Heat still on despite warming slowdown

Earth
A composite image of the Western hemisphere of the Earth. Credit: NASA

The recent slowdown in the rise of global average air temperatures will make no difference to how much the planet will warm by 2100, a new study has found.

The peer-reviewed study, published today in Nature Climate Change, compared that capture the current slowdown in warming to those that do not. The study found that long-term warming projections were effectively unchanged across the two groups of models.

"This shows that the slowdown in global warming has no bearing on long-term projections - it is simply due to decadal variability. Greenhouse gases will eventually overwhelm this natural fluctuation," said lead author and Chief Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Prof Matthew England.

To separate the long-term temperature outcomes from short-term variability the researchers took 200 climate simulations and re-evaluated them out to 2100 by comparing those that captured the current slowdown to those that did not.

The models were analyzed using one of two IPCC carbon emission projections.

The first was a scenario where greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise unabated through the 21st Century. The second assumes emissions are reduced to address global warming, peaking by 2040 before declining sharply.

Under the high emissions scenario, the difference in average projected end-of-century warming between the two groups of models is less than 0.1°C; a tiny fraction of the projected 5°C global warming if emissions are not curbed.

Warming of this magnitude is well beyond the 2°C threshold that is considered a target by the Australian Government and a safe limit by the IPCC.

In the past, certain lobby groups have tried to argue that the recent slowdown in the rise of global average temperatures is a reason to abandon international and national efforts to curb carbon emissions.

This study shows the slowdown merely reflects short-term variability. Long-term global warming is still set to reach dangerous levels unless carbon emissions are reduced dramatically in the coming decades.

"Our research shows that while there may be short-term fluctuations in global average temperatures, long-term warming of the planet is an inevitable consequence of increasing ," Prof England said.

"This much hyped slowdown is just a distraction to the task at hand".


Explore further

Global warming progressing at moderate rate, empirical data suggest

Journal information: Nature Climate Change

Citation: Heat still on despite warming slowdown (2015, April 23) retrieved 25 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2015-04-slowdown.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
81 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 23, 2015
The "pause" in glowbull WARming is old enough to vote!!

You climate blame "believers" deny science's 97% certainty and the last 34 years of failure at achieving the climate action targets needed to save the planet 25 years ago.
Only more uncertainty, more global disbelief and climate action failure are certain and "unstoppable" now.
*Occupywallstreet now does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded and corporate run carbon trading stock markets ruled by trust worthy politicians.

Apr 23, 2015
Now you're just silly.

Go to Free Republic, where the goobers will believe you.

If they don't, just start screaming "WMD!" from some "Undisclosed Location".

rgw
Apr 23, 2015
Thank the gods that there will be no more volcanic eruptions! Only mindless goobers think that devices not psychotic individuals are the most dangerous elements of WMD.

Apr 23, 2015
You have to wonder about the ability of the green lobby to predict anything. The dismal failure of long term water planning in Calif. highlights their ignorance. Calif. approved a trillion dollar high speed green railway but no substantial water projects. They have managed to protect the Delta Smelt but cannot protect the citizens from a catastrophic water shortage!

Apr 23, 2015
It does seem to me that every day this web site needs to post at least one more global warming propaganda piece. We really don't know how much influence humans have on the Earth's climate - it is all just conjecture and circumstantial evidence. We should just record and observe without any pre-conceived ideas about cause.

rgw
Apr 23, 2015
Scream and leap!!!

Apr 23, 2015
Running endless simulations with the same flaws doesn't prove anything about the climate they intend to predict, but will eventually add so much CO2 to the atmosphere that we can't breathe without suffocating.

Apr 23, 2015
Almost as hilarious as a climate satellite launch that almost hits a climate conference near the South Pole.

Apr 23, 2015
"Running endless simulations with the same flaws doesn't prove anything about the climate they intend to predict,......"

I don't think that they run the same simulations over and over again. I am sure that they see the results of the last simulation, determine the results that they are trying to obtain and make the appropriate changes.

Apr 23, 2015
It does seem to me that every day this web site needs to post at least one more global warming propaganda piece.
Errr, propaganda's politics, not science. This article is about science.

