures reconstructed from natural sources of climate information, such as from tree rings, corals and ice cores, for the past 2,000 years.

Taken together, the shorter time period simulations were similar to the reconstructions over a longer time period, suggesting the models reflected reality well.

While there was little average global temperature increase in this early time period, Earth's temperature fluctuated due to natural variability. Rates of change over 40-year periods in North America and Europe rose and fell as much as 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. The computer models and the reconstructions largely agreed on these rates of natural variability, indicating the models provide a good representation of trends over a 40-year scale.

Now versus then

Then the team performed a similar analysis using CMIP but calculated 40-year rates of change between 1971 to 2020. They found the average rate of change over North America, for example, to be about 0.3 degrees Celsius per decade, higher than can be accounted for by natural variability. The CMIP models show that, at the present time, most world regions are almost completely outside the natural range for rates of change.

The team also examined how the rates of change would be affected in possible scenarios of future emissions. Climate change picked up speed in the next 40 years in all cases, even in scenarios with lower rates of future greenhouse gas emissions. A scenario where remained high resulted in high rates of change throughout the rest of this century.

Still, the researchers can't say exactly what impact faster rising temperatures will have on the Earth and its inhabitants.

"In these , the world is just now starting to enter into a new place, where rates of temperature change are consistently larger than historical values over 40-year time spans," said Smith. "We need to better understand what the effects of this will be and how to prepare for them."

Explore further: Climate models disagree on why temperature 'wiggles' occur

More information: Steven J. Smith, James Edmonds, Corinne A Hartin, Anupriya Mundra, and Katherine Calvin. Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change, Nature Climate Change March 9, 2015, DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2552

Related Stories

Climate models disagree on why temperature 'wiggles' occur

January 26, 2015

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

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

181 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

snoosebaum
1.7 / 5 (30) Mar 09, 2015
yes its getting colder faster !
gkam
3.7 / 5 (35) Mar 09, 2015
Snoose, you have to look past your own nose. Climate is not just outside your door, it is world-wide, and must be seen holistically.

It is getting more severe, as the increased heating of the oceans produce more intense storms.
Mayday
2.2 / 5 (24) Mar 09, 2015
"All the CMIP models used the same data for past and future greenhouse gas concentrations..."
Where did they get that future data?
I definitely gotta get me some of that!
gkam
3.3 / 5 (24) Mar 09, 2015
"Where did they get that future data? "
--------------------------------

One of Bill O'Reilly's hokey books.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (27) Mar 09, 2015
In hand with this, the warming Greenland ice sheet is also speeding up: http://www.truth-...e-begun#

"All the CMIP models used the same data for past and future greenhouse gas concentrations..."
Where did they get that future data?
I definitely gotta get me some of that!


Ya, you should try to understand what the article is talking about.
OdinsAcolyte
1.9 / 5 (23) Mar 09, 2015
You cannot predict the weather. I doubt you can predict climate.
If you can, I bet the world adapt. It always has.
Humanity shall become extinct one day. Get over it.
gkam
3.4 / 5 (24) Mar 09, 2015
" I bet the world adapt. It always has."
------------------------------------

Yes, . . but without US!
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (24) Mar 09, 2015
Here's a story about how FLorida is trying to handle the quickening change: http://www.washin...;hpid=z3

By no small coincidence, Shootist claims to be from there. Guess we all know where he gets his denialism. So if you close your eyes and pretend it isn't happening, then force those around you to not say what they see, in order to pretend it isn't happening, what are they going to do when the rising ocean water makes them start to float? Claim gravity has changed?
Mayday
4 / 5 (9) Mar 09, 2015
I was joking, folks. And it was a comment on the writing of the article, not the subject of the article.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) Mar 09, 2015
The AGW Cult.
If you don't like reality, then join us.
We can give you 100s of fabricated realities, each worse than the worst nightmare your ignorance can muster.
http://www.drroys...e-wrong/
snoosebaum
1.2 / 5 (22) Mar 09, 2015
Last three years had heavy snows and last March was coldest ever in VT. 2nd coldest in NH, ME, 5th in MA. It was the coldest and snowiest December to March ever in Chicago and snowiest ever in Detroit. NOAA and Enviornment Canada had projected at the end of November 2013 a warm winter for the Great lakes and east in 2013/14. NOAA's winter outlook in October for 2014/15 smarting from a busted 2013/14 headlined the politically correct forecast.

"Repeat of last year's extremely cold, snowy winter east of Rockies unlikely."
I was told over dozen years ago, NOAA seasonal forecasters are not permitted to work with any factors not statistically determined by the universities or labs to be valid. Private sector forecasters can play detective and look at all factors- like ocean warm and cold pools outside the tropical Pacific and solar. See how well the ocean pools and other factors' analog pattern (left) fit the actual November to February mean (through February 27) (right).
Osiris1
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 09, 2015
Farmer's Almanac predicted negative 40 deg F. for Michigan this winter. Technically it can boast success as Marquette went down to minus 37 in February. However Marquette is a peninsula into now frozen over Lake Superior, so the polar plunge that sunk Iqaluit NWT, Can to much LOWER temps blew down to Michigan with nary a pickett fence to separate it from hell on earth. Even Hell, Michigan froze over, and yes there is a town named Hell in Michigan. It may even have handbaskets you can ride in, but once in Hell then what's the point. Like the article said, warming is not even. Siberia was warm this year. Even the Iditarod had to be moved.
Osiris1
2 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2015
If the climate is warming so much, then why can't we grow citrus fruit in Central Florida any more. Palatka near Orlando used to have LOTS of citrus groves and now they are gone. Too much frost. See citrus trees cannot stand temperatures of 18-20 for too long..will kill the tree. Temps of 26 for long will freeze the crop. Both can be ruinous to growers operating on thin margins.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (23) Mar 09, 2015
Last three years had heavy snows and last March was coldest ever in VT. 2nd coldest in NH, ME, 5th in MA...blah blah weather blah blah more weather..blah blah...busted 2013/14 headlined the politically correct forecast.
Yes, weather is hard to predict.

I was told over dozen years ago, NOAA seasonal forecasters are not permitted to work with any factors not statistically determined by the universities or labs to be valid. Private sector forecasters can play detective and look at all factors- like ocean warm and cold pools outside the tropical Pacific and solar. See how well the ocean pools and other factors' analog pattern (left) fit the actual November to February mean (through February 27) (right).
Yes, weather is still hard to predict.

Climate is not weather. Weather reacts to climate. Read this: http://www.nasa.g...zUfzF91Y
plewicke
1.3 / 5 (25) Mar 09, 2015
This article appears to be based on a false assumption:
"Overall, the Earth is getting warmer due to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that trap heat." I assume that CO2 is meant by "greenhouse gas". If that is correct, then someone should have looked at the IR Handbook, in which data on CO2 absorption of IR is noted, and when the data was collected all IR in the CO2 absorption was absorbed within 300 meters. There was no radiation left for additional CO2 to absorb.

But don't fear. It appears that climate does vary in sync with the sunspot cycle, and this cycle appears to be weakest in cneturies.
charlimopps
4.8 / 5 (23) Mar 09, 2015
Last three years had heavy snows and last March was coldest ever in VT. 2nd coldest in NH, ME, 5th in MA. It was the coldest and snowiest December to March ever in Chicago and snowiest ever in Detroit. NOAA and Enviornment Canada had projected at the end of November 2013 a warm winter for the Great lakes and east in 2013/14. NOAA's winter outlook in October for 2014/15 smarting from a busted 2013/14 headlined the politically correct forecast..


You're confusing Weather with Climate. The climate of the entire planet is warming up. In your specific local it may be colder due to shifting weather patters, but the average temperature of the entire planet IS warming. There is no doubt outside those researches that are taking direct payment from the oil industry. And yes, this has happened before. Lead was once killing us and dropped the entire worlds average IQ by tens of points while the Lead industry paid off researchers to deny its dangers.
Maggnus
4.8 / 5 (22) Mar 09, 2015
This article appears to be based on a false assumption:
..snip.. I assume that CO2 is meant by "greenhouse gas". If that is correct, then someone should have looked at the IR Handbook, in which data on CO2 absorption of IR is noted, and when the data was collected all IR in the CO2 absorption was absorbed within 300 meters. There was no radiation left for additional CO2 to absorb.
You need to explain this better. You're not making sense.

But don't fear. It appears that climate does vary in sync with the sunspot cycle, and this cycle appears to be weakest in centuries.
Yet the planet continues to warm. Thank you for pointing out that is can't be caused by sunspots.
runrig
4.8 / 5 (19) Mar 09, 2015
If the climate is warming so much, then why can't we grow citrus fruit in Central Florida any more. Palatka near Orlando used to have LOTS of citrus groves and now they are gone. Too much frost. See citrus trees cannot stand temperatures of 18-20 for too long..will kill the tree. Temps of 26 for long will freeze the crop. Both can be ruinous to growers operating on thin margins.

This article:
https://www.linke...us-farms
Puts the decline of citrus down to disease.
It seems that frosts are not uncommon as far south as central Florida and after the last bad ones in the 80's growers moved south.
However many groves have disappeared due development and disease.
Now what has caused the disease?
It's certainly not cooler weather. '''

http://www.3.bp.b...tion.png

runrig
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 09, 2015
Broken link:

try this....
http://appinsys.c...e001.jpg
antigoracle
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2015
Yes, weather is still hard to predict. blah ....blah

The ignoRANT of the AGW Cult's ignoramus.
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (18) Mar 09, 2015
So many false premises in the model. Anyone wonder what the results are?

I don't suppose they've given a single thought to equilibrium? You know, you change something to a different steady state and the system changes until it reaches a new equilibrium?

Nah!
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (20) Mar 09, 2015
Every day we get another pronouncement of "The End" by the AGWites. We used to get the occasional End of the World-er standing on the street corner with a sign or preaching from the side walk. But today, we get neatly formatted articles posted all over the Internet warning that the End is Near.

Weather and climate are different aspects of global temperature, but how long will we get these gloom predictions in the face of colder than normal winters and cooler and wetter summers than normal. If we keep getting the same or cooler weather, when will the scare mongering stop?

Hint: It won't stop, because the predictions of doom and gloom are the result of a political agenda -- not a scientific revelation.
runrig
4.8 / 5 (20) Mar 09, 2015

Weather and climate are different aspects of global temperature, but how long will we get these gloom predictions in the face of colder than normal winters and cooler and wetter summers than normal. If we keep getting the same or cooler weather, when will the scare mongering stop?

Not even true of the US my friend (I assume you are a US citizen).
never mind the Globe.
PS: You do know the meaning of the G in AGW?

http://www.livesc...old.html

And Russia:
http://tass.ru/en...l/780560
"A general conclusion was that the 2014-2015 winter was the warmest in the Northern Hemisphere in the history story of weather monitoring, The average air temperatures last winter were higher than the previous" warm" record set in 2006-2007."

