'Warm blob' in Pacific Ocean linked to weird weather across the US
The one common element in recent weather has been oddness. The West Coast has been warm and parched; the East Coast has been cold and snowed under. Fish are swimming into new waters, and hungry seals are washing up on California beaches.
A long-lived patch of warm water off the West Coast, about 1 to 4 degrees Celsius (2 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit) above normal, is part of what's wreaking much of this mayhem, according to two University of Washington papers to appear in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
"In the fall of 2013 and early 2014 we started to notice a big, almost circular mass of water that just didn't cool off as much as it usually did, so by spring of 2014 it was warmer than we had ever seen it for that time of year," said Nick Bond, a climate scientist at the UW-based Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, a joint research center of the UW and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Bond coined the term "the blob" last June in his monthly newsletter as Washington's state climatologist. He said the huge patch of water - 1,000 miles in each direction and 300 feet deep - had contributed to Washington's mild 2014 winter and might signal a warmer summer.
Ten months later, the blob is still off our shores, now squished up against the coast and extending about 1,000 miles offshore from Mexico up through Alaska, with water about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than normal. Bond says all the models point to it continuing through the end of this year.
The new study explores the blob's origins. It finds that it relates to a persistent high-pressure ridge that caused a calmer ocean during the past two winters, so less heat was lost to cold air above. The warmer temperatures we see now aren't due to more heating, but less winter cooling.
Co-authors on the paper are Meghan Cronin at NOAA in Seattle and a UW affiliate professor of oceanography, Nate Mantua at NOAA in Santa Cruz and Howard Freeland at Canada's Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The authors look at how the blob is affecting West Coast marine life. They find fish sightings in unusual places, supporting recent reports that West Coast marine ecosystems are suffering and the food web is being disrupted by warm, less nutrient-rich Pacific Ocean water.
The blob's influence also extends inland. As air passes over warmer water and reaches the coast it brings more heat and less snow, which the paper shows helped cause current drought conditions in California, Oregon and Washington.
The blob is just one element of a broader pattern in the Pacific Ocean whose influence reaches much further - possibly to include two bone-chilling winters in the Eastern U.S.
A study in the same journal by Dennis Hartmann, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences, looks at the Pacific Ocean's relationship to the cold 2013-14 winter in the central and eastern United States.
Despite all the talk about the "polar vortex," Hartmann argues we need to look south to understand why so much cold air went shooting down into Chicago and Boston.
His study shows a decadal-scale pattern in the tropical Pacific Ocean linked with changes in the North Pacific, called the North Pacific mode, that sent atmospheric waves snaking along the globe to bring warm and dry air to the West Coast and very cold, wet air to the central and eastern states.
"Lately this mode seems to have emerged as second to the El Niño Southern Oscillation in terms of driving the long-term variability, especially over North America," Hartmann said.
In a blog post last month, Hartmann focused on the more recent winter of 2014-15 and argues that, once again, the root cause was surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific.
That pattern, which also causes the blob, seems to have become stronger since about 1980 and lately has elbowed out the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to become second only to El Niño in its influence on global weather patterns.
"It's an interesting question if that's just natural variability happening or if there's something changing about how the Pacific Ocean decadal variability behaves," Hartmann said. "I don't think we know the answer. Maybe it will go away quickly and we won't talk about it anymore, but if it persists for a third year, then we'll know something really unusual is going on."
Bond says that although the blob does not seem to be caused by climate change, it has many of the same effects for West Coast weather.
"This is a taste of what the ocean will be like in future decades," Bond said. "It wasn't caused by global warming, but it's producing conditions that we think are going to be more common with global warming."
User comments
It will take a while to change it back, if this is the case. What has happened is that the driver of heat; gradients between the Equator and Poles have become diminished by polar ice recession. The oceans just aren't cold enough to drive anymore.
Of course we see a complementary effect with land, which heats up and cools down quickly-that and prevailing winds describe both US coasts adroitly.
It is obvious and predictable what is occurring, if we just think about it.
http://www.aol.co...70/?ncid
Pollutants of this kind are all over the world, they all have to do with fossil fuels. Yet CO2 is the primary suspect. So it is not persistent, so what, it has been constant.
Intuition isn't science. As for your comment:
"Of course we see a complementary effect with land, which heats up and cools down quickly---"
At least in California the land as not been cooling down quickly, nighttime temps are at record highs.
I'LL BELIEVE IT'S A CRISIS WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO TELL ME IT'S A CRISIS START ACTING LIKE IT'S A CRISIS.
1700 Private Jets Fly To Davos Discussion On Global Warming. http://www.breitb...warming/
RELATED: Related: "It turns out that global warming causes private jets." http://blogs.news...entists/
The Blobpocalypse!
------------------------------------------------
Yeah, .. Bush and Cheney screamed and screamed, . . from their reinforced bunkers and undisclosed locations!
Why are they not on your facebook page, not proud to qualify your credentials & achievements:-
https://www.faceb...er/about
Water_Prophet claimedNo, not "all about" you naive dimwitted liar of; degrees, material properties, claims of bots.
Crackpot Water_Prophet !
Science = "The disciplined acquisition of knowledge"
Its essential evolution arises from concerns religion & those with a loud voice made mere claims !
Now monkey don't be picking your nose...again ! start attending mental class first, then only you can begin thinking about going to kindergarden... ;)
Well, climate scientists are plenty worried about methane too, as it is an even more potent GHG than CO2 ~ 25 times larger radiative response, molecule for molecule. Furthermore there are VAST reservoirs of methane trapped as clathrate hydrates (many hundreds of gigatonnes of carbon) at the bottom of the ocean and in permafrost, which may be destabilized as global surface temps increase (the "methane gun hypothesis").
But you have stated many times that you don't believe in the GHE, so why are YOU worried about methane?
Just to demonstrate to those with an open mind--
If methane ain't doin' it, and water vapor ain't doin' it, and smog and soot and other from countries that don't regulate their atm. pollution ain't doin' it, then the very minor contribution from CO2 ain't doin' it either.
So then, maybe, when folks understand that warming is a secondary effect to climate change, and that changes in the hydrodynamics of the Earth are the primary, then...