We really don't know how much influence humans have on the Earth's climate - it is all just conjecture and circumstantial evidence.
That's wrong. We know how much CO₂ we're emitting- look in any decent almanac, and look up fossil fuel consumption; it's simple accounting from there. We've correlated that with the measured increase in CO₂ in the atmosphere. We know the spectrum of CO₂, it's a matter of physical fact. We know the Earth's blackbody temperature, we can measure it with satellites and, of course, from the ground. We know how much heat the Sun puts in, from satellites. And we know how much heat comes out, again, ditto. If the heat going in is greater than the heat coming out, it's gonna get hotter. Simple thermodynamics.

Apr 23, 2015
Running endless simulations with the same flaws
Please specify these "flaws" you are claiming. Please indicate why thousands of professional geophysicists haven't found them. Please indicate why these climate models work with Earth's past climate but won't work with its future climate (you do realize they test these things, right?).

Finally, please indicate how, if the amount of heat being radiated by the Earth is less than the amount it receives from the Sun, it's not going to get warmer. You do realize we have satellites and can measure this stuff, right? You know, space rockets and stuff?

Apr 23, 2015
"Finally, please indicate how, if the amount of heat being radiated by the Earth is less than the amount it receives from the Sun, . . "
------------------------------------------------

OMG, Da S, the Scientologists have been storing it for use in their takeover. Wait till you see the USNS Sea Org.

Apr 23, 2015
If they don't, just start screaming "WMD!" from some "Undisclosed Location"
-Or save your voice and just buy the t shirt. Gkam has a closet full of them.
http://www.spread...t-shirts

Apr 23, 2015
otto dreams of me at night, . . in my t-shirt.

Apr 23, 2015
Gracie proves she doesn't know any physics again.

Apr 23, 2015
Da Schneib is going to teach me HVAC? Without wiki?

Apr 24, 2015
The HVAC engineer reviewed safety procedures at nuclear plants and designed particle accelerators?

Not to mention, a 15-year-old HVAC "engineer?" Really? Who claims to be a "research engineer?"

I mean, really?

Stop trying to run everything, Gracie. We're smarter than you are. Get over it.

The more you lie the more mistakes you make. You're already way, way over your head. I'd suggest you give up at this point. Doubling down will only make you look more foolish, Gracie.

Apr 24, 2015
Oh, Da S, stop the otto-wiki impersonation, and let's discuss the specifics. Your retorts are just adolescent when you stray from fact and science.

Yup, I am real. And you are just another person sniping from behind a pseudonym.

ps - did you see the part where I worked on industrial linear accelerators?

Apr 24, 2015
Global warming is obsolete. Everybody is switching to "sustainability" which is much harder to disprove.

http://www.dailym...udy.html

http://www.nas.or...ital.pdf

Apr 24, 2015
We have been looking and developing sustainable technologies for decades. Because you just discovered the word does not mean the rest of us are new to it.

Learn what it means: No non-renewable resources.

Apr 24, 2015
Yup, I am real. And you are just another person sniping from behind a pseudonym
Everybody uses a pseudonym, havent you noticed? So youre denigrating nearly every other poster here.

Youre a pissant which is why you feel you can say anything you want and get away with it. You have no respect for others and certainly none for science or the truth.

Apr 24, 2015
Global warming is obsolete. Everybody is switching to "sustainability" which is much harder to disprove.
First, actually the terminology switched to "global climate change" because the deniers aren't bright enough to understand why some areas might get colder even though the whole system gets warmer.

Second, quoting the Daily Fail is pretty transparent.

Apr 24, 2015
Yup, I am real. And you are just another person sniping from behind a pseudonym.
Sure you're real; you're a real 15-year-old girl with weird anti-technological prejudices who's pretending to be some sort of expert.

And I'm a real 50-year-old software engineer specializing in multi-function server farm installations of internet site software that integrates with development software for internet applications. With a major hobby in physics, due to having chosen engineering rather than science when I had the choice.

Stop trying to pretend. It only makes you look silly. You don't know things that any competent engineer in the fields you pretend to knowledge of should and would know. I'd have respect for a 15-year-old girl who has some prejudices; I have little or none for someone who lies about their experience, and so obviously that anyone competent can see it immediately.

Just stop pretending and be honest. It's not that hard.

Apr 24, 2015
" You have no respect for others and certainly none for science or the truth."
---------------------------------------
Says the anonymous sniper who hides behind his collection of pseudonyms, so he screams filthy words no professional would ever use.

I keep on inviting you to debate the issues, but you can't.