I do really wonder about the sanity of some of the deniers on here. I really do.
FFS
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 09, 2015
runrig,
Not even true of the US my friend (I assume you are a US citizen).


Yes it is true of the U.S. The winter of 13-14 was unusually cold for extended periods. The following summer was abnormally cool and wet. This winter was notable for its extreme cold and snow.

A general conclusion was that the 2014-2015 winter was the warmest in the Northern Hemisphere in the history story of weather monitoring


Yes. Despite the unusually cold weather, the AGWites continue to claim that the weather is unusually warm. These claims will continue despite the weather because the claims are based on a political agenda rather than reality.

runrig
4.8 / 5 (18) Mar 09, 2015
runrig,
Not even true of the US my friend (I assume you are a US citizen).


Yes it is true of the U.S. The winter of 13-14 was unusually cold for extended periods. The following summer was abnormally cool and wet. This winter was notable for its extreme cold and snow.

A general conclusion was that the 2014-2015 winter was the warmest in the Northern Hemisphere in the history story of weather monitoring


Yes. Despite the unusually cold weather, the AGWites continue to claim that the weather is unusually warm. These claims will continue despite the weather because the claims are based on a political agenda rather than reality.


Question:
in the above context does your brain register "coldest" when your eyes see "warmest"??
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 09, 2015
runrig,
Question:
in the above context does your brain register "coldest" when your eyes see "warmest"??


No. That appears to be your problem.
The actual fact is that the weather has been unusually cold for two winters in a row with an unusually cool and wet summer. You can proclaim that cold is hot and wet is dry, but you will not change the reality by confusing words.
howhot2
3.7 / 5 (17) Mar 09, 2015
Deniers are so stupid. Their ignorance proceeds them to our peril. Just like a bunch of lemmings who decide to walk of a cliff because the republican party (an their puppet masters of the same ilk) said so. Hippocrates just pandering to the philosophy that if you keep people ignorant, they won't care or notice. It's about time that the deniers start being dragged off by the men in black boots to the Obama-Gore re-education camps to be "re-trained" on the American way.

To the deniers, I'm sure your fathers had a profound influence on you. Were they lunatics too?

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 09, 2015
Speed with which temperatures change will continue to increase over next several decades, study shows
So the temperatures will "change" faster? This is meaningless, as it could change either direction, or not at all. And, they certainly haven't been changing much lately.

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

gkam
3.6 / 5 (20) Mar 09, 2015
Perhaps Ooooba needs an introduction to mathematical derivatives.
howhot2
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 09, 2015
That is a good point @gkam. How about we start off with an undergraduate explaining time/velocity and acceleration for Physics221. Maybe @ubavonstupa will get it... may be not.
http://web.utk.ed...tion.htm

In other words, just like A = delta V / delta T, the change in temperatures is accelerating. Duhhh. That is just a repeat of the Al-Gore hockey stick.

The deniers would be better off being shipped to the Obama-Gore re-education camps where american tax payers via proxies would demonstrate what the gov is all about! I recommend Uba to camp 11. It has the best deprogramming functions available.


DrPhill
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 09, 2015
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "....Joseph Goebbels.
gkam
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2015
DrPhill, we already know about "WMD!".
jeffensley
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 09, 2015
Ack.. since when were computer models running statistics with limited and questionable data sets "science"?
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (12) Mar 09, 2015
hee....haw....hee...haw... Just like a bunch of lemmings who decide to walk of a cliff ....blah...blah...Were they lunatics too?
-- howhotTard
Wow!! Now I know why you believe every lie the AGW Cult feeds you. You are really that stupid.
http://mentalflos...ir-death
bradalb0
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 09, 2015
Yep, let's just keep using those models that totally failed to project the last 20 years warming hiatus. Why? Because the Climate Cultists are much, much smarter than reality. And if the real world data continues to stupidly ignore their "physics," they'll just have to adjust the real world data until it takes off its dunce cap and gets with the program.
humy
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 10, 2015
Speed with which temperatures change will continue to increase over next several decades, study shows
So the temperatures will "change" faster? This is meaningless, as it could change either direction, or not at all. And, they certainly haven't been changing much lately.


You are talking nonsense. They were obviously implying from the context, an increase in temperature from "change", not a decrease. They also were referring to the rate of increase of average temperature over decades; which CAN increase -why can't it? How is it "meaningless" to say the temperature increase over several decades can increase from 0.2 to 0.3 C per decade?
runrig
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 10, 2015
runrig,
Question:
in the above context does your brain register "coldest" when your eyes see "warmest"??


No. That appears to be your problem.
The actual fact is that the weather has been unusually cold for two winters in a row with an unusually cool and wet summer. You can proclaim that cold is hot and wet is dry, but you will not change the reality by confusing words.

Interesting:
Could you please provide the data that proves the above GLOBALLY, and not in your back garden.
I provided proof, here's some more...
http://data.giss....;pol=rob
http://data.giss....;pol=rob
http://data.giss....;pol=rob
runrig
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 10, 2015
Yep, let's just keep using those models that totally failed to project the last 20 years warming hiatus. Why? Because the Climate Cultists are much, much smarter than reality. And if the real world data continues to stupidly ignore their "physics," they'll just have to adjust the real world data until it takes off its dunce cap and gets with the program.

Speaks someone who knows nothing about what GCM's can and cannot do. And is ignorant of the need for error bars.
Go look it up and then come back and explain to us why it is that GCM's lie within their error bars.
Go look up the physics of GHG gasses too.
Oooops but that involves learning some science... that the experts know about. And you don't
Shame that, that the world works in ways that do not meet your ideology.
Or your tax bill (US centric of course - always is).
Joe_Chang
Mar 10, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 10, 2015
OdinsAcolyte claimed
You cannot predict the weather
Where I live in Perth, Western Australia the weather forcasts & pretty reliable; within a couple of degrees & approx 5 days ahead !

OdinsAcolyte claimed
I doubt you can predict climate
Within error bars, show that you actually know what that means & which models are outside error bars.

Heard of Integration ?

OdinsAcolyte muttered
If you can, I bet the world adapt. It always has
Keh, so if we can predict climate the world adapts but it we can't it wont, r u having language difficulties, had fit of sorts & english not your first language ?

OdinsAcolyte wasted everyone's time with
Humanity shall become extinct one day. Get over it.
Likely sure, what time scale & why r u showing u don't care a damn for humans now !
Rute
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
I'm not a 'global warming skeptic' but the choice of words in news about global warming research seem to convey a sense of certainty that is unscientific to say the least.

In this case, the words 'study shows' in title caught my eye. A prediction doesn't 'show' anything. The researchers merely suggest what could be the case if all the presumptions of their model are correct or close to correct.
Science Officer
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2015
The UN Groundhog emerged from his den last month and predicted we'll need to finance climate change research for another six billion years.
runrig
4.8 / 5 (18) Mar 10, 2015
The UN Groundhog emerged from his den last month and predicted we'll need to finance climate change research for another six billion years.

No actually.
Solar is taking off ( because of government subsidy - here in Europe anyway)... once battery tech catches up - the revolution will come.

PS: some of us in this world aren't selfish.
I'm pleased my "tax dollars" were used for that end.

http://www.buildi...qtPmsWSo
antigoracle
1 / 5 (13) Mar 10, 2015
Not even true of the US my friend (I assume you are a US citizen).
never mind the Globe.
PS: You do know the meaning of the G in AGW?

So runrig, the US isn't cooling eh! Which side of your rectum did you blow that piece of crap out?
https://stevengod...to-1999/
gkam
2.8 / 5 (17) Mar 10, 2015
Mister Goracle wants a political discussion. The political conservatives here, terrified they are wrong again, can only hope the Real Folk are wrong, and we are not really ruining the Earth.

Having been shown to be fools with "WMD!", they want to think we are all crooks and liars. But conservatives are guided by emotion, not reason.

"Bring 'em on!", screamed by a draft-dodger cowering in his Undisclosed Location - That is the kind of "leader" they pick. When are they going to PAY for those mass killings?
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 10, 2015
antigoracle claimed, muttered or showed he is still a pest with
So runrig, the US isn't cooling eh! Which side of your rectum did you blow that piece of crap out?
https://stevengod...to-1999/
Hmm, stopped at 1999 - why ?

Did it take into account the FACT there is immense heat sinks from Canada & Artic, how die they fare during the same period, has most of that ice also got cooler, same or warmer ?

Observed a discussion with someone just like antigoracle, "..we all know when ice warms it melts, fact we still have ice proves no warming.." LOL !

Tragic though and sad, that this is the sort of thing uneducated deniers so easy spout,
not just bad logic but, imaging there is nothing to counter their narrow red-neck views :-(

This of interest recently re US & greater temp anomalies, droughts anyone ?
Linked from woodfortrees credits

http://www.remss....ry_temps
antigoracle
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 10, 2015
Hmm, stopped at 1999 - why ?

Did it take into account the FACT there is immense heat sinks from Canada & Artic, how die they fare during the same period, has most of that ice also got cooler, same or warmer ?

Hey Mike, to understand why it stopped at 1999 you need to look up the meaning of "uncorrupted".
As for that big block of ice called Canada cooling the US, boy I got to ask - Which side of runrig's rectum did you breath that out off?
fourinfinities
1 / 5 (8) Mar 10, 2015
As for me, I'm buying land on Baffin Island while it's still cheap.
runrig
4.5 / 5 (17) Mar 10, 2015
antigoracle claimed, muttered or showed he is still a pest with

So runrig, the US isn't cooling eh! Which side of your rectum did you blow that piece of crap out?
https://stevengod...to-1999/

Hmm, stopped at 1999 - why ?


Cant see that idiots posts but thanks Mike ....