:( Well, the above article suggests it's dawning on too late anyway, doesn't it? Big oil has had you folks jousting windmills, while Rome burned.
You didn't answer my question. Why are you worried about methane, if you claim it's not impacting global climate through the GHE? By which physical mechanism do you implicate methane as a concern re: climate change?
Water_Prophet mutteredYou are complete crackpot aren't you, your flawed logic is letting you down and everyine badly, PROVE your claim your figure for CO2 of 0.00009W/m^2 has some foundation ?
Water_Prophet with rubish unscientific rantsPlease take your meds urgently.
PLEASE prove your claim re CO2 being a "red-herring" and especially HOW you can claim your faked figure of 0.00009W/m^2 is somehow in "great agreement" with 1.5 ?
Can u, please have the intelligence & integrity to PROVE ?
That's a negative sir... he's still trying to find his way out of the silkworm box, but the wormies is scaring him to bits...
yes indeed, a little late maybe, but never too late, feel free to stay, you'll love the show and all future comments on climate topics here, i'm here to stay for good, and so are the clowns, makes for one hilarious comedy and clearly differentiates between the real scientists and politically motivated clowns hell bent on destroying the earth... and spotlighting how utterly stupid they are by being so empty headed thinking no one realizes their idiocy... (sinking their own ship deeper by the article)... you can see why i'll never leave this site... :D
Believe it or not, we're all in agreement about the destruction of our planet. We disagree to the mechanism, but CleanEnergy's comment is pretty powerful and worthy of deeper consideration.
That's why the nutbars get's qued... ;)
Destruction is a bit subjective here. I don't see building houses as "destruction"
Sorry. I don't believe "destruction" of our planet, at least via the climate change phenomena, is imminent. It's far more likely to happen through nuclear holocaust or a natural disaster such as multiple volcanic eruptions or a meteor strike. The Earth isn't going to be destroyed just because it has extra CO2.
Well, you can't be faulted for being born slow, or were you dropped as a baby?
Mental patients usually see it the opposite way yes...even when their on their meds... ;)
aahh gorrila sockpuppet popping up... dropped as a baby is nothing against a gorilla falling out of a tree... ;)
doesn't matter what you believe in, you get a resounding 1 out of 5 for your stupidity and that is self explanatory... ;)
Awww... was that your parents excuse after they deliberately dropped you?
Can't fault them for not wanting a stupid ugly moron.
Muttering Mike never took a course in Differential Equations to become a Meteorologist, I did to become an Engineer.......from your standpoint that must make me "more than smart" if you think he is "smart".
Gee, guess what: http://news.stanf...914.html
So much for it not being due to global warming.
Aww look, a middle school popularity contest... how adorable! There seem to be many of you passive-aggressive members who hide behind an anonymous rating system or make insult-laden posts toward those who don't believe your narrative. Unfortunately there are precious few of you capable of holding an intelligent conversation. If you're proud of that, by all means pat yourselves on the back. Reality couldn't care less how certain you are of imminent doom. You're simply joining the ranks of a growing list of the delusional... http://en.wikiped...c_events
You are quite right .. the Earth will not be destroyed, nobody has ever claimed that would be an outcome of climate change. Concerns over climate change are about livability of the planet for humans, and also the other plants and animals we depend on.
You know, I don't care what you wannabelieve, I'm just tired of all the strawmanning and the complete lack of science from deniers. If you got science, bring it. If not, STFU.
Then perhaps some need to be a little more cautious when they throw phrases like "destruction of the planet" around. To say the planet as we know it is changing would be accurate. But warming doesn't necessarily imply unsuitability for life. It simply means the life that is currently here will have to adapt with the changes. Populations that opt not to adjust will have the ability to move north and south (or to higher elevations) to remain in their native climes. Those that remain will use the tools of nature to adapt. If they can't they will die off leaving room for new species to emerge. I don't see anything dire or malevolent in this. Just a continuation of what has been happening for billions of years now.
naa... your daddy dum named you after a gorilla, evident when you post... why even your name hints at it... ;) (and the 1 out of 5 raitng rubs some added shine to it)
it is so much fun every time you post, you make everyone smile when an un-intelligent answer comes out of your snout, thats why i want you to stay... tomorrow we'll all laugh another day :D
here monkey monkey... another banana is yours.
Ummmm, natural selection operates by killing. Maybe you forgot.
Because there's nobody living there now. Oh, wait...
No, they won't, they'll use the weapons of war.
contd
Yes, life will go on. But we won't.
No, not really. It's only happened once before ever.
Naa simply a division highlighting the difference between the intelligent, the stupid and the dumb, intelligent people adores the way in which real science works and how brilliantly they are upvoted for their honest intelligent answers backed by imperical evidence (unlike the monkeys picking their noses when asked for evidence... ;) ...here you go monkey, back to mental school with gorilla and water monkey.... a.. a... aaaa, remember to turn the knob at the door this time, don't want no bumpy head patients in class tomorrow.... ;)
http://www.pbs.or..._04.html
http://www.biolog..._crisis/
BTW I misspoke above; it's not yet as bad as the K-T event, the extinction of the dinosaurs, much less the P-T event, but if this rate keeps up it will be in a hundred years. And if global warming has only just started, it's not going to just keep up, it will accelerate.
Furthermore, the big risk, as scientists have been pointing out now for a couple decades, isn't warming; it's ocean acidification. And we now have pretty good proof of that, from that article on here about the cause of the P-T event being ocean acidification.
We really needed to start doing something about this about 1990 or so, but SOME PEOPLE are still denying and obstructing and obfuscating. If we start now we still may be looking at losing 30% or more of the Earth's biodiversity. If we don't, we may kill ourselves off too.
Now that's the science, and that shows where the most gain is to be made. The effort will be extreme, but China MUST be stopped from building those power plants. And the only way to do that is to give them an alternative. THAT is the discussion we should be having, not smartass remarks about turning off lightswitches.
So, hypocritical much? Just askin'.
Deforestation is a concrete matter with a concrete solution. The vague "climate change" issue is not.