I tried to explain specific heat to you, nuclear power to you, linear accelerators to you, the Air Force to you, how engineers work to you, but you are not conversant with the meanings of the words. So, go ahead, have adolescent fun with "pissant " and your accusations of this or that.


Apr 24, 2015
"And I'm a real 50-year-old software engineer specializing in multi-function server, . . . "

Okay, Toots, you are a software engineer. Good. Now, I suggest you look me up by name, since you are too scared to give me yours.

Let's see who is real.

I expect an apology.

Apr 24, 2015
You were caught tweeting the same thing you wrote here, and the tweeter is a 15-year-old girl.

You're now trying to cover it up.

Just stop. Everybody who's paying attention knows. There's no point.

Apr 25, 2015
Wonder how long this will last? http://www.tempdatareview.org/

Apr 25, 2015
Stopped reading at the first word: "climatologists."

They're geophysicists, idiot.

Can we please have deniers who aren't fools?

Apr 26, 2015
Oh, and reading the title- the temperature debate was over when we got enough satellite records to measure the difference between heat absorbed by the Earth and heat emitted by the Earth.

That was about a decade ago.

Duh.

Have you numbskulls discovered that new-fangled thing called "fire" yet?

Apr 26, 2015
From NASA: http://earthobser...age4.php

Ever heard of "conservation of energy?"

That reference says that the radiation of heat is less than the incoming heat. If that happens, and it is happening according to the satellite data, then the temperature will increase.

This is high school physics. In fact, anyone who puts something on a stove to heat it up knows this. Otherwise, why doesn't it heat up on the counter? Duh.

Can we have deniers who at least graduated high school, please?

Apr 26, 2015
Wonder how long this will last? http://www.tempdatareview.org/

As Da Schneib points out, the satellites show without any doubt that the heat is still on. That the tempdatareview.org is being pushed by any anti-science organization (the Global Warming Policy Foundation) and by Christopher Booker's error ridden analysis, it seems clear that the point of the "review" is to cherry pick data until they find the conclusion they're looking for. The title of Booker's article about this ("Top scientists start to examine fiddled global warming figures" - http://www.telegr...res.html ) confirms that the "review" isn't about finding any truth, it's about invalidating the temperature record, no matter how much data and facts must be ignored to do so.

Apr 26, 2015
The recent slowdown in the rise of global average air temperatures will make no difference to how much the planet will warm by 2100.


The oceans and ice have far greater importance than air temperature which can go up and down with a sneeze. A world sneeze anyway.

On this, I think everyone agrees.

But what is this BS about 2100? An infinite number of things can happen before 2020, and certainly it's not worth repeating. The situation, with greater increase in solar and wind is changing even now.

Apr 26, 2015
Ever heard of "conservation of energy?"
That reference says that the radiation of heat is less than the incoming heat. If that happens, and it is happening according to the satellite data, then the temperature will increase.

This is high school physics. ...Otherwise,... the counter?...

Can we have deniers who at least graduated high school, please?


Well Da S. The obvious answer is that your wrong. But I hope you can take it well.
The Earth is a sophisticated system thermodynamically. Much more sophisticated than this.

Imagine a bowl of water and ice in equilibrium with the environment. What is the temperature? 0C, of course.

Now we add a candle underneath the bowl. What happens to the temperature? It DOESN'T change. Not until the ice has melted away.

Now there may be some local effects, like where flame meets bowl, or when the ice>>further away from the source. Something like on Earth, but Gaia is far more buffered than this.

Apr 26, 2015
The Earth is a sophisticated system thermodynamically. Much more sophisticated than this.
There is no "sophistication" that will deny thermodynamics. In fact, thermodynamics is pretty sophisticated itself, but you wouldn't know that because you don't know any physics.

Your "example" is a FAIL because the Earth's ice and the Earth's water are not well mixed; there's no ice at the equator, for example.

Apr 26, 2015
Not only that but ice floats, and the water at the bottom of the bowl will get warmer, convection will set in, and a current will ensue which will have warmer water percolating to the top and contributing energy to the floating ice's latent heat, cooling, falling to the bottom, and getting heated and rising again. So your example FAILS two ways. Actually three; you neglected the convection current.

See? Tolja thermodynamics is sophisticated.