And also.....
http://www.epa.go...ure.html

No, No. Of course the US is cooling.
Viewed from standing on your head in the rabbit-hole that is.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Mar 10, 2015
All that heat, from cooking the US temperature data, has to go somewhere. That's where the AGW Cult's warming of the US is coming from.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 10, 2015
Last three years had heavy snows and last March was coldest ever in VT
@snoose
1- you are talking about WEATHER, not climate! learn the difference
2- i've tried to explain this before, perhaps you didn't see the studies?
here they are again: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
Francis 40 min video: https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs
Francis short but sweet vid: https://www.youtu...wJg4Ebzo
additional data/study on the first linked study: http://iopscience...4005.pdf

they certainly haven't been changing much lately
@uba
30Yr trend says you lie
http://www.woodfo.../to:2015
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 10, 2015
I don't suppose they've given a single thought...
@ALCHE
i don't suppose you've ever given a single thought to actually proving something with science and studies?
NAH
i will state AGAIN, for the record: Never, not once, not one single time have either Uba or ALCHE in any way, shape or form, EVER debunked any studies or gotten any studies changed, retracted, deleted or anything else to reflect their beliefs and continued diatribe against SCIENCE and the studies they CLAIM to have debunked or refuted
never, not once, not one single time EVER

Yes it is true of the U.S. The winter of 13-14 was unusually cold for extended periods
@dogbert
see my post above to snoose

it uses science and studies to show you how your WEATHER is being affected by the warming CLIMATE

even has video's of the scientist explaining it for the less literate
and it is the published scientist who explains her own study too
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 10, 2015
The actual fact is that the weather has been unusually cold for two winters in a row with an unusually cool and wet summer
@dogbert
key word= WEATHER
and it was PREDICTED too... learn more here: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
additional data/study on the first link: http://iopscience...4005.pdf
Francis 40 min video: https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs
Francis short but sweet vid: https://www.youtu...wJg4Ebzo
the two video's EXPLAIN the WEATHER you are seeing WRT climate and warming
ALSO
don't confuse global climate averages for cold WEATHER snaps
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (18) Mar 10, 2015
And, they certainly haven't been changing much lately.
woodfortre....1/trend
@uba
1- trends are normally 30 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60/from:1985.1/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/from:1985.1/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/from:1985/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/from:1985/last:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:360/trend/from:1985/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/trend/from:1985/to:2015" title="http://http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:60/from:1985.1/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:60/from:1985.1/to:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend/from:1985/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/from:1985/last:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:360/trend/from:1985/to:2015/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:360/trend/from:1985/to:2015" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.woodfo.../to:2015

(copy paste link if it is broke)

2- from your OWN SITE - http://www.woodfortrees.org
Beware sharp tools
However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others.
so you CHOOSE short terms to obfuscate science!

and your own links warns you against this
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 10, 2015
@Uba above
1- trends are normally 30 years:
http://www.woodfo.../to:2015

the rest deleted due to broken link and irreconcilable problem with links

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (18) Mar 10, 2015
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. "....Joseph Goebbels.
@drphill
that is why we refute the deniers with SCIENCE
not lies
so the only one pushing any LIES here are the ones ignoring the actual SCIENCE

Ack.. since when were computer models running statistics with limited and questionable data sets "science"?
@jeff
i thought you claimed to be a SCIENTIST
in fact, you did that here: http://phys.org/n...rns.html
you said
As a scientist I take issue with someone suggesting I don't understand what science is
so then now you are saying you are an idiot?
models aren't' science? what?

because science uses models to explore data all the time
from physics and forensics to astrophysics and climate science

are you saying the models used to model ballistics, forensic recreations, TOD or blood spatter patterns are NOT SCIENCE?
'cause they sure can put you in jail!
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 10, 2015
So runrig, the US isn't cooling eh! Which side of your rectum did you blow that piece of crap out?
https://stevengod...to-1999/
@antigorical
you linked a BLOG, which is personal opinion
NOT SCIENCE
your STUPIDITY can also be completely debunked with the following NASA links:
http://climate.na...vidence/
http://www.scienc...3905.htm
you need to look up the meaning of "uncorrupted"
if you had even the tiniest bit of scientific evidence supporting your cause, you would not be trolling here
you would be having studies retracted

just because you want to believe something doesn't make it true, antiG
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

mbee1
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 10, 2015
If this claim is true than warming will go from zero to some number more than zero. What about the ice? 5th highest snow and ice cover in November in the Northern Hemisphere , half the world, ever recorded with antarctic ice the highest ever recorded. I guess it will get warmer when this cold spell goes away.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (16) Mar 10, 2015
What about the ice? 5th highest snow and ice cover in November in the Northern Hemisphere
@mbee
first off, you are talking WEATHER, not climate
second: learn about the difference between weather and climate
lastly, did you not read the links above?
see these: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
additional data/study on the first link: http://iopscience...4005.pdf
Francis 40 min video: https://www.youtu...m9JAdfcs
Francis short but sweet vid: https://www.youtu...wJg4Ebzo

the two video's EXPLAIN the WEATHER you are seeing WRT climate and warming

and it was not half the world: http://phys.org/n...ern.html

so if you average this out (CLIMATE) it is NOT the coldest on record
gkam
3.5 / 5 (19) Mar 10, 2015
Hey, mbeee, go here:

http://www.thegua...reenland

Then, come back and apologize.

Thanks.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2015
gkam, everyone,
Yeah, I just saw a documentary, you know with a camera rolling, showing water where ice had been for centuries in the antarctic.

Why is it cutting edge science can't make the same discoveries?
howhot2
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 10, 2015
Hmm, stopped at 1999 - why ?

Did it take into account the FACT there is immense heat sinks from Canada & Artic, how die they fare during the same period, has most of that ice also got cooler, same or warmer ?

Hey Mike, to understand why it stopped at 1999 you need to look up the meaning of "uncorrupted".
As for that big block of ice called Canada cooling the US, boy I got to ask - Which side of runrig's rectum did you breath that out off?

I really really wish you could prove what you say, but there is not even a real paper you can sight that supports what you say. Nothing that has been put in a pier reviewed journal. Do you know why @MrGoracle? Because what you are saying is BS stacked and it's on-top of your ignorant coal kissing bucktooth wingnut politics.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2015
Hey howhot, make sure you take your meds, you are going to need it for this.
http://appinsys.c...ates.htm

This graph tells it all. http://appinsys.c...e023.gif
howhot2
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 10, 2015
Hay @anti; why don't *you* go read a good physics book; may I recommend
http://physics.info/
And at the same time show me one peer reviewed article that supports any claim that you make on climate. There are none. SO SHUT THE **** UP! If you do have something to say, please waste everyone's time demonstrating it and post something with meat in it.

Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 10, 2015
Guys, you just have to see this graphic: http://www.livesc...-us.html . For those that understand, this is one amazing winter for NA. The warming Pacific is beginning to flex its muscle....
howhot2
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 10, 2015
@Waterprofit, friend, If you have seen the damage done. If you have seen the arctic ice cap melt in your life time, (something mankind has never seen, ever) and the north pole becomes an open water ocean, I hope you become a believer in the AGW cause.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2015
Hey howhot why don't you do yourself a favor and walk off a cliff like a lemming.
As I said the following graph shows the speed at which they are cooking temperature data.
http://appinsys.c...e023.gif
Water_Prophet
1.1 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2015
howhot2, would you please just do me the favor of saying I am an AG changer? The warming thing is, and will always be a secondary, if not tertiary effect.

By the time temperature changes significantly, the Earth will be screwed.

CONSIDER, I can melt all the ice on Earth and not change the temperature one degree.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2015
@humy
Speed with which temperatures change will continue to increase over next several decades, study shows
So the temperatures will "change" faster? This is meaningless, as it could change either direction, or not at all. And, they certainly haven't been changing much lately.
You are talking nonsense. They were obviously implying from the context, an increase in temperature from "change", not a decrease. They also were referring to the rate of increase of average temperature over decades; which CAN increase -why can't it? How is it "meaningless" to say the temperature increase over several decades can increase from 0.2 to 0.3 C per decade?
Technically, anything can/might happen. But that it hasn't significantly changed in almost two decades, indicates these predictions aren't well founded.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 11, 2015
More on the speed of change from SA: http://www.scient...Facebook
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 11, 2015
howhot2 observed
@Waterprofit, friend, If you have seen the damage done. If you have seen the arctic ice cap melt in your life time, (something mankind has never seen, ever) and the north pole becomes an open water ocean, I hope you become a believer in the AGW cause
Although Water_Prophet does seem to accept warming he claims CO2 has nothing to do with it, that it is a "red-herring" and "anemic".

Since he claimed "4 technical degrees" incl Physical Chemistry, I asked him to scientifically prove basis of his claim & I prodded him to show it in comparison with heat generated by human activity.

He found ~heat in W/m^2 BUT, refused to compare with CO2 in same units, instead his logic is "H2O at higher ppm than CO2 therefore CO2 doesnt matter"

Then offered a formula by runrig but, Water_Prophet STILL refuses to evaluate it to prove his claim - and attempts to ignore the issue.

Recently he claimed most CO2 comes from dead zones, proof ?

Water_Prophet so sad
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 11, 2015
Although Water_Prophet does seem to accept warming he claims CO2 has nothing to do with it, that it is a "red-herring" and "anemic".
Much as I loath to defend him, Water pfffttt has never said global warming isn't happening, and he does also attribute its cause to man. He just thinks that CO2 isn't the mechanism, mechanical heating is.

Carry on. :)

Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
CONSIDER, I can melt all the ice on Earth and not change the temperature one degree.
Actually NO, in terms of pure maths it can be shown but applied maths & physics will never let you do that for a host of reasons U still show u don't understand !

Water_Prophet, where is the evaluation of runrig's formula for CO2 resistivity in Watts/m^2

AND

Where did u get those "4 technical degrees" & which year u started them ?

The arbitrary claimer Water_Prophet, so sad.

Nothing, supports ANY of your claims, your immense missing of details prove U lie !
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
gkam, everyone,
Yeah, I just saw a documentary, you know with a camera rolling, showing water where ice had been for centuries in the antarctic
WoW ! With a camera AND it was "rolling" is that cool or what - LOL ?

Water_Prophet asked
Why is it cutting edge science can't make the same discoveries?
You do realise you are showing us you can't tell the difference between a documentary ie "documenting" (ostensibly to fill air time) with an actual "discovery" ?

LOL !

CO2 watts per sq m please Water_Prophet to PROVE your claim CO2 is a "red-herring" ?

Y can't U ?
jposterman
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 11, 2015
As everyone, I've been researching this "bouncing" trend. I wonder if solar flares or the Sun's cycle, or the Earth's procession, isn't also a variable in the global fluctuation of weather?
plewicke
4.5 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2015
jposterman,

Those items are among the drivers of Earth's climate. The sunspot cycle appears to be the main solar cycle involved in temperatures, but it is short-term, roughly eleven years and eighty years. The Sun is a variable star; estimates of its variability run from 0.1 % to 2%.
Mike_Massen
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2015
plewicke offered
jposterman,
Those items are among the drivers of Earth's climate. The sunspot cycle appears to be the main solar cycle involved in temperatures, but it is short-term, roughly eleven years and eighty years. The Sun is a variable star; estimates of its variability run from 0.1 % to 2%
As always:- "Details matter as the truth often hides in the details"...

Solar activity vs temps
http://www.skepti...asic.gif

Temperature, CO2 & Sunspot activity, correlate with above & compelling
https://ourchangi...co22.png

Clearly despite sun's reducing output we have higher temperatures overall, also when you KNOW the facts of CO2's affect upon infra-red then its clear CO2 has significant effect and
especially so as Oceans still rising during same period even when some atmosphere cools
http://upload.wik...012).png

Warming...
runrig
4.7 / 5 (15) Mar 11, 2015
As everyone, I've been researching this "bouncing" trend. I wonder if solar flares or the Sun's cycle, or the Earth's procession, isn't also a variable in the global fluctuation of weather?