It's difficult to condemn China for doing something the West has done for a century and only began phasing out in the latter half of the 20th century. The United States still uses the most resources of any country per capita. http://en.wikiped...r_capita
Yet another strawman. It's not "deforestation."
And yet another strawman detected. I'm not condemning anyone.
contd
Still not one iota of science. You're just another denier, full of lies, tricky arguments that are logically false, and invective. Wake up, fool.
Good bye.
That this post got so many 5 star ratings is disturbing. It seems that even the most vehement AGWers would prefer to lay the blame for climate change at the feet of someone else and pretend their hands are clean. Our energy consumption is NOT irrelevant in the least. We produce nearly 3 times the CO2 per person vs. China. It means we are nearly the most wasteful and polluting people in the world.
http://data.world...M.CO2E.P
There is a lot we can do about climate change, and what can be done by human accelerated climate change has been extensively covered on this site, there's much more to this world than you living inside your little silkworm box with papa oil making you believe u are clever making false claims backed with pseudo science, when in reality, you and all your clown puppets are being proven dumb and stupid by the comment on each and every topic... ;)
That statement doesn't even deserve a reply. And how can people down vote a post with a couple simple, referenced statistics? Some of you are just.... bizarre.
first try to learn inside the silkwormbox ure in.. (i know it's hard..the way the wormies are looking at you and all, but you have to try... ;) leave thinking outside of the box for the real scientist people...
Bot voting. Believe it or not.
They never have dissenting opinions from another, and harass people like you and I, usually until they vacate the board. They harass dissenters so well, only people very confident in their science, if you will, survive long. Mostly by taking what a poster says and asking the "why's" like a two year old in an offensive manner. They rarely have anything inspiring or thought provoking to say and follow a website called skeptical science.com. http://www.popula...nce.html
Apparently these folks are getting creepier.
"interaction of dark matter"??
That proves it!
Ancient Aliens!!
Oh those silly cosmologists and astronomers! Always making things all science-y and complicated when there's a simple answer staring them right in the face. If only they'd thought to ask the Dunning-Kruger crowd, they'd be so much further ahead in their research!
What you fail to realize is that this is not harassment at all, but the way that scientific discourse is conducted. If you have a theory that is contrary to the accepted models of how things work, you should expect (and welcome) logical challenges to your idea, and be prepared to answer all comers in straightforward terms about how your model works. You should also expect that if you CANNOT answer such questions, or give answers that contradict fundamental physics, then your alternative theories will be dismissed for the amateurish pseudo-science that they are. If, after all of that has come to pass, you continue to proliferate the same debunked pseudoscience over and over, then any other scientific claims you make will likely be similarly dismissed.
Zarking pathetic.
Don't forget Runrig, Magney, and others to add to your list of socks. You have so cleverly determined that since we all have no respect for your ice bowl and unfounded assumptions we must all be the same person. Because, certainly, no sane scientist could miss the beauty of your blindingly clear argument. We bow to your amazing expertise... (of course that was me being as ironic as I can but still not completely covering the idiocy we know as WaterBowl/Alche/Greg...)
now now monkey... thinking inside the box won't get u to kindergarden yet, first get out the box, pass mental school then you can try kindergarden, but i'm here to help show everyone the cloens from the scientists..... ;) ;) ;) ok the ratings says it all but i like to rub it in for you bunnies are competing so well for that special nose wax i hand out for the clown that makes the dumbest comment... ;)
The wormies in your little silkwormbox are creepy looking i know... one day you might break the chains and discover life outside the box, just keep trying ;) but will give you a pointer (siding with big oil and politics will make them grow creepier) and in turn make you and your associates look dumber.
aaahh those one out of fives looks so good on your record, don't you shy away now little monkey...keep 'em coming ....
(It's rhetorical)
(Rhetorical means that the question answers itself.)
(So please, no answer is needed.)
(Because everyone knows what you are going to say.)
PA
THE
TIC
.
and Here's Helo demonstrating how wonderful a sockpupet he is for Mike_M. I don't even need to know what he wrote to know what he said.
Boys, or boy, if we already know what you are going to say AND it is not on topic, WHY are you posting?
Yes indeed, keep 'em coming, uhhhh
What was the article about again?
It's also odd to me that you assume that all the other people who criticize/debunk your "theories" using fundamental principles of chemistry and physics must also be "clones" of some sort. I guess it's all part and parcel of the Dunning-Kruger pathology, telling yourself whatever it takes to minimize the impact and importance of those who don't accept the validity of your "theories".
I am just curious ... has ANYONE with any sort of scientific acumen ever expressed support for and/or agreement with your theories on one of these sorts of anonymous forums? Or is it just you against the world?
Very many people express agreement with them, or at least can not derive solid arguments to counter them, much like yourself and your skeptigoons.
My principles are very basic, use only principles of physics and have positive direct correlations that are obvious.
Usually what occurs is I drive them down the road. Them with head-nods all the ways. Arrive at the conclusion. Then they revert to whatever they believe in the first place.
With prolonged contact they start to have my ideas as if they were their own. Howhot, thermo, runrig, and even Maggie have accused me of being wrong on some of the cornerstones of my basic arguments. To clarify; they tried to tell me I was wrong based on the principles I've been expounding. The oceans warming after polar ice has receded sufficiently, for example.
The Earth is buffered by so many things, the most significant of which WAS, was, was! polar ice/glaciers, which were very powerful. Now with their recession, particularly in the Northern latitudes, and I remind you heat/weather flows from equator to pole, the oceans have begun that burden. We see what happens.
And now, we are back on topic. Because this kind of thing in this article is exactly what heat, not CO2, and simple modeling of the Earth predicts.
I'll accept you awe now.
;D
Dude, it's not even science. It's simple addition. You don't even need to know how to reduce scary integrals; it's only accounting.
The usual case this clown can back absolutely nothing up with solid scientific proof... aaahh i'm starting to hand out more and more wax cans just as predicted, plenty more coming his way, here water monkey monkey... ;)
lol you cracked me up with this reply very well said DLK :D this clown is doing his own experiments inside his little silkwormbox while being enslaved by those nasty silkwormies he believes is watching him... :D
Score... man i'd better go stock up on some more nose wax, these clowns keep winning first prize like monkeys jumping at bannanas, and that...makes me smile.