Apr 26, 2015
Nah, still works. Just depends on how much effort you're putting into the mental model vs the reality. Plus, an important fact is that water is densest at ~4C. If the candle is a weak candle for example, and heat is added slowly, the effects above are small. Heat is actually transferred through water in more and important other ways than you've mentioned. So, if I wanted to be petty, I could add failures on top of your own, and more sophisticated ones, showing you up. Attempting to show up a Physical Chemist with thermodynamics is a poor idea.

Indeed, all the fails you mentioned are non-sequitors. I'd hoped you'd be able to take it better, given all the rationality you've, and this is a compliment, you've recently attempted to add to the forum.

Apr 26, 2015
Nah, still works
No, it doesn't. The water will be fractionally warmer than 0°C as long as the candle is there. It has to be to carry the heat that drives the convection.

the effects above are small
But not nonexistent, as you claim.

Like I said, you don't know any physics, much less thermodynamics. Another FAIL.

Pro tip: stop asserting and start asking. There are lots of people here with answers that are correct. The fact that they don't agree with your prejudices is reason to discard the prejudices, not the answers.

Apr 26, 2015
I can't believe it took you almost half an hour to come up with that answer, WP. Certainly not if you're a physical chemist as you claim, not to mention you're denying well-known thermodynamics which any physical chemist should know inside and out.

Stop lying and denying. Do some asking. Unless you like being proven to be a fool.

Apr 26, 2015
Shall we discuss the physics of percolation next, WP?

You'll find I know more than you do about that, too.

Hey, @thermodynamics, you still around? Help me take this fool down for good.

Apr 26, 2015
Shall we discuss the physics of percolation next, WP?

You'll find I know more than you do about that, too.

Hey, @thermodynamics, you still around? Help me take this fool down for good.


DS: You are doing a fine job. WP/Alche is as dumb as a fence post.

I am going to add one clarification that I am sure you are aware of, but I want to make sure WP/Alche understands that there are three disciplines that are responsible for the transfer of heat and mass in these systems. The disciplines are 1) Thermodynamics, 2) Heat Transfer, 3) Mass transfer. What WP/Alche has missed is that he does not apply either Heat or Mass transfer to his water bowl and his kitchen CO2 myth. Thermodynamics is "generally" considered equilibrium. Heat and mass transport are, by definition, non-equilibrium. The Earth is non-equilibrium (near steady state) but subject to LTE (local thermal equilibrium) approximations.

Apr 26, 2015
Nice. Thanks, thermo. U rok. :D

Apr 26, 2015
Ah, Da S. I get it now. Blah Blah Blah!

Quibble quibble like a mouse. Who's that quibbling over nothing?

Take me down boys! You know what I know FAR more than I do. I see that now.

If I don't respond, just remember I am reading everything you write. Probably giggling.

Just remember Da S, thermo, before I told him, didn't know that MHD, or Magnetohydrodynamics, was "plasma physics," a field he claims to work in, and your other buddy, Mikey didn't know what a mole of a substance was, or even fundamentals of the electronics he "has" degrees in.

Have a party.

Apr 26, 2015
I get it now.
No, you don't.

Support what you say or you're lying. That's what you need to get.

Meanwhile, noted you don't know enough physics and thermodynamics to refute my claims. And now you're attacking others to deflect attention from that lack of knowledge. FAIL. Again. As usual.

So, which sock puppet did you use to give yourself an uprating?

Just askin'.

Apr 26, 2015
WaterBowl/Alche said:
"Just remember Da S, thermo, before I told him, didn't know that MHD, or Magnetohydrodynamics, was "plasma physics," a field he claims to work in, and your other buddy, Mikey didn't know what a mole of a substance was, or even fundamentals of the electronics he "has" degrees in."


Of course WB can't quote the situation where he explained MHD to me. The reason is that this never happened. Just like the rest of what WP/Alche has to say is made up, so it this. All you have to do is show us where you explained MHD to me and you will have some credibility. Of course that is impossible because it never happened. What a deluded individual.

Apr 26, 2015
Worse yet, MHD isn't plasma physics. It also applies to liquid water, if it's electrically conducting, as well as any other electrolyte.

Duh.

http://en.wikiped...dynamics

Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) (magneto fluid dynamics or hydromagnetics) is the study of the magnetic properties of electrically conducting fluids. Examples of such fluids include plasmas, liquid metals, and salt water or electrolytes.


Next?