Yes they are ... but are cyclic in the case of solar TSI (related to flares).
The Earth's precession (I assume you meant) is one of the cycles Milankovitch discovered as a driver of climate ... that isn't at the moment, indeed the Earth's orbit is in a cooling position for the NH.

http://www.skepti....php?g=5
http://en.wikiped...h_cycles
Mike_Massen
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2015
plewicke claimed
..and when the data was collected all IR in the CO2 absorption was absorbed within 300 meters
Link please to this "data was collected" & as close to source re Provenance as possible ?

plewicke claimed
There was no radiation left for additional CO2 to absorb
Surely there would be molecular collisions above 300m making molecules vibrate which then release such energy, the question is how much comparatively Eg. Many clouds can form above 300m, so in their forming as water condenses into mist doesn't it give up heat, & is CO2 not involved at those levels Eg to direct 50% IR down ?

plewicke claimed
But don't fear. It appears that climate does vary in sync with the sunspot cycle, and this cycle appears to be weakest in cneturies
Not entirely now does it & if you mean weakest, I guess U mean Sol, so extra heat retained is GHG's or what else ?

To fear is when Sol DOES put out (much) more when we have more CO2 as well - hmmm

oorrrps !
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2015
Yes, global warming is man made.
All you need to know is here - http://appinsys.c...ates.htm
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 11, 2015
...walk off a cliff like a lemming
@antiG
figures you would try to argue on a science site using MYTHS propagated by Disney... LMFAO
https://en.wikipe...ceptions
As I said the following graph shows the speed at which they are cooking temperature data
your conspiracy theory and Dunning-Kruger are showing: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

As everyone, I've been researching
@jposterman
i will suggest you stay FAR away from any political/religious or biased site (like poptech- proven to be biased here on PO and elsewhere)
because if you want to know the FACTS, you can learn them from the STUDIES... not articles or blogs or fanatical people who are so rigid they can't change with the evidence like a scientist can

for anyone talking against the facts, ask them to provide a STUDY

or a retraction/change/deletion etc of the existing study against them
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 11, 2015
@antiG
figures you would try to argue on a science site using MYTHS propagated by Disney...

Hey captainstunted, there is stupid and then there is you. That lemmings quip was in response to your ignorant pal howhot. Thanks for confirming that stupidity is quality required to join the AGW Cult.
http://appinsys.c...ates.htm
DarkLordKelvin
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 11, 2015
If that is correct, then someone should have looked at the IR Handbook, in which data on CO2 absorption of IR is noted, and when the data was collected all IR in the CO2 absorption was absorbed within 300 meters. There was no radiation left for additional CO2 to absorb.
This is typical denialist garbage MISinterpretation of spectroscopic reference data in the context of atmospheric science. The primary point it misses is that the magnitude of the greenhouse effect arises from the difference in temperature at the earth surface where GHG's absorb IR radiation, and the temperature at the top of the troposphere (a bit of a simplification but good enough here) where GHG's emit IR radiation to space. In between, the IR radiation is constantly being reabsorbed and reradiated, coming to (near) thermal equilibrium with the surrounding gas, which cools with altitude (thermal lapse rate). The temp. diff. amounts to about 33 deg. C, which is the total magnitude of GHE warming.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2015
The @antigoremister says;
Hey howhot why don't you do yourself a favor and walk off a cliff like a lemming
...

I bet your mother has a mouth on the back of her neck and when she cuts a piece of salmon, she sticks it with a fork and lifts it right to her brain stem and her mouth makes a funny sound like wawawawawa. If she was a cow, she would be grazing on her back!
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2015
The @Waterprofit say;
howhot2, would you please just do me the favor of saying I am an AG changer? The warming thing is, and will always be a secondary, if not tertiary effect.

By the time temperature changes significantly, the Earth will be screwed.

CONSIDER, I can melt all the ice on Earth and not change the temperature one degree.
You have some wisdom their to consider @Water. I don't know what you mean by "AG changer", But I couldn't agree more with "By the time temperature changes significantly, the Earth will be screwed." Wow. Isn't that the truth? Some of the deniers will pick on the word 'significantly' but even +1C causes changes in climates as we've seen over the past few years causes weird weather extremes. You should join the AGWites and forget about those looser deniers. From acidic oceans, to 2" deluge rains, water is in the mix of the warming. Flip the bird to the deniers and walk! You'll have fun.


JoeBlue
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2015
Snoose, you have to look past your own nose. Climate is not just outside your door, it is world-wide, and must be seen holistically.


Funny, five months ago you were telling me I just needed to look outside.
gkam
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 12, 2015
That's right mister Blow. Now we found someone with even worse vision than you. But the word is holistic. Learn it.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2015
The @antigoremister says;
Hey howhot why don't you do yourself a favor and walk off a cliff like a lemming
...

I bet your mother has a mouth on the back of her neck and when she cuts a piece of salmon, she sticks it with a fork and lifts it right to her brain stem and her mouth makes a funny sound like wawawawawa. If she was a cow, she would be grazing on her back!

Hey howhot. Were you born this stupid, or did your momma drop you as a baby?
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2015
Howhot!!!! I am not a denier.
I have a valid and uncontentious approach whereby man changes climate.

It does not need CO2, and describes the world as is. You AGW-ers should join me. Nobody but you AGWers contest me. The deniers mostly agree.

So, premise: Man is changing climate, deniers agree with the arguments, and only AGWers contest it because they mistakenly believe it's CO2.

Many of you AGWers agree with some of my crap: The oceans suck more heat than atm.. Heat is more important than temperature. Ice and ocean rise are better indicators and metrics than temperature.

Whicj of these do you disagree with?
None of them need CO2.
Captain Stumpy
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 12, 2015
Howhot!!!! I am not a denier
@ALKIE/greggie
actually, you ARE a denier of SCIENCE
that can be proven by the rest of your post
It does not need CO2, and describes the world as is. You AGW-ers should join me. Nobody but you AGWers contest me. The deniers mostly agree.
that should point out a great deal to anyone with common sense

it is really simple:
IF you were right AND
IF you had evidence AND
IF you could make the predictions you claim AND
IF you were an actual educated scientist AND
IF there was truly a fundamental error in the science
THEN it would be demonstrated by the retraction, deletion correction or OTHER changes to the STUDIES LINKED REFUTING YOU

there would also be a HUGE amount of publicity around YOU as the big oil/$$$ corp's would MAKE SURE that you were noticed

NO CHANGE IN EITHER WAY is concrete evidence that you are another lying denier troll

and it really IS THAT simple
gkam
3.1 / 5 (17) Mar 12, 2015
"Whicj of these do you disagree with? None of them need CO2."
--------------------------------------

You left Ocean Acidification off the list.

Let's discuss that one!
Water_Prophet
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2015
gkam, it was an oversight, thanks.

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

Explains ocean acidification rather neatly. With the primary producer of oxygen, from CO2, of course, being destroyed, obviously it's a double wammy. Oxygen is of course a base, not a strong one, for reasons I don't want to get into, and CO2 + H2O being acidic.
gkam
3.1 / 5 (17) Mar 12, 2015
No, WP, you have it wrong, and are conflating BOD with acidification. It is the addition of CO2, not the decrease in Oxygen which is acidifying the seas.

And CO2 is toxic: If you were in a submarine, you could be killed at 40% CO2, even if the other 60% was pure Oxygen.
gkam
3.4 / 5 (18) Mar 12, 2015
Your god has no effect on my world.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2015
gkam, you may be right. Show me the bio-trade-offs. I am unfamiliar with them, though I do know CO2 poisoning.

I still say CO2 + H2O --> sugars + O2. So I don't see how CO2 wouldn't acidify oceans. Knock me out!
gkam
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 12, 2015
There was an article here a month or so ago regarding saturation levels of CO2 affecting fish or oyster farming in the Pac Northwest. It was not as simple as it seemed at first (as usual) , but figured out.

I am not a chemist, having had my last college chem class in 1970, so I plead ignorance and the lack of experience.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2015
Alche/WP said:
gkam, you may be right. Show me the bio-trade-offs. I am unfamiliar with them, though I do know CO2 poisoning.

I still say CO2 + H2O --> sugars + O2. So I don't see how CO2 wouldn't acidify oceans. Knock me out!


Alche/WP: Are you saying that the combination of CO2 and water will produce sugars and, so, will sweeten the oceans instead of acidifying them?
DarkLordKelvin
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2015
Alche/WP said:
gkam, you may be right. Show me the bio-trade-offs. I am unfamiliar with them, though I do know CO2 poisoning.

I still say CO2 + H2O --> sugars + O2. So I don't see how CO2 wouldn't acidify oceans. Knock me out!


Alche/WP: Are you saying that the combination of CO2 and water will produce sugars and, so, will sweeten the oceans instead of acidifying them?

:)
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 12, 2015
(link deleted)Explains ocean acidification rather neatly
How, exactly? The magnitude of the dead zones compared to the ocean volume is miniscule. Also, the "dead zones" are DEAD! Even the bacteria that "killed" them aren't well-suited to living there (since they require O2), so there's very little ongoing CO2 production from them. As you are so fond of saying, "do the math" .. calculate how much CO2 would have to be produced from the relatively tiny fraction of the oceans that are "dead zones" to account for the observed pH change in the oceans?
Oxygen is of course a base
What do you mean "of course"? How do you think O2 acts as a base in aqueous media? What is the pH of pure water with only O2 dissolved in it?
not a strong one, for reasons I don't want to get into
why not?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 12, 2015
Thermo-DLK, you ARE making a joke right?
gkam, (praise) humbly acknowledged that HE understood that's how photosynthesis worked, you two don't?

Just in case, plants, produce cellulose, fructose, glucose, what-everose, from CO2 and H2O. I am trying VERY hard to believe you didn't just make the above three comments seriously, but with the comment immediately above, it's very hard. Even with the smile it makes me think you're saying we got you rather than making a joke.

Ocean life is most active closest to land... therefore so are the dead zones, it is not a tiny fraction at all.

DLK, you tell us why O2 is a base, then you'll understand why I don't want to go into it.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 12, 2015
Thermo-DLK, you ARE making a joke right?
gkam, (praise) humbly acknowledged that HE understood that's how photosynthesis worked, you two don't?

Just in case, plants, produce cellulose, fructose, glucose, what-everose, from CO2 and H2O. I am trying VERY hard to believe you didn't just make the above three comments seriously, but with the comment immediately above, it's very hard. Even with the smile it makes me think you're saying we got you rather than making a joke...

...DLK, you tell us why O2 is a base, then you'll understand why I don't want to go into it.


Nope, I am not making a joke. Why did you show CO2 going to a sugar (which as you pointed out would be through photosynthesis) when you didn't specify a mechanism. For me, CO2 dissolving in H2O looks like CO2 + H2O -> H2CO3 or H+ + HCO3-. That is the mechanism for carbonation and acidification. Are you saying that all CO2 goes to sugar instead of H2CO3 when entering the oceans?
gkam
3.1 / 5 (15) Mar 12, 2015
Photosynthetic production of sugars requires bonding energy, not just CO2.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2015
thermy, why would I specify a mechanism?

gkam, absolutely right, it also requires those plankton, which I left out, sea water, why is it with your humble background in science you are making thermy and Dlk look like chumps? Do you know what they're driving at?