Balderdash, as usual. "Wiki" says that total waste heat from anthropogenic power generation amounts to about 0.03 W/m^2. For comparison, "Wiki" (or at least "the google") also says this number is:
- 4 orders of magnitude (OM) smaller than total radiative power absorbed from the sun (240 W/m^2)
- 4 OM smaller than total back radiation due to GHE (~320 W/m^2)
- 2 OM smaller than radiative forcing attributable to non-H2O GHG's (~2.5 W/m^2)
- about 50 times smaller than radiative forcing attributable to CO2 alone (~1.5 W/m^2)
refs:
http://oceanworld...ance.htm
http://www.grida....r-06.pdf (Table 6.1 on p. 358)
So, "wiki" clearly shows that anthropogenic waste heat from fossil fuel combustion and other industrial processes cannot possibly be the DIRECT cause of global climate change, as you claimed.
http://en.wikiped...sumption
Calculate how much energy in Watts/m2, from fossil and Nuke. This is a simple unit conversion, divided by the Earth's area in meters-squared.
Now calculate for me that released by CO2. Derive it from concentration please, no ad hocs. Newton's laws or variations, please.
10 to 1 you scuttle away.
Now I know.
YES, it IS 4 orders of magnitude weaker than the Sun.
But, if it were equal, we'd no longer be alive.
If it were 1/10th more, we'd all be dead,
If it were 1/100th we'd all be dead.
If it were 1/1000th, eeh, I really don't know, it don't sound good,but since it's 1/10000 (or so), it simply and but subtlety biases heat upward.
Since it is released on the ground it is more profound than the Sun, if you compare apples to apples.
What was your username before, again?
If you want to know how the CO2 value is calculated, it takes more work than I am prepared to devote right now. It cannot be done from concentration alone; you need to do an integral over the appropriate IR spectral range, and also over a column extending up through the troposphere, accounting for the temp gradient. The ScienceofDoom website gives lots of details on how to do it here:
http://scienceofd...-effect/
It also addresses a lot of your fundamental misunderstandings about CO2 here:
http://scienceofd...map/co2/
Didn't do the math for CO2 either, tried to weasel out of it, blah, blah, blah, big predictable surprise.
I postponed answering because I have other (better) things to do right now ... I seem to you remember doing similar things in the past when you were too busy to engage with a complicated calculation for someone else's benefit. Furthermore, I told you exactly where you can get the information for yourself if you don't want to wait for me to summarize it here for you.
In short, you can revert to dismissive jerk mode if you really want to, but it won't help validate anything you have said here, any more than it did on other posts where I systematically dismantled your deeply flawed "theories", poorly thought-through arguments, and error-ridden calculations.
I'd also suggest the ScienceOfDoom series on atmospheric radiation that starts here: http://scienceofd...art-one/ . This would be useful for WP since he's indicated that he doesn't really understand that at all.
I might also suggest WP read up on the greenhouse effect (http://www.realcl...argument - but don't miss part 2, http://www.realcl...argument-part-ii ) because WP has indicated that he hasn't a clue how it works.
And, as a "physical chemist", WP might want the view on water vapor from the ACS (https://www.acs.o...co2.html ).
Or maybe he'd like to ignore the science some more ;).
It's been so long since I visited a pseudo science site, I forget.
Why is it I am always EXPECTED to teach you AGWers how to do math and calculations, and all you ever do is criticize as a prelude to pigeon chess?
The deniers are wrong, but at least they're educated.
Are you seriously alleging professors aren't educated?
Preposterous.
If you pay attention you can always tell what's really going on.
Next up, "jeffensley" claims it's too ridiculous to reply to in 3... 2... 1...
You guys do realize how transparent you are, right?
And how paranoid? I have no desire to watch half a billion Chinese die. I am an ethical man. I advocate giving you another choice that will save us all, and still get you what you need. And I guarantee you this: if you continue down the path you are following there are those who will express their racism by advocating your destruction; and you could have dealt with the ones like me, instead of the ones like them. You will regret this time, "jeffensley," and remember it as one of the times you could have changed things and survived.
You have it upside down. You are expected to LEARN math and calculations, although I guess after several iterations like this, it's becoming clear that you may be incapable of that.
Let's review this latest interaction:
1) WP made silly claim contradicting accepted science, with no explanation or support beyond "Wiki says so"
2) DLK explained why WP's claim was wrong, with reference to widely accepted measured values
3) WP ridiculed that explanation, saying it was wrong but without saying why
4) WP asked DLK to show how to calculate accepted value, using data from your "Wiki" link
5) DLK obliged, reproducing EXCEEDINGLY simple unit conversion arithmetic
6) WP claimed DLK's "math was wrong", yet again giving no explanation or details about why
Given your history of sloppiness and fundamental errors, it's up to you to produce something more than unsupported claims and snide commentary.
Yes, he is unabashedly claiming that ... it seems to be another aspect of the Dunning-Kruger pathology. When faced with the collapse of their precious "theories" under the cruel weight of logic, reason and facts, they could accept their mistakes and move on, discarding said "theories" as incorrect and useless. Instead they double-down, making increasingly bizarre statements that are even more obviously wrong, often in the form vitriolic (and ludicrous) attacks against the credentials of the actual experts in the field. After all, nothing is as powerful or persuasive to them as their own "enlightened" narratives, bouncing around inside the echo chambers of their skulls.
Incidentally, several posts above I saw similarities to Captain Stumpy, but since I wanted to see if Stumpy and thermodynamics were the same, AND you were the same, I accused your Stumpiness as being thermoness. See what I did there?
PA
THE
TIC
Why can't you prove/qualify ANY of your claims ?
1 "4 technical degrees" ?
2 Claim CO2's radiative forcing is 0.00009 W/m^2 ?
3 Claim wiki is in "Great agreement" with you ?
4 Why wiki shows 1.5 W/m^2 which is 16,666 X your faked figure ?
5 Business use your figures ?
6 You are a leader in "Predictive Analytics" ?
etc
Start with just ONE of these, from first principles PROVE your claim CO2 is a "red-herring" & your specific figure of 0.00009 W/m^2 has *ANY* basis in reality ?