Apr 26, 2015
I know that, and you know that, but thermo didn't know that. What do you want from me? I have said repeatedly, it is not fair for you to expect me to educate you. Especially if you are going to misrepresent your education.

Apr 26, 2015
Thermo says you never had any such conversation and has challenged you to provide a link to it.

You have FAILED to provide the link. What I want from you is the link or an admission you're lying again.

I have not misrepresented my education. I have made no claim about it that is relevant to this matter. You are attempting to deflect attention from your FAIL again, by lying again.

What I also want is a link to prove I made any unsubstantiated claim, and attempted to prove it by claiming some education. You will no doubt FAIL to provide that link as well.

Now you have two links to provide. And you are still FAILING again.

To top it all off, you claimed MHD is plasma physics and thermo didn't know that, but it's not just plasma physics. So you lied yet again, and now I've proven it.

Stop lying, WP.

Apr 26, 2015
WP confounds claims of education with claims of knowledge in order to continue obfuscating in 4... 3... 2...

My experience is that people who make claims of experience or education are lying, whereas people who claim knowledge aren't, and can prove it by linking to reliable sources who confirm their statements. I am prepared to link to reliable sources that confirm my assertions on demand.

Bring it, dude. Go ahead, FAIL again. I already have the links and am prepared to quote them. Welcome to my trap.

Apr 26, 2015
You, on the other hand, have claimed to be an authority, based on your claim to education.

Fine, prove it. Scan your diploma and post it online, then link it here so we can check whether you're lying or not.

Or else FAIL again by the logical fallacy of appeal to false authority.

Apr 26, 2015
Yeah, didn't think so. Still waiting for the link to where WP claims to have skooled thermodynamics on MHD. Not to mention the link to where I claimed education to make myself an authority, and the link to WP's diploma to prove WP is an authority.

I ain't holding my breath.

It's time to flush the trolls out of here. Honest people who have questions should be able to get answers here; that's kinda the whole point of the site. These idiots running around making unsubstantiated claims and then obfuscating to get out of providing supporting data and trolling those who answer the needs of the honest people with questions need to GO AWAY FOREVER.

If you want to blame someone for firing me up blame Mike_Massen. :D It's all his fault.

Apr 26, 2015
"My experience is that people who make claims of experience, . . "
---------------------------------------

The ironic and silly statement aside, you do not have any experience.

You are a pseudonym, a phony character. It matters not what "you" happen to "think".

Apr 26, 2015
I don't need to appeal to false authority: Your buddy Mike already demo'd I am the real deal. My degrees take second fiddle.

Or answer the same question he avoided: If I don't have any degrees, and was acknowledged so extensively, doesn't that put me on footing with Faraday?

Pick whichever picture of me you prefer. I prefer you just read what I type. After all, what brang it up was a respectful conversation, to which you were only a voyeur. I am not claiming any credentials as justification. And if I did in the past. Forget it.

Everyone on the internet has a PhD, and is an expert on the subject.

I'm just a guy with a brass bowl, some ice, a candle, and a working gedanken model that easily and intuitively predicts climate change, according to the idea that heat is causing global warming.

Heat causing warming, I know, ridiculous! Oh, wait, that's what you were claiming above.

Apr 26, 2015
Good to see the recent multiple volcanic eruptions in the world raising the sulfer dioxide levels in tbe atmosphere to reflect more sunlight. Sorry about the property damage but hey, sumer is coming in the northern hemisphere.

Apr 26, 2015
Its still not warm enough...

You have to wonder about the ability of the green lobby to predict anything. The dismal failure of long term water planning in Calif. highlights their ignorance. Calif. approved a trillion dollar high speed green railway but no substantial water projects. They have managed to protect the Delta Smelt but cannot protect the citizens from a catastrophic water shortage!


I'm pretty sure they knew the water shortage was coming. Why let rivers dump in to the ocean if you know the rivers will dry up in 5-10 years anyways? Because some minnow in a few creeks is more important than keeping the cities and farms properly wet.

Basically, this makes environmentalists have more "legitimacy" in policy influence...

I'm sorry, if the water shortage exists because you purposely let more water go down the rivers than was minimally necessary for keeping the fishery and forestry industries alive, your policy ideas are moot.

Apr 26, 2015
Bongstar-great points. I think this exposes all hypocrisy in a way that is impossible to ignore.
You are absolutely correct, and this states exactly what's wrong.