Am I supposed to show them a mechanism for photosynthesis? Oh, they were quibbling again!!!

DLK, thermy, I was showing the sink of CO2 and the production of Oxygen. See CO2 if it is allowed to build up, is an acid. O2(g) is a weak base. If plants are removing one and supplying the other it reduced the pH of the ocean.

Incidentally, the CO2 increase didn't begin seriously until dead zones became an issue.
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 12, 2015
Thermo-DLK, you ARE making a joke right?
About sweetening the oceans, yes, but that's not to say that your comments about chemistry make sense
Just in case, plants, produce cellulose, fructose, glucose, what-everose, from CO2 and H2O
sure, but what does that have to do with the following comment from your post?
I still say CO2 + H2O --> sugars + O2. So I don't see how CO2 wouldn't acidify oceans
That's not really a sensible chemical equation, but I figured you probably were referring to photosynthesis. Still, your comment doesn't make sense .. that equation indicates "acidifying" CO2 being consumed to produce something you claimed was basic (O2), so it contradicts your apparent point. Furthermore, that more dissolved CO2 leads to ocean acidification is basic chemical fact, that's why gkam brought it up.
tell us why O2 is a base
It's NOT a Bronsted-Lowry base, i.e. it won't raise pH .. I have no idea why you claimed it would, that's why I asked.
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 12, 2015
DLK, thermy, I was showing the sink of CO2 and the production of Oxygen. See CO2 if it is allowed to build up, is an acid. O2(g) is a weak base. If plants are removing one and supplying the other it reduced the pH of the ocean.
*sigh* you are SUCH a trollish nincompoop. If you are going to try to recite common chemical facts in support of your claims you need to get them CORRECT, not make careless statements that appear self-contradictory (like this last one, where you screwed up the direction of pH with acidity). However, by inference, I think I finally understand what you are trying to claim: you are saying that there USED to be plants in the "dead zones" that consumed lots and lots of CO2, and now that they are "gone", that's the source of the massive amounts of CO2 that are required to account for the observed changes in ocean pH? Again, do you want to run the numbers on that for us please? How much CO2 per cubic kilometer of dead zone are we talking about here?
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (15) Mar 12, 2015
Howhot!!!! I am not a denier.
I have a valid and uncontentious approach whereby man changes climate.
That is baloney .. it's HIGHLY contentious, because you pulled it out of your butt and can't provide a shred of scientific evidence to support it. You have shown some correlations between data sets, but failed to show that the magnitude of your proposed mechanism (humanities waste heat from industry) is anywhere near what is required to account for even a modest amount of warming, or ice melting, or whatever. Why? because it's about 4 orders of magnitude too small to make a difference: http://www.mpimet...te.html.

Did you really think that "your" idea was original, or that scientists had not seriously considered it before you? If you had bothered to look it up (took 30 sec with google), you could have saved yourself (and us) a whole heck of a lot of time.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2015
From now on you are DarkLordAnklebiter.

DLA, Yes, actually there is a black and white 1950's video that says just that. However the effect is about 1/10000 the suns. Axemaster or the VendicarD showed it to me. So yeah, I wasn't the originator, I only rediscovered it after it's been buried for 30 years.
But it was valid and strong enough at one time to make a documentary.

THRMEY! Do you remember my predictions for this Winter in North America using my brass bowl stepped up to account for N. American locals?

Will you kindly recount for the class what I said the Winter would be like, and assess how close I was to reality?

Thanks!
Hint, I wouldn't be brining it up unless...
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2015
No, I don't really want to run the numbers. The oceans sank the majority of the worlds CO2 in the 80s. I have no clue what they do now that we've injured them.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 12, 2015
No, I don't really want to run the numbers. The oceans sank the majority of the worlds CO2 in the 80s. I have no clue what they do now that we've injured them.


Alche/WB: Where is that place I told you to use something other than 7 atmospheres. You said I typed it so please point out where it was. I don't recall doing that.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 12, 2015
No, I don't really want to run the numbers. The oceans sank the majority of the worlds CO2 in the 80s. I have no clue what they do now that we've injured them.


So, Alche/WB, what was the reason you showed the sugar being produced?

What does the production of sugar have to do with PH? Are you saying that in the expanses of ocean where there are no dead zones photosynthesis destroys the CO2 before it can acidify the ocean?
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2015
Yes, actually there is a black and white 1950's video that says just that. However the effect is about 1/10000 the suns.
So you agree that it's miniscule then, even when compared with the ~1 W/m^2 of unbalanced solar forcing that's claimed to be driving climate change? So what's your theory then? How can an amount of heat that's too small to drive climate change be driving climate change?
So yeah, I wasn't the originator, I only rediscovered it after it's been buried for 30 years.
No, it hasn't been buried, it was PROVED WRONG AND DISCARDED! The link I posted shows people still ask think about it, and scientists still understand why it was wrong.
Do you remember my predictions for this Winter in North America using my brass bowl stepped up to account for N. American locals?
Did explain your methods, or just make predictions, like the Farmer's Almanac (which nailed trends in the northeast)? Did you predict the unprecedented WARM winter in the west and southwest?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2015
you are ...
@ALKIE/greggie
then we should definitely address you as prophet stultitiae or prophet mendacii (or even positum stultum prophetam)
my predictions for this Winter in North America using my brass bowl
you only CLAIMED it was due to your water bowl
MY link was FAR more accurate, as well as scientifically based: http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf
you still can't explain that one with your waterbaby
No, I don't really want to run the numbers
because it is direct evidence of your lies, right?

i will say it again

IF you were right AND
IF you had evidence AND
IF you could make the predictions you claim AND
IF you were an actual educated scientist AND
IF there was truly a fundamental error in the science
THEN it would be demonstrated by the retraction, deletion correction or OTHER changes to the STUDIES LINKED REFUTING YOU

there would also be a HUGE amount of publicity around YOU
is THAT clear yet?
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2015
No, I don't really want to run the numbers.
I can't say I'm surprised
The oceans sank the majority of the worlds CO2 in the 80s.
Another claim .. have you got a reference for this one? Was it just in the 80's? What about earlier? Why are you so sure the dead zones only started appearing/expanding in the 90's? Isn't it possible that we just got better at finding/measuring them?
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2015
Аctually why is this massive attack about the global warming? Every day about 3-4 articles on this theme on the front page? What is the idea someone every hour to remind us for it? Should people feel guilty that do not live in the stone age and use some facilities of civilization ? Why believe that global warming is man made problem? What if God decided the sun to shine more strongly in the last times, as is written in the Bible? In this book is written that the earth will wax old like an old garment.
In your book is also written that rabbits have cuds so what good is it?
gkam
3 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2015
Is it scary, like in the tales by the Grimm Brothers?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2015
DarkLordAnklebiter-
1/10000 of the Sun's output is about 1/10th of its 11 year cycle fluctuation. Calling it minuscule demonstrates just how little you understand about climate. After that, I'd be too embarrassed to post again.

Thermy-I'll tell you why it is important sugar is produced if you will repeat for the forum what my predictions were for this Winter.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 13, 2015
DarkLordAnklebiter-
1/10000 of the Sun's output is about 1/10th of its 11 year cycle fluctuation. Calling it minuscule demonstrates just how little you understand about climate. After that, I'd be too embarrassed to post again.

Thermy-I'll tell you why it is important sugar is produced if you will repeat for the forum what my predictions were for this Winter.


Alche/WB: I, honestly, don't recall your prediction. If you will point me at it I will gladly tell the forum what you had to say.

Can you inform us as to why my recall of your prediction has anything to do with your telling us why you showed sugar being formed by mixing CO2 and water?
DarkLordKelvin
4.5 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2015
1/10000 of the Sun's output is about 1/10th of its 11 year cycle fluctuation. Calling it minuscule demonstrates just how little you understand about climate.
Except I didn't call it "miniscule" except in comparison to other quantities that are clearly much larger than 0.0001 of the total solar irradiation that is ABSORBED by the earth's atmosphere (which is quite different from it's "output"). So how can that be wrong? Total human waste heat is about 0.03 W/m^2, unbalanced solar forcing driving global climate change is claimed to be around 1 W/m^2, and the total absorbed radiant energy from the sun is about 240 W/m^2. So how was my characterization unreasonable?
After that, I'd be too embarrassed to post again.
Seriously? After all your unsupported, nonsensical claims, and your steady stream of basic mistakes regarding fundamental concepts of physics, chemistry, mathematics, and atmospheric science, you are going to say someone ELSE should be embarrassed?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2015
Thermy, it is very simple, if CO2 is absorbed for whatever end, it is not available to make the oceans acidic. If you want to pretend I didn't mean photosynthesis, knock yourself out.
thermodynamics
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2015
Thermy, it is very simple, if CO2 is absorbed for whatever end, it is not available to make the oceans acidic. If you want to pretend I didn't mean photosynthesis, knock yourself out.


I am just trying to figure out what you meant, and you can include photosynthesis if you want, but I am trying to understand why you think that CO2 + H2O -> Sugar means that CO2 is not available to form carbonic acid in the oceans. Are you saying that there is enough photosynthesis to eliminate CO2 from the ocean where there are photosynthetic organisms?
DarkLordKelvin
4.4 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2015
Thermy, it is very simple, if CO2 is absorbed for whatever end, it is not available to make the oceans acidic. If you want to pretend I didn't mean photosynthesis, knock yourself out.
I am just trying to figure out what you meant, and you can include photosynthesis if you want, but I am trying to understand why you think that CO2 + H2O -> Sugar means that CO2 is not available to form carbonic acid in the oceans. Are you saying that there is enough photosynthesis to eliminate CO2 from the ocean where there are photosynthetic organisms?
Actually, I think so (I tried to post my interpretation, a ways back, if you care), and his point was that the plankton that USED to exist in the "dead zones" was responsible for "sinking the majority of the CO2 produced back in the 80's". As usual, he provided no data or other quantitative support for that claim. FWIW, I think it's pretty clear he was never claiming that CO2 reacted with seawater to produce sugar though.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2015
@Water_Prophet,

I would suggest you remind DLK that he was wrong about evaporation not having a cooling effect on the lower troposphere, and he was wrong about water vapor not delivering heat to space. Stick with it until he caves. It will be interesting to see if he tries to justify these blatant errors, or goes into a chatterbot denial loop.

gkam
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2015
DLK, he meant it. It was obvious he made a big mistake.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2015
Thermy, from my side everything seems to make sense. The oceans near shore are a profound absorber of CO2. The mechanism involved, plankton is a system greatly diminished by people.
http://disc.sci.g...es.shtml

If the above link is true, then this will prevent conversion of CO2 by plankton, and increase the acidity of the oceans. It will also decalsify oceans, probably animals. There will also be an effect on those "desert" regions of oceans.
It will also increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It has a neat chain effect when you consider the solubility of CO2, and that the ocean is no longer sinking it as well, the equilibrium has changed.
This, considering the gradient between indoors and outdoors, will tend to cause more cases of fatigue and headaches, particularly in the mornings.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2015
The oceans used to be able to sink more CO2 than man could produce. Why don't you AGW-ers worry about this?