Y can't U do that ?
Have been reminding you to prove your claim very often, Y can't you do that Water_Prophet ?
Heard of a kid who "cried wolf" ?
Your faked claims show you have nil credibility & are anti-Science.
ie. Science = "The discipline of the acquisition of knowledge" but, you Water_Prophet have NO discipline in ANY of your claims, Scientists can & do show workings but, YOU ignore & ONLY make idle feeble claims
Water_Prophet acts like a Pathological Liar !
Meanwhile trying desperately to redirect the conversation away from DLK/thermostumpy's goof.
I wonder how much more BS they will dump to cover it over?
Water_Prophet claimedNo. Reminding you STILL haven't proven ANY of your claims from long before any of your posts re bots, clones etc etc
Just start with ONE of your claims or thus be confirmed as a "Pathological Liar" !
http://en.wikiped...al_lying
Why must you imply you are the same Gregory M. Tyler here:-
http://en.wikiped.../RiskAoA
Publisher ?
When no such employment or degrees is on your facebook page
https://www.faceb...er/about
Why ?
Reminding you your behavior on this site gives you no right to expect an answer.
Reminding you, if there are any claims I haven't proven, expressly, it is because you like to post the above to the detriment of the site, or you don't have the neurons to understand them.
My facebook is set not to release information to people I don't know. That's not complicated is it?
PS Why, do you think Gregory M Tyler is special? RiskAoA is listed on my facebook, publicly.
Water_Prophet, you made claims in public re degrees doh, its that simple !
This is a Science site, now be a good little fetus & PROVE your claims, why can't you ?????????
1 "4 technical degrees" ?
2 Claim CO2's radiative forcing is 0.00009 W/m^2 ?
3 Claim wiki is in "Great agreement" with you ?
4 Why wiki shows 1.5 W/m^2 which is 16,666 X your faked figure ?
5 Business use your figures ?
6 Leader in "Predictive Analytics" ?
Start with ONE of these, from first principles, CO2 claim !
So, back on topic. As I showed, the 0.03 W/m^2 follows quite naturally from (your own) values of total power generation and the surface area of the Earth. If as you claim, my calc. is wrong, it should be trivial to point out my mistake. What part do you think I got wrong?
PA
THE
TIC
The ONLY pathetic one is Water_Prophet, who has NEVER proven/qualified ANY claims EVER !
Grow up or go away !
I vote Water_Prophet be banned, all he does is make idle claims obfuscating Science.
Water_Prophet has NIL integrity.
Water_Prophet is a Pathological Liar !
There are so many showing immense patience with you Water_Prophet, you FAILED yet again.
I can't tell if you are really this obtuse, or pretend to be for the pleasure of other viewers.
What I don't get is, if you're wrong, why keep playing the harp about it?
1 "4 technical degrees" ?
2 Claim CO2's radiative forcing is 0.00009 W/m^2 ?
3 Claim wiki is in "Great agreement" with you ?
4 Why wiki shows 1.5 W/m^2 which is 16,666 X your faked figure ?
5 Business use your figures ?
6 Leader in "Predictive Analytics" ?
Start with ONE of these, from first principles, CO2 claim please !
YOU stated CO2 was 0.00009W/m^2 BUT, why can't you prove/qualify or show working ?
Are you trying to claim Joules or some oddball integrative of Joules X Time - for what purpose !
The delivery of energy per unit time is POWER, do you get it now Water_Prophet ?
WattHours is ALREADY in Joules divided by 3600 secs per Hour, do you get it now Water_Prophet ?
Just what are you trying to show, you so easily for a trained 4 degree graduate, make stuff ups ?
Seems you just make stuff up ?
IOW Water_Prophet, you are an uneducated failure as a Pathological Liar & fail yet again !
1 Watt = 1 J/s
1 Watt-hour = energy delivered over one hour from 1 W avg. power = 1 (J/s)*hr * 3600 s/hr = 3600 J.
In your wiki link, they give energy (in W-hr) delivered over a year, which can be expressed as an average power since it's just (total energy)/(total time). That is the calculation I did for you, but it appears I gave you too much benefit of the doubt for being able to fill in the blanks for yourself.
Here's the avg. power calculation from soup to nuts in SI units:
(1.439x10^17 (J/s)*hr)(3600 s/hr) = 5.180x10^20 J
1 year = 24*3600*365 = 3.154x10^7 s
(5.180x10^20 J) / (3.154x10^7 s) = 1.643x10^13 W
Do you get it now, or do you still think I am wrong somehow?
You show you know NIL about radiative emissions, how can these/any planets possibly be below the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation level of ~ 2.7K - Capisce' ?
Heard of asymptotes, just how long do you thing it takes a planet to drop to below CMBR, LOL ;-) ?
Making more claims again Water_Prophet, without a shred of any thought, evidence or rationale ?
Why can't you have an original thought Water_Prophet, is it because you lack those "4 technical degrees" you claimed publicly, so you can't connect physics with maths with feeble intuition one bit ! ?
Please get a BASIC education in Physics, you NEED it desperately Water_Prophet
So sad, not one original thought, no education and above all a Pathological Liar !
O man watermonkey is really out to get proven, yet again to be as dumb as a rock... he gets his kicks by proving how utterly clueless and dumb he is, and so do i when i put the shine on his clowny nose... ;)
Now now, watermonkey is still in mental school, can't grow up yet, but only the classes he manages to attend without knocking himself out at the front door because of forgetting to turn the doorknob.
First he needs to understand how to turn the doorknob, then he can start with a kindergarden education (in short, it's probably not going to happen in our lifetime so i'll be having fun with this clown for a long time to come still) and so will everyone else..... :D
FFS then stop making stupid idle arbitrary obviously inane dumb uneducated claims that prove unequivocally you are WAY out of your depth obfuscating scientific process upsetting others !
You Water_Prophet are a complete ignoramus and doing Science an immense dis-service !
F..k OFF, get an education, learn integrity along with maturity and think before you post you d..k !
If I hear from you again I'm making complaints til you are banned - you dumb idiot, your posts you don't have "4 technical degrees" & your posts also prove U FAKED a CO2 figure of 0.00009W/m^2.
Water_Prophet you have NO credibility & have NEVER showed any value here ever !
Water_Prophet you are proven as a Pathological Liar !
Go away - permanently, no one accepts ANY of your LIES, you need to rest in a mental home asap !
Then disappear NOW as you are NOT welcome, or if remotely possible in years get earnestly a formal education as many here and become a true scientist and prove/qualify ALL your claims or don't f..king bother to come back ever, vamoosh, begone you complete IGNORANT d..k !
3/10th of the fluctuation, usually associated with sunspot changes. Why? Because fluctuations in the Sun's output have noticeable effects on climate. It fluctuates ~1/1366, of 255, are things in perspective for you now?
And you call me unethical.
There are only two places I can have gone wrong .. either it was with the numerical part, or else with the units. I showed you the units part .. do you think I made a mistake in there somewhere? Can you point it out? Or do you think I punched something into my calculator incorrectly? Why is this so difficult for you?
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg
show your claimed figure of 0.00009W/m^2 is WRONG !
AND
You have failed many times to prove/qualify any of you claims eg Degrees, CO2, persistence etc etc
Go away FFS & allow room for real budding scientists & the earnest who seek an education with integrity room to discuss so they are NOT distracted and misled by your failures of logic, maths & education !
FFS , p.ss off, you have repeatedly lied and failed to offer ANYTHING useful - EVER, wasting time !
No original thoughts from you Water_Prophet, work them out BEFORE posting, stop wasting time again !
0.03watts/m2 is correct. I thought you were contradicting me on the 3/10th being .3. Given your history, you can see why I'd assume you were wrong.
and so
255watts/m2 /1366 is the fluctuation, of the Sun, which implies 0.2 watts/m2 drives noticeable climate change which means that 1/10th of it or ~0.03watts/m2, is going to produce climatic effects. Especially since it is an addition at ground level.
I think I got confused between your assertions and Mikey's idiocy. You can see how I might do that.
I think it will also convince you of quite a bit of error in wiki's 1.5watts/m2. That would mean it is above the Sun's fluctuations.
Now think about what insulation on that order of magnitude would MEAN, and if you are a reasonable person, this should change your opinion.
Let's leave it there for now .. did I understand what you were trying to show correctly?
The Sun fluctuates by 1/1350 or so, it is not the distance from Earth, it is the Sun's energy out put. It puts out more or less energy in cycles. Therefore, order of magnitude, climate is easily affected by 1/1350 of the Sun's 255watts/m2 to Earth. http://en.wikiped...data.png
This is pretty conservative to my arguments, considering the Sun's total isolation.
If you can find me one expert on either side of the climate debate who will tell you otherwise, I'd love to hear it. Because I've spoken with hundreds, both quantitatively familiar with the Sun's contribution's (a handful of those hundred) and just familiar with them.
Anyone, even wiki and it's associated source claiming there is an effect greater than this is touting propaganda.
Water_Prophet claimedNO !
It does NOT, smarter people than you have worked this through & although I appreciate the maths, it is not currently in my focus to derive it at length but, it seems valid.
Water_Prophet offer a basic fundamental as to WHY it might NOT be correct, heard of natural logs & WHY they are per-eminent in these function types.
Water_Prophet statedObviously !
Water_Prophet claimedYou mean uneducated, manipulated by your brand of 'intuitive'.
Go away please !
There are so many areas you have FAILED at immensely, you f..king pr..k !
Go away, you are wasting everyone's time you uneducated LIAR of a d..k !
Why do you bother to make stupid unoriginal claims:-
1. "4 technical degrees" ?
2. CO2 is only 0.00009 W/m^2 ?
3. Business uses your results ?
PROVE EVEN ONE OF THEM !
Why can't you ?
Try CO2 of 0.00009W/m^2, thats easy its only maths, not years of study at a university like educated !
Go away, please !
Ok, I understand what you were trying to say now .. fluctuation is +/- 0.5 W/m^2 out of 1366 W/m^2, and you just applied the ratio (1/1366) to the absorbed power to come up with 0.2 W/m^2 (really +/- 0.1 W/m^2). That much seems fine, but I'll just mention again that I don't agree at all with the conclusions you draw from that number relative to 0.03 W/m^2 from anthro sources.
I guess we need to tackle the details of the CO2 calculation so you can see why 1.5 W/m^2 is reasonable. it would help if you read up on those ScienceOfDoom links first. I have stuff to do for the next several hours, but I'll try to get back to it tonight.
The Sun's fluctuations provide an excellent baseline for the magnitudes of energy required to create climate change. Think about it, if the Sun changed significantly more or less, life on Earth would be dramatically different. Even a little and climate would be markedly different.
Something that adds, not just cycles, more than these effects MUST have profound and inarguable effects on climate. Since people continue to argue, it don't pass.
I think you should integrate the new information you've just learned before I re-read "Science of Doom" propaganda. For example, the world ain't gonna be doomed, regardless.
Strange thing is Water_Prophet's claim of 0.00009W/m^2 is in "great agreement" with wiki's 1.5 W/m^2 despite Water_Prophet's being 16,666 times LOWER.
Frankly DarkLordKelvin, Water_Prophet is playing with you & will waste your time, sorry but the evidence of his pattern is historical :-(
Why Water_Prophet can't you prove it, you mislead :-(
i have a solution for watermonkey, next time you go to mental class, wear a crash helmet, at least it will spare u a few brain cells... mind you.... are there any left... ? lol.... ;D
I can forgive you pretty easily though, it is not like this very basic information enters into the mainstream, media, etc..
And how could it really? Journals don't usually report old news. It must be in some way novel. What would the report to Geophysical Letters look like? "Solar Fluctuations still affecting Climate." LOL.
Anyway I would like to know how this new info affects your world view, much like the Homosphere should have.
However, before you go, one courtesy. Allow me to know how knowing this information, that CO2 is supposed to be 10x more powerful than solar variations and that fossil fuels energy emissions are right where they need to be to cause what we see, had affected your perspective.