Because the media hasn't mentioned it to you, that's why.

@Uba, I don't know what to make of DLK, his IQ seems to have dropped 50 points in a week. All I know is my ankles hurt.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2015
@Uba, I don't know what to make of DLK, his IQ seems to have dropped 50 points in a week.
This seems to be a common occurence with chatterbots. The more you engage with them, the more apparent it becomes there is no real intellect driving their end of the discussion.

All I know is my ankles hurt.
Not a spring chicken then, eh? Me too. But keeping busy helps me forget the little aches and pains ..for a time.

Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2015
Not a spring chicken then, eh?

@Uba, no, because DLK has been biting it!
saila
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2015
Physorg really needs to clean trolls from making these irresponsible and ridiculous comments.
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2015
The oceans used to be able to sink more CO2 than man could produce. Why don't you AGW-ers worry about this?
Used to? It can and it does sink CO2 as reflected by the pH of the oceans. It also can sink an awful lot of heat, which it can and does do.
Because the media hasn't mentioned it to you, that's why.

Ok, if you say so. Science is not normally influenced by media though. Usually its the other way around. Science is a little more rigorous and and dry uses journals, conferences and meetings to argue ideas. Once established then it the medias job to pic up the story. Much like phys.org is an outlet for science discussion with the laymen.

@Uba, I don't know what to make of your IQ seems to have dropped 50 points in a week. All I know is my ankles hurt.
You shouldn't grab your ankles that hard then,
The ocean heat has been plotted right here; Just scroll down to the Global Climate Dashboard, and select ocean heat. https://www.clima...maps-dat
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2015
Well howhot, if the Oceans still sinks 80%, then that is because the land based capability has diminished as well.

Oh, howhot, are you becoming offensive because you recognize what I tell you is the truth, and you are degrading yourself to the new deniers, aka AGW-ers?

You should remember I proposed ocean heat long before you were a proponent of it. And so riddle me this, if the ocean can sink so much heat, how can atm temperature be a good indicator of climate change?

In thermodynamics, they'll tell you straight out you need to know the temperature or deltas of each system if they are not in equilibrium or you don't know boundary conditions, etc..
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2015
Well howhot, if the Oceans still sinks 80%, then that is because the land based capability has diminished as well.


Well, Whiffen_Poof, let's see your citations in support of this claim.

Oh, howhot, are you becoming offensive because you recognize what I tell you is the truth, and you are degrading yourself to the new deniers, aka AGW-ers?


Nah,Whiffen_Poof, it's prolly just that he's had a gut full of your unswerving stupidiosity.

You should remember I proposed ocean heat long before you were a proponent of it. And so riddle me this, if the ocean can sink so much heat, how can atm temperature be a good indicator of climate change?


Pure claptrap. Oceanic heat uptake was known before you ever applied your infant snout to she-troll's dug.

In thermodynamics, they'll tell you straight out you need to know the temperature...


More claptrap. in order to measure change in sea temp, all you need is a time series of measurments.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2015
Cali-
I'll chose this article: The oceans absorption being down from 80% to:
http://news.natio...bon.html
which makes sense to me. Dead Zones be what, where and when they are. Sorry, I've been using 80% since the 80's, it was true then, I haven't checked it since. Why don't you?

Your comments contribute nothing and you talk about my stupidity?

Ocean heating, and global melt were my babys before you AGWers desperately adopted it for your own. Regardless, it is a position I hold, and AGWers adopted only recently.

Obvious you know zero about thermodynamics, or how to apply time series.
DarkLordKelvin
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2015
Cali-
I'll chose this article: The oceans absorption being down from 80% to:
http://news.natio...bon.html
which makes sense to me. Dead Zones be what, where and when they are. Sorry, I've been using 80% since the 80's, it was true then, I haven't checked it since. Why don't you?
Did you read that article? It says nothing about the amount of CO2 being currently absorbed by the oceans, all it says is that 48% of ALL the anthropogenic CO2 emitted since 1800 has been absorbed by the ocean. How does that support your 80% value?

Also, based on this article: http://www.giss.n...hall_03/

I can't see how your 80% number would have been known back in the 80's. That article says the first attempt to estimate the number was in 2002, and that was for a single year of data (1994). Finally, Fig. 2 from that article shows that less than half of anthro. carbon has been "sunk" by oceans on year-by-year basis.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2015
Cali-
I'll chose this article: The oceans absorption being down from 80% to:
[...]
which makes sense to me. Dead Zones be what, where and when they are. Sorry, I've been using 80% since the 80's, it was true then, I haven't checked it since. Why don't you?

Your comments contribute nothing and you talk about my stupidity?

Ocean heating, and global melt were my babys before you AGWers desperately adopted it for your own. Regardless, it is a position I hold, and AGWers adopted only recently.

Obvious you know zero about thermodynamics, or how to apply time series.


Did you recently suffer a stroke or something? Your posts are becoming increasingly disjointed, which only makes their stupidiosity that much more evident.

And besides, it is plain that you don't know your spotted trollbottom from a hole in the ground, much less the role of CO2 driven ice melt or marine heat uptake in climate change.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2015
Speak of the devil, this article claims the Southern Sea sink 60% of the CO2. Not an apples to apples, I sure, but there you are.

http://phys.org/n...tem-menu
DarkLordKelvin
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2015
Speak of the devil, this article claims the Southern Sea sink 60% of the CO2. Not an apples to apples, I sure, but there you are.

http://phys.org/n...tem-menu


Hmmm .. did you read carefully? What he actually claimed was that 60% of all anthropogenic carbon SUNK BY THE OCEANS (not total anthropogenic carbon) was sunk in the southern ocean. Just in case you think I am the one misinterpreting that quote, here is another paper that specifically studied CO2 uptake by the ocean, and you can see that in the abstract it says that the southern ocean takes up about half of all anthropogenic CO2 absorbed by the oceans.

http://www.tos.or...hi2.html
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2015
Silly Water Prophet. Maybe your ankles are hurting too? Is your trollbottom sore as well? Just kidding, we all know how you like to joke around a play stupid and trollish. In fact only about 24-25% of fossil fuel CO2 makes in to the oceans. Land and plant life absorbs a little more; about 26%, and 50% of the fossil fuel CO2 just accumulates in the atmosphere. This past week, the CO2 measure was ~401ppm. About 270ppm CO2 is natural background. The additional 131ppm CO2 is pollution from fossil fuel combustion since the industrial revolution and most of that came in the last decade. Well over 43% of that is from coal alone. And by ball park estimates, ~50ppm = 0.70C global temp rise and I get 1.8C rise since the industrial age. We are marching right towards 500ppm and because of the lag time, +600ppm is not out of the realm of possibilities when your grandkids hit their 40s.

If you want to leave your future a hot miserable world, keep on burning the fossil fuels.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2015
Perhaps if you you're biting my butt as well. But imagining you are right HH, then your figures don't make sense for Macadamia Nut Island.

I'd love to see where those stats come from, but you're not going to show them are you?

I have a fuel efficient car, don't use AC, keep my heat between 55-60F (unless it drives me crazy and can't sleep), and keep the lights and other power off as much as possible. I do this because I believe in AG change not idiotic warming because of a feeble gas. I am a proponent of green fuels, and you are guilty of stereotyping, just like you are guilty of unreasonable bias.
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2015
I have a fuel efficient car, don't use AC, keep my heat between 55-60F (unless it drives me crazy and can't sleep), and keep the lights and other power off as much as possible. I do this because I believe in AG change not idiotic warming because of a feeble gas. I am a proponent of green fuels, and you are guilty of stereotyping, just like you are guilty of unreasonable bias.


Look @Water, lack of logical thinking drives me nuts on AGW. Seriously, Senator Imhoff tosses a snowball on the Senate floor and shouts, "Where is Global Warming?" What an uncaring, selfiish and ignorant politician. Where is the truth, justice and the go go go of the American way? You may see me as some lefty liberal, but honestly I just a believer in the American system and want to see us do the right thing.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2015
So you think I am a denier who conserves energy? No, I am an environmentalist who thinks fossil fuels bad, and probably big oil, markets to confuse people into inaction.

People act when they are afraid, angry, etc., but no matter what, people don't act when they are uncertain. Which is exactly what a variable like CO2 does. People on both sides ping-ponging reality, all the while the oceans you go on about warm, and the glaciers melt.

See, those are the observables I have always been about the certain and provable. Also, the macroclimate. It's becoming more extreme isn't it?

Why instead of criticizing our differences, go with our strengths?
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2015
So you think I am a denier who conserves energy? No, I am an environmentalist who thinks fossil fuels bad, and probably big oil, markets to confuse people into inaction.

People act when they are afraid, angry, etc., but no matter what, people don't act when they are uncertain. Which is exactly what a variable like CO2 does. People on both sides ping-ponging reality, all the while the oceans you go on about warm, and the glaciers melt.

See, those are the observables I have always been about the certain and provable. Also, the macroclimate. It's becoming more extreme isn't it?

Why instead of criticizing our differences, go with our strengths?


Until you can grasp the the role CO2 plays AGW you can't be taken seriously.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2015
Vietvet, interesting insight into your opinion.
I act this way because I understand exactly the role CO2 plays. Indeed other factors.
Are you anywhere NEAR as committed for you phantom gas?
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2015
Alche/WBowl said:
Vietvet, interesting insight into your opinion.
I act this way because I understand exactly the role CO2 plays. Indeed other factors.
Are you anywhere NEAR as committed for you phantom gas?


WaterBowl: The fact that you say that CO2 does not play a significant role in Global Warming points out to anyone who has studied the subject that you really don't understand heat transfer. The mistakes you make when you

1) deride CO2 for its small fraction of the atmosphere.
2) show your ignorance of the wavelengths where water vapor does not overlap CO2.
3) show your lack of understanding of water vapor lapse rate.
4) try to get us to try your poorly designed experiments that you think are so clever.
5) try to blame sensible and latent heat from the industry in the world when it is inadequate to do what we are seeing with AGW.

Please point out how any of my 5 points is wrong. I am willing to engage you on any of them.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2015
thermy,

Is further discussion really required? you'll just claim that we never had the talk after you lose, sometime in the future.

I think everyone who isn't one of your sockpuppets (a brief list of SP: DLK, Stumpy, Caliban, Maggnus, Mike_Mansen, probably others) understands that there is a good bet that your 5 points are wrong simply because you are a proponent of them.
Water_Prophet
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2015
This is the reputation you and your skeptigoons have sown.

Tell you what, persuade a non-goon to engage me on those points, and I will go through them.

But here is an easy one, water vapor; 25% of the Earth has >~60x more water vapor than CO2. The majority of the rest has around more than ~20x, the driest desert, ~6x as much.

Water vapor has increased 435 ppm aka zero, CO2 135ppm, 3x less than zero.