Here is a good example of how WaterDummy actually does learn things now and then and then he pretends it is obvious to him and draws really stupid conclusions from good data. On May 7 2014 I learned about the homosphere and taught it to Alche. He still doesn't understand it but he thinks he does and thinks it helps prove CO2 is not important. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Here is where I learned about and taught WaterBowl about the homosphere.
http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
In fact, it shows why CO2 is important for holding heat in the atmosphere. Alche/WaterBowl just has no idea how radiative heat transfer works.
http://en.wikiped...transfer
I am pretty sure you couldn't understand it to save you life, but upon inspection, for me, I input water vapor and contrast it with CO2, and come up with my usual conclusions. Why can't you do that?
Why is it you didn't acknowledge that the homosphere's mechanics worked against your position? They worked great for mine.
Anyway, since you can't be mature enough to answer as DLK, but have to obfuscate as your sockpuppet... I guess anything to not admit you learned something contrary to your opinion.
Your point is a staple of the denier camp, to wit: nothing man-made can ever have more of an environmental impact than the sunspot cycle. It's just as arbitrary and wrong when you say as when they do. It's not like the solar fluctuations aren't well-understood AND incorporated into the models. Please read this link from the American Chemical Society, playing particular attention to the figure at the end.
https://www.acs.o...ing.html
Also, why do you accept measurements and models from some scientists and not others? Solar cycle:right, but CO2 forcing:wrong?
Why is it you didn't acknowledge that the homosphere's mechanics worked against your position? They worked great for mine.
Anyway, since you can't be mature enough to answer as DLK, but have to obfuscate as your sockpuppet... I guess anything to not admit you learned something contrary to your opinion.
It would be nice for someone to consider that my crack-pot understanding of physics lead me to be adamant about climate change, many many years before it was popular or accepted.
We can come back to radiative forcing if you like, but if you are a M. Phys, then taking it down to two gases should make it very easy for you.
But in the meantime, we are talking about the ~0.03Watts/m2 from fossil fuels, the 0.18Watts/m2 from solar fluctuations, and some how ~1.5watts/m2 being something to be taken seriously.
I am going to go back to being civil, and I hope you forgive previous transgressions. Please respond as DLK, and only DLK. If one of the other blocked folks has something interesting, you will have to reprint it.
But to keep objectives clear, the object is to demonstrate that 1.5watts/m2 is inline with observations, instead of a spurious number needed to show it's more important than other factors.
Honestly, I am not sure how you'll do it; cycled 0.18Watts/m2 has profound effects, a "DC offset" of 1.5Watts/m2 should be killing us. The Sun after all brings us from 2.7 K to ~298K... if you see what I mean.
http://www.latime...ory.html
Water_Prophet mumbled about knowing "..fuels energy emissions are right.." yet as before there is NOTHING to prove or even qualify such naive claim.
Water_Prophet implies he knows there is a proven relationship between observed climate change & the heat generated by fossil fuel use but, again, Water_Prophet has never shown such working.
Isn't it better to directly challenge those that make claims re Science so the momentum of the progress of Science is NOT obfuscated by the immature ?
It is mature & correct to challenge
Where is there anything Water_Prophet can show which proves his claim "should be killing us" ?
Water_Prophet claimedNot by itself obviously, this is one reason I urged Water_Prophet to look at Mars where CO2 is high, solar insolation is less than Earth and Mars has negligible atmospheric mass ie its pressure is less than 1psi, yet still even after all this Mars can reach 20 deg C in the shade...
Wouldn't it be far smarter for Water_Prophet to focus on the Science & the highest ethic of the process which demands some discipline ?
This is why you must focus on the Science and please not bring this down to a level of wrestling, I think that is beneath your best ethic and mature intentions.
The point has been made & perhaps you missed it in your absence that Water_Prophet has changed his position, that in conjunction with addressing claims is a worthwhile exercise because, as I have stated, the younger naive & still uneducated read these posts and it is helpful to them to ensure we address claims and where possible maintain the accuracy of the progress of Science.
Da Schneib, you can ignore Water_Prophet & probably best you also ignore my posts by using the button please, cheers
Mike, you don't lie, so I won't ignore you- and I think I made my point, so I'll drop it now if you will. But I hope you'll remember that feeding a troll makes them troll more. The only way they stop trolling is if they don't get fed.
There's even an acronym for it: DNFTT. Do Not Feed The Trolls.
The silkwormies are looking at him strange... thats why he sees things differently and imaginary... come now monkey you have to first try and overcome your silkwormy monsters before u can step outside the box... i know it's hard.. but with the help of the clever peoples at mental school you can overcome anything and see the light, you can do it.... ;)
Once you understand the concepts therein, we can discuss the details of how the CO2 value is calculated. It will also make it clear why the stuff you are claiming about the supposed "profound" effects of 1 W/m^2 peak-to-peak fluctuations from the 11-year solar cycle are non-sensical. That effect is understood and accounted for, and it is negligible (thus so is the smaller direct heating from human waste heat).
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
But he ignored it, despite it being a fair rendition of the issue of vibrational states & re wavenumbers which can be superimposed upon spectra etc, Anyway, worth activating various interactive options
Unfortunately Water_Prophet has egotistically claimed "..I don't read citations" in earlier posts going back few months but, also claimed to put me on 'ignore' ostensibly for reminding him often of his refusing to prove/qualify *any* of his claims, I wish you better luck, I hope its nothing more than minor personality clashes or idiosyncrasies etc
It has the same fallacy propagated OUTSIDE the IPCC. That somehow lifetime is important to the Green House Effect. While lifetime is important in the dynamic case. It means nothing in the steady state.
For example, CO2's concentration is pretty stable year by year, and changes in the Earth's temperature are relatively stable year to year. Water vapor's concentration has essentially not changed, (nor has CO2's).
Now methane and etc., their life time is important . They don't last forever, therefore a time integral is important.
So now I've read it, it says zero about proportion. There is still no way that 1.5watts/m2 will not cause tremendous impact to the climate, short term.
How much of that is diffused by high altitude GHG? Thus effectively repulsed.
How much is diffused by low alt GHG? Thus absorbed.
Now, the absorption band of CO2 is very narrow. What fraction of the thermal spectrum does CO2 absorb? Now Water Vapor has only two relatively broad bands, BUT, if you will regard it's absorption spectrum, it never really goes to zero, and has about 4% competition with CO2 in CO2's band, at EQUAL concentrations.
Now, if you are a mathematical physicist, it should be trivial for you to take an average ppm for humidity, 20000ppm is pretty good, discounting the tropics, and use 400ppm for CO2, and calculate just how small CO2's contribution is.
~50% in it absorption band. Elsewhere, it has zero and water predominates.
Then, consider that this 50% is as is NOW, which means, back when it was 280ppm...
If yes, then you have troubles, if no, you have nothing.
Water Vapor, then has increased 435 ppm, and so on and so on.
The multiple compounding fallacies of CO2 should be making your head spin about now.
Doesn't 0.03Watts/m2, or 3/10 of the Sun's Fluxes explain so much more now?
CO2 should insulate, for example, are changes in climate consistent with insulation? Aka warmer, but milder, like in your home?
Or are they more consistent with heating without (sorry the analogy weakens) insulation? Is weather becoming more extreme.
Alot to chew on.
This is all your delusion. If you set it aside (at least temporarily), open your mind and read the actual science from actual scientists on the links that have been posted for you, you will at least have a chance to understand why it is so wrong-headed.
You are under the impression that I haven't read or re-read your science of doom under that name and many other tedious pseudo-and propaganda sites many many times before.
Pardon the laughter, I just find it very amusing you seek to segue to propaganda sites rather than take the questions and assertions head on.
I mean I can generate statements that take my own assertions on. The laughter is because you can't.
Take Da Scnieb's advice. Or open your own mind. Because it could very well be I am wrong. But the facts above leading to my conclusion are not. At least most ways I can see.
The reason I am not engaging is that you haven't posted anything worth discussing yet .. just the same very basic misunderstandings that you have posted before, and could dispel for yourself with a couple of hours of careful reading and reflection. Also, you just spewed out about a dozen different things .. if you really want to talk about them, at least pick a favorite to tackle first.
Somehow boring, decade old GW propaganda is worthy of attention, yet details you admit you didn't know are "not worth engaging."
Let me apply my own primitive psychology.
You've been confronted with details that make you uncomfortable, rather than face them, you run for the warmth and shelter of the familiar.
Water_Prophet failed to understandWrong. The 1.5W last second has a portion added to the 1.5W upon the next second ie Cumulative esp also as CO2 is rising !
Water_Prophet claimedWRONG !
Evidence, that means actual measurements are completely against Water_Prophets stupid uneducated claims:-
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2
Why can't Water_Prophet understand simple concepts & measurements, is he sane ?
continued
http://woodfortre...esrl-co2
Water_Prophet shows he doesnt understand scale re current consequences of ocean heating withIs there ANY Evidence for Water_Prophet's claim ?
What does Water_Prophet imagine is the definition of "short term" re climate, perhaps 300 yrs ?
When will Water_Prophet get Physics ?
Water_Prophet askedHe forgets the frequency is absolutely important & an imperative in terms of absorption & re-radiation !
Large amount of energy from Sol is short wave (SW) visible which mostly passes through GHG's unaffected, whereas Earth's surface converts SW to long wave (LW). This is something I have repeatedly advised Water_Prophet he learn but, still FAILS to understand, see link at end !
Water_Prophet askedHe has been shown answer many times, is he mentally ill or does it appear he is just trying to be irascible ?
Details are here:-
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
Water_Prophet claimsNo.
You need to use the correct formula because relative figures are WRONG, one must calculate properly as ANY trained "Physical Chemist" SHOULD know and manage easily !
Water_Prophet claimsNo, claims need to be proven/qualified !
This is why education in Physics is so VERY important for AGW deniers !
http://en.wikiped...transfer
NN: Link quoted by Water_Prophet yet its clear he has not been able to plug in the numbers despite his claim of "4 technical degrees", we can sympathise because Water_Prophet always has immense problem proving ANY of his claims & the maths is beyond high school level !
But why did Water_Prophet, not go through the link offered by DarkLordKelvin ?
Water_Prophet CANNOT appreciate the simple log formula given to him by runrig is the ADDITIONAL radiative forcing beyond a baseline of ~280ppm !
This is just one of the problems with Water_Prophet, he cannot focus on a straightforward scientific point and still continues to make arbitrary claims centered around his ego.
Its clear DarkLordKelvin, that Water_Prophet hasn't read the link you offered or even considered in any depth his own link from wikipedia:-
http://en.wikiped...transfer
Hypocritical for Water_Prophet to offer as he's claimed wikipedia is only propaganda !
Good luck DarkLordKelvin, I wish people like Water_Prophet would NOT obfuscate and make idle stupid claims affecting others but, instead focus on essentials.
Thanks for your efforts so far.
I will also be looking for a full evaluation of CO2's R forcing for below the 280ppm baseline.
The biggest blunder Water_Prophet made was to claim CO2's radiative forcing was only 0.00009W/m^2 AND claimed this very small figure is in "Great Agreement" with wiki's which is 16,666 times LARGER !
https://en.wikipe...ings.svg
Why can't Water_Prophet show his working, high school kids can for their maths but, not him !
Clear evidence Water_Prophet's ego exceeds any good sense or even BASIC arithmetic !
So sad, Water_Prophet has been here long enough to come to grips with all physical properties of major GHG's yet FAILED dismally to understand :-(
So sad
You're confused, Never claimed to be a meteorologist, if you imagine I did - Prove it please ?
As Benni claims engineering, here for comparative reference my academic credentials here:-
http://niche.iine.../physorg
You can ph Curtin University in Perth, Western Australia or email & ask them to email me (ie privacy provisions), so full circle so you won't make stupid claims again, sigh...
Benni clamsReally ? name of institute & year started please ?
Thanks for the nice comments HeloMenlo, I do try to focus on the essentials but, still need to learn more effective ways to pass on key Science issues world needs Eg 1. Science Communication, I put DarkLordKelvin squarely ahead of me in that regard. I get impatient too often...
Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more