The question really is, who exposed to this is really so stupid that they keep believing it?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2015
one of your sockpuppets
@ALKIE/greggie/profit
wow... you are the only one who has been demonstrated to be various log-in's (ie: sock puppets) and you claim, because YOU are a liar and cannot produce valid scientific references, that everyone else is also a sock
that is called transference

And i have irrefutable evidence that proves you are not only wrong
but obfuscating actual science for whatever reason you may have

it is this:
you have made various claims and insisted that your interpretations of the basic physics is valid

the only problem is
IF your interpretations were actually valid, then the studies that are based upon physics (can you say ALL of them?) would have to be altered or retracted

considering that there are NO retractions or alterations
logically we can see that you are a liar and pushing a pseudoscience perspective

now considering you also claim multiple degree's and knowledge, this means you MUST have an ulterior motive: $$$$

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2015
Whatever Maggnus.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2015
Is further discussion really required?
@ALKIE/greggieboy
obviously you do NOT comprehend the physics, because if you did, you would comprehend how epically you've failed already... with just a few simple studies which prove you wrong, an idiot as well as pushing a known LIE
starting here: http://www.scienc...abstract
you'll just claim that we never had the talk after you lose, sometime in the future
you mean like YOU have been denying the epic debunking Thermo gave you already?

you made ANOTHER claim re: water vapor/CO2 above
considering that the study linked debunks you as well as proves you wrong, lying as well as obviously incompetent (re: physics/chemistry) and it is NOT retracted or changed, then we can see that you are simply trying to (AGAIN) obfuscate the science with delusional beliefs as well as pseudoscience claims

want to make your point?
get the studies retracted... then you can talk about comprehending CO2/WV
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2015
So the thermo sock puppet lost and you sign on as stumpy puppet to try to save your dignity.
I am afraid we're on to you. You're quite a loser if you need to send your own sock puppets to fight your battles for you.

Who's next? Caliban?
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 18, 2015
...sign on as stumpy puppet
@Alkie/gregtyler/profit/prometheus
this is simple proof that you have to make distractions because of your inability to provide logical scientific evidence or studies supporting your "interpretations' of science

you know i am not Thermo, but that is why you posted that
to obfuscate your lies and try to distract from your lack of science/evidence

tell you what, besides answering THERMO above, lets look into some other questions:

1-WHY cant you provide valid scientific studies supporting your conclusions?

2-If your posts/assertions are based upon basic physics and you understand the physics and can't be wrong, then why aren't the studies retracted or revised with your details added?

3-Why can't you actually provide ANY evidence other than your "interpretations" of the physics and science?

4-why can't you provide proof of scientific knowledge?

5-why do you continually FAIL when pressed for scientific/math details?
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2015
So the thermo sock puppet lost and you sign on as stumpy puppet to try to save your dignity.
[...]
Who's next? Caliban?


Well why not, Whiffen_Poof?

It's actually quite amusing to watch you jackassing around here, self-congratulating over your imagined kickover of sacred AGW cows.

But then, there is the loathesome toadying, kowtowing, and sucking up to UBYMORON that you engage in...

By the way --how do you like being UBYMORON's cannon fodder?

We all understand that your continued, unrelenting displays of arrogant ignorance are merely symptomatic of your pathetic --and maybe pathological-- need for attention.

I don't know what has produced this need for constant attention, but I certainly pity you for it, and understand that it may actually be a cry for help, and the only cry that you are capable of making.

Seek help, and help will be given.

However--

No quarter will be given for denierside pseudoscientific jackassery.

So Science Up, WP.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2015
Son of a gun. Caliban shows up to fight for a losing stumpy.

Sheesh,I thought I was being facetious!

thermy can't win, so DLK shows up and embarrasses himself, so stumpy tries to distract us with drivel, failing that, Caliban shows up to distract with insults!

There are only five? real people on this thread?
howhot2
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 18, 2015
@water_mullah, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool.", Richard P. Feynman
.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.", Richard P. Feynman

We all need a lesson from Richard Feynman, but @water you need to listen especially closely. May I recommend the Feynman Lectures which are free and on-line at:

http://www.feynma...ech.edu/

It will be the best time you ever spent reading.

Second to that is David Bohm; who said "There is no reason why an extraphysical general principle is necessarily to be avoided, since such principles could conceivably serve as useful working hypotheses." If that isn't the Heisenberg uncertainty principle expressed in words I don't know what is!

Hopefully that will resolve your CO2 vs Water fixation on global warming. Then again you could be just funning all of us as personal joke.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2015
I've read the Feynman Lectures. If it is not still true, they are the basis for my undergraduate as well.
Though thankfully David Griffiths has made the subjects more intuitive and logical than Feynman did.
Feynman's were more historically written, where as Griffiths writes for understanding.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2015
I have a fuel efficient car, don't use AC, keep my heat between 55-60F (unless it drives me crazy and can't sleep), and keep the lights and other power off as much as possible. I do this because I believe in AG change not idiotic warming because of a feeble gas. I am a proponent of green fuels, and you are guilty of stereotyping, just like you are guilty of unreasonable bias.

Are any of you AGWers as committed? No, why? you don't really understand, so you have "maybe"s so you don't act.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed with more rubbish
Son of a gun. Caliban shows up to fight for a losing stumpy.
Sheesh,I thought I was being facetious!
thermy can't win, so DLK shows up and embarrasses himself, so stumpy tries to distract us with drivel, failing that, Caliban shows up to distract with insults!
There are only five? real people on this thread?
WHY is it Water_Prophet ?

WHY cannot you PROVE your claim CO2 is a "red-herring" "

Yet runrig, gave you a key formula - why can't u plug in the values & prove your claim ?

Evidence is clear, all you are capable of are snide remarks with NOTHING quantitative !

Where & when did u get those "4-technical degrees" u claim including Physical Chemistry ?

Your pattern is clear, when challenged you either claim qualifications or insult or diverge.

You are not worthy of being on this forum Water_Prophet & should be banned... !
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
Water_Prophet uttered
I've read the Feynman Lectures. If it is not still true, they are the basis for my undergraduate as well.
Though thankfully David Griffiths has made the subjects more intuitive and logical than Feynman did.
Feynman's were more historically written, where as Griffiths writes for understanding.
LOL !
You made an immense slip "If it is not still true", profilers love these sorts of slips as it goes to show you deem yourself either not to be an undergraduate or a failed student of not even finishing high school. There are so many other slips you have made, your claims you used google and the worst claim of all that you don't read citations !

No university graduate of any sort would ever write such rubbish !

Prove your claims re CO2 ?
Prove your claims re your "4 technical degrees" ?

Can U & if not WHY not ?

AND why should anyone ever read any of your posts ever again ?
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed and show even more immaturity with
Are any of you AGWers as committed? No, why? you don't really understand, so you have "maybe"s so you don't act.
So Water_Prophet, you don't act on the formula given you by runrig !

Why can't you plug in the values and thus PROVE your claim re CO2 being "red-herring" ?

Is it because it shows definitively its NOT a "red-herring" ?

If not for your ego based claims of "4 technical degrees" & obtuse tech claims,
then why the hell are you here - you obviously don't learn basics re Physics !

Why should you be allowed to continue to bark puerile childish rubbish ?
DarkLordKelvin
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2015
I've read the Feynman Lectures. If it is not still true, they are the basis for my undergraduate as well.
Though thankfully David Griffiths has made the subjects more intuitive and logical than Feynman did.
Feynman's were more historically written, where as Griffiths writes for understanding.


Nobody who has actually read the Feynman Lectures would say such a thing. Feynman is broadly recognized as one of the greatest physics teachers ever, and was known as "The Great Explainer". To say Feynman is not intuitive enough is bizarre .. he is usually criticized for being too intuitive, and not in-depth on the math side. Furthermore, the Feynman Lectures are a comprehensive physics text, providing an intro-level presentation of the state of physics knowledge in all sub disciplines (circa early 1960's). Griffiths's books are indeed excellent, but only a few topics are covered, and only his electrodynamics book compares with Feynman.
DarkLordKelvin
4 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2015
I've read the Feynman Lectures.


Otto: "Apes don't read philosophy."
Wanda: "Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it!"
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2015
for a losing stumpy...stumpy tries to distract us
@ALKIE/gregtyler/positum stultum prophetam
funniest thing you EVER posted
especially considering: I've posted studies supporting me (SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE PROVING MY POINT)
YOU have YET to provide ANY study supporting you
you have YET to provide ANY retracted, debunked or altered/changed study of mine
I've read the Feynman Lectures
doubtful considering what you posted (as DLK points out)

i also note that you are not answering my questions

THAT post is actually there to POINT OUT that you are simply trying to DISTRACT and obfuscate the actual science out there...

it is there to point out that, despite all your posturing, you have given absolutely NOTHING other than your own personal conjecture and "interpretations" of how things should be

IOW - you are pushing a pseudoscience RELIGION like jimmie k and his stinky perfume
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2015
Anyone who's read Griffiths would disagree. Simply by reversing some orders of presentation, explaining it less historically, more intuitively, E&M and Quantum become much more comprehensible.

His first edition was excellent and Feynman based, his second, stupendous, are you saying no one can improve the education process?

That is to anyone who understands them in the first place.

I suppose you prefer Jackson?
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2015
I suppose you don't know what a Jackson is?
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2015
Anyone who's read Griffiths would disagree...

His first edition was excellent and Feynman based, his second, stupendous, are you saying no one can improve the education process?

That is to anyone who understands them in the first place.

I suppose you prefer Jackson?


Alche/WaterBowl: No one I have ever met preferred Jackson to any other author available. Jackson is "Hard Core" and part of any physics curriculum during the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Anyone who claims a physics background gets a little line across their forehead when Jackson is mentioned. The book is available as a PDF on-line now if you want to wade through it. A great book on EM but dense.

I thought I would log in as thermo just to compliment my appearances as Truck Captain Stumpy, Caliban, Magnus, runrig, and any other folks you think I am (which I am not).
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2015
That's true Thermy.

I think it is so romantic the way you all answer each other's questions, and cover for each other when you screw up. It's like an offense to one is an offense to each of you, personally.

Back in the ignored box. Hope you enjoyed being outside.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 21, 2015
That's true Thermy.

I think it is so romantic the way you all answer each other's questions, and cover for each other when you screw up. It's like an offense to one is an offense to each of you, personally.

Back in the ignored box. Hope you enjoyed being outside.
this coming from the ONLY person who has been proven to be a MULTI SOCK puppet and lies about everything

nice

got any evidence to prove anything other than the fact that you are an idiot yet?

because you STILL have nothing scientific to offer other than your conjecture

and maybe some stupid remarks that are completely illogical and provide great fodder for a psyche study which demonstrate how the delusional think and how they cannot connect one plus one without going through la-la land
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 21, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
I think it is so romantic the way you all answer each other's questions, and cover for each other when you screw up. It's like an offense to one is an offense to each of you, personally
Y can't U qualify your claim re CO2 in Watts/m^2 ?

Just like Total Solar Insolation is in Watts/m^2.

You Water_Prophet, have been given the formula by runrig BUT refuse to prove your claim.

Y is it u make so many errant, feeble dogmatic claims with flawed maths, just like bad cults & odd ball crazy religions ?

Why can't u do Science - the Physics which is a necessary pre-requisite for your claimed "4 technical degrees" especially Physical Chemistry ?

Why can't you also prove your academic claims, is it because its NOT on your facebook page Gregory - only high-school - did u actually pass any physics ?

https://www.faceb....m.tyler

Water_Prophet, The Alchemist, Prometheus X

Claims ONLY from U, nothing ever definitive, so sad
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2015
That's true Thermy.

I think it is so romantic the way you all answer each other's questions, and cover for each other when you screw up. It's like an offense to one is an offense to each of you, personally.

Back in the ignored box. Hope you enjoyed being outside.


Predictably, Whiffen_Poof, your misshapen trollhands are only capable of half(or less) hitting the nail on the head.

What I --and I presume so many other PO commenters-- am so offended by is your stupidiotic antiscience profligacy.

Thousands upon thousands of words committed to this forum, and virtually all of it is mere trollblatt.

All centered upon your pathetic need for attention.

You should use your "predictive analysis" skills to discover the likelihood of your ever being welcomed here if you continue with your stupidiotic spotted-bottomed troll regime.

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2015
These are accurate to 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, where ever it is not obvious.

Ave Allocation Average Temp C
255 Watts/m2 -230 Sun
230 Watts/m2 -170 Earth's Rotation
194 Watts/m2 -87 Atm (Static)
144 Watts/m2 -34 Atm (Mixing)
57 Watts/m2 14 Atm(Equator Pole)
0.61 Watts/m2 16 Evaporation
0.15 Watts/m2 18 Water Vapor (According to AGWer)
0.043 Watts/m2 19 Clouds
0.00042 Watts/m2 19 GHG soot smog (air only)
0.00009 Watts/m2 19 GHG CO2
0.00003 Watts/m2 19 GHG Methane, etc..
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2015
These all happened within a week, week and a half if not otherwise indicated.

Date Property Atribute
12/5/11 wobble -rpm
9/22/67 hip -shake, in/out
6/17/85 table 5 -4, then 6
11/29/06 lockset -brass/SS(wasn't Elaine)
3/08/92 Albemarle -chevrons
3/5/82 guitar -ebony fretboard
7/7/05 hibachi -green
1/30/97 tow chain -class 6
5/9/61 Milton Bradley -tokens
10/2/75 Apollo -ablation(rutile)
11/27/06 Ballard -woodframe(shaded)

See how easy that is, Whiffen_Poof?

Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2015
These are accurate to 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, where ever it is not obvious.

Ave Allocation Average Temp C
255 Watts/m2 -230 Sun
230 Watts/m2 -170 Earth's Rotation
194 Watts/m2 -87 Atm (Static)
144 Watts/m2 -34 Atm (Mixing)
57 Watts/m2 14 Atm(Equator Pole)
0.61 Watts/m2 16 Evaporation
0.15 Watts/m2 18 Water Vapor (According to AGWer)
0.043 Watts/m2 19 Clouds
0.00042 Watts/m2 19 GHG soot smog (air only)
0.00009 Watts/m2 19 GHG CO2
0.00003 Watts/m2 19 GHG Methane, etc..

These reflect temperature in terms of Effect and Watts/m2.
I think everyone will agree with the hierarchy.
Caliban
4 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2015
These are accurate to 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, where ever it is not obvious.

Ave Allocation Average Temp C
255 Watts/m2 -230 Sun
230 Watts/m2 -170 Earth's Rotation
[...]
0.00009 Watts/m2 19 GHG CO2
0.00003 Watts/m2 19 GHG Methane, etc..

These reflect temperature in terms of Effect and Watts/m2.
I think everyone will agree with the hierarchy.


Aha -- very good of you to contextualize your little list.

Now --why don't you take the next logical step(difficult for you -I know) and enlighten us as to the reason for your publication of them.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
These are accurate to 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, where ever it is not obvious.

Ave Allocation Average Temp C
255 Watts/m2 -230 Sun
230 Watts/m2 -170 Earth's Rotation
194 Watts/m2 -87 Atm (Static)
144 Watts/m2 -34 Atm (Mixing)
57 Watts/m2 14 Atm(Equator Pole)
0.61 Watts/m2 16 Evaporation
0.15 Watts/m2 18 Water Vapor (According to AGWer)
0.043 Watts/m2 19 Clouds
0.00042 Watts/m2 19 GHG soot smog (air only)
0.00009 Watts/m2 19 GHG CO2
0.00003 Watts/m2 19 GHG Methane, etc..
Strange that Methane is claimed as less than CO2, clue the figures are wrong OR projected invalidly !

As ANY scientist who has ever graduated AND you should also know from being on this forum:-

What is the source of this ?

Did U use the formula supplied by runrig for CO2 ?

so sad
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (8) Mar 22, 2015
Caliban asked
Now --why don't you take the next logical step(difficult for you -I know) and enlighten us as to the reason for your publication of them
Ah its all my fault Caliban, sry !

I've been hassling the little fetus for months to prove his claim that CO2 is a "red-herring" even after he got a formula from runrig to calculate it easily he didnt AND it doesnt look anything like the figures appearing in his list !

NOW, we have a list from some unknown quarter with unknown metrics ie Are any of the gaseous values projected or per unit cubic meter equiv absorption - whatever.

Though something is obviously wrong as Water_Prophet claims CH4 is weaker than CO2.

How is that Water_Prophet, WHERE did u obtain this data & what are the metrics re gases ?

Observations welcome Caliban...
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (5) Mar 22, 2015
Well, Mikey, remember these are order of magnitude results, where it isn't obvious that they are otherwise.

Indeed, wiki says CO2 contributes 9-26%, methane 4-9%. That's in very good agreement with what I derived. At least in term of fractions of each other.

By the way this is overall contribution as concentrations exist in the atm., that is why CH4 is weaker. Though why you wouldn't understand that from the watts/m2 units I don't know.
DarkLordKelvin
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2015
These are accurate to 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, where ever it is not obvious.

Ave Allocation Average Temp C
255 Watts/m2 -230 Sun
230 Watts/m2 -170 Earth's Rotation
194 Watts/m2 -87 Atm (Static)
144 Watts/m2 -34 Atm (Mixing)
57 Watts/m2 14 Atm(Equator Pole)
0.61 Watts/m2 16 Evaporation
0.15 Watts/m2 18 Water Vapor (According to AGWer)
0.043 Watts/m2 19 Clouds
0.00042 Watts/m2 19 GHG soot smog (air only)
0.00009 Watts/m2 19 GHG CO2
0.00003 Watts/m2 19 GHG Methane, etc..


1) What are you even attempting to show with those numbers?
2) How did you arrive at those values?
3) Why do you think "rotation of the earth" should lead to heating?
4) Why is your total budget for radiative forcing (> 900 W/m^2) so much larger than total solar radiation absorbed (~240 W/m^2)?
DarkLordKelvin
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 22, 2015
[ctd]

5) How do you calculate those temperature increments?
6) Why is your "final temperature" 19 C, when the avg global temp is <15 C?
7) Why does 255 W/m^2 from "Sun" add 43 C to the temp, but 230 W/m^2 from "Earth's rotation" add 60 C to the temp, and 194 W/m^2 from "atm(static)" add 83 C?
8) Why do you say they are "accurate to 1 or 2 orders of magnitude"? Do you realize that means they could be off by a factor of 10 to 100 times?
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 23, 2015
Caliban asked
Now --why don't you take the next logical step(difficult for you -I know) and enlighten us as to the reason for your publication of them
Ah its all my fault Caliban, sry !

I've been hassling the little fetus for months to prove his claim that CO2 is a "red-herring" even after he got a formula from runrig to calculate it easily he didnt AND it doesnt look anything like the figures appearing in his list !
[...]

How is that Water_Prophet, WHERE did u obtain this data & what are the metrics re gases ?

Observations welcome Caliban...


Mike,

I couldn't resist taking that potshot at Whiffen_Poof for --with typical stuidiotic flare-- blandly tossing out that table sans attribution, motivation, or purpose.

Later on, he will claim that he initiated its publication(as some sort of Master Debunker Plan), and deny that you ever demanded it from him in the first place. Or maybe not, now that I've anticipated him.

Heh heh.

Cheers!
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2015
Water_Prophet claimed
These are accurate to 1 or 2 orders of magnitude, where ever it is not obvious
So as a scientist u confirm they could be out by more than 100x, in fact 499x because Doh, 2 orders is less than 3 orders (ie 1000) note in terms of median 499x may be considered to be less than 3 orders of magnitude ie 2

Slimey Water_Prophet stated
Ave Allocation Average Temp C
...
0.043 Watts/m2 19 Clouds
0.00042 Watts/m2 19 GHG soot smog (air only)
0.00009 Watts/m2 19 GHG CO2
0.00003 Watts/m2 19 GHG Methane, etc..
Why r yours NOWHERE near wikipedia's figures:-

https://en.wikipe...ings.svg

Do u see Water_Prophet Y its OBVIOUS u have no idea or faked the figures ?

Your CO2 & multiply by highest "2 orders of magnitude" ie 499 then multiply by difference in ppm ie 400-280 hey guess what !

U get close, now go back with algebra & get your actual magnitude error :-)

LOL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2015
wiki says CO2 contributes
@positum stultum prophetam/alkie
But i noticed that Wiki is not showing the CO2/WV cycle/feedback loop either
the STUDY i linked did

you are still a pseudoscience crackpot who never learns (sigh)
imagine that

i will say it again

IF you were right AND
IF you had evidence AND
IF you could make the predictions you claim AND
IF you were an actual educated scientist AND
IF there was truly a fundamental error in the science

THEN it would be demonstrated by the retraction, deletion correction or OTHER changes to the STUDIES LINKED REFUTING YOU

there would also be a HUGE amount of publicity around YOU
is THAT clear yet?

so far, your claims have made ZERO impact

if you are so sure and the physics are behind you, etc
WHY are you being ignored?
gonna claim a worldwide conspiracy again?

your Dunning-Kruger is showing

http://www.ploson...tion=PDF
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2015
Later on, he will claim that he initiated its publication(as some sort of Master Debunker Plan), and deny that you ever demanded it from him in the first place. Or maybe not, now that I've anticipated him
@Caliban
no, he will still likely try it

The (first) problem that he has with his short sighted delusional political goal (likely paid for by some black fund from big oil, etc) is that he is not well versed in physics or climate science

Thus he is actually believing his own rhetoric because of his Dunning-Kruger

The (second) problem he has is his refusal to acknowledge ANY studies because of his conspiratorial leanings and lack of experience with the scientific method

He says he works in industry... he may well, but THAT tells me he knowns JACK about the scientific method, or is intentionally forgetting it

he accepts only delusional personal data for his own interpretations of reality because of his idiocy and stupidity... much like another tuba we know

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

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