Apr 26, 2015


I'm sorry, if the water shortage exists because you purposely let more water go down the rivers than was minimally necessary for keeping the fishery and forestry industries alive, your policy ideas are moot.


@bongstar420

You've made some incredibly dumb and ignorant comments, this one ranks among your worst.

Apr 27, 2015
WP avoids

*Linking to where it claims to have "skooled" @thermodynamics
*Linking to where it claims I "claimed education"
*Answering why the water isn't fractionally above 0C
*Answering why it claimed MHD is "plasma physics" when it's not
*Providing evidence it's got a degree of any kind
*Showing any claim of mine I tried to substantiate by false authority

Categorical FAIL.

Gracie claims
The ironic and silly statement aside, you do not have any experience.
How do you know? I haven't claimed any. I just link to sites that say the same things I do.

You're the one claiming experience, and not providing any proof.

Apr 27, 2015
Water_Prophet with another rubbish post
The oceans and ice have far greater importance than air temperature which can go up and down with a sneeze
No they move with changes in circulation patterns however, Water_Prophet completely misses the point (again) whats important is the ADDED radiative forcing re CO2, which Water_Prophet claims is a "red herring" & "anemic".

Water_Prophet has NEVER proven any of his claims OR qualified ANyY of them with refererences !

Water_Prophet claims
The situation, with greater increase in solar and wind is changing even now.
Maybe, depending on how the world absorbs the drop in oil price, which may also filter through to coal and that may affect China's short term plans re renewables.

In all this Water_Prophet. makes off hand blurts that don't go anywhere and STILL cannot prove ANY of his claims ?

so sad, in all the time here Water_Prophet could have actually got at least ONE good uni degree :-(

Apr 27, 2015
Water_Prophet with more hypocrisy
Well Da S. The obvious answer is that your wrong. But I hope you can take it well
Water_Prophet NEVER proves his claims !

Water_Prophet states
The Earth is a sophisticated system thermodynamically. Much more sophisticated than this
Water_Prophet forgets that heat can be integrated & temp is one of many tools & the results are definitive, learn calculus Water_Prophet.

Water_Prophet claims
Imagine a bowl of water and ice in equilibrium with the environment. What is the temperature? 0C, of course
No, not necessarily, depends on the size, net heat balance = loss vs gain etc

Water_Prophet claims
Now we add a candle ...temperature? It DOESN'T change. Not until the ice has melted
Wrong. Totally depends on circulation in CONJUNCTION with net heat balance - loss vs gain etc

Water_Prophet's claim ice/water bowl & candle PROVES knows NOTHING of
http://en.wikiped...eriments

so sad

Apr 27, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
Your buddy Mike already demo'd I am the real deal. My degrees take second fiddle
No, thats an outright LIE if refer to me, another 'Mike' ?

I demo'd (often) Water_Prophet is really stupid; a Pathological Liar, a cheat, virtually guilty of identify fraud re another "Gregory M, Tyler" who wrote for US military. Water_Prophet appears suffering egomaniac confirmational bias, likely needs attentive counseling...
http://en.wikiped...al_lying

Water_Prophet grasping at straws,claims
If I don't have any degrees, and was acknowledged so extensively, doesn't that put me on footing with Faraday?
No & NOT by ANY means, Faraday had integrity, attention to detail & PROVED his claims, Faraday also had a keen understanding of:-
http://en.wikiped...riments, Water_Prophet has none !

Water_Prophet has oddly, gone to much trouble to be Example of how NOT to debate Science & often avoids mature dialectic !

Apr 27, 2015
Watermonkey is dumb and have not been able to graduate from mental school for the past 2 years unlike the rest of his peers... but hey, it puts the shine on him and big oil's corruption, sinking their ship ever so deeper and deeper into the abyss... c'mon monkey, perhaps you could top 200 dumb replies this time, you aint put enough spunk into our last comment session ! you can do it... :D

Apr 27, 2015
Why can't you folk debate without screaming across the playground?

We have several folk here who set themselves up as critics and authorities in fields in which they have NO education or experience, (like in Linear Accelerators), then tell those who have actual experience they are lying.

We have to get rid of them. This is not their forum!

We can do better than this, folks. We ccan get rid of the snipers hiding behind phony names, get those Wiki-warriors out of here. They think by cutting and pasting words and concepts they do not understand they have challenged somebody.

The Vandals are wrecking this site.

Apr 27, 2015
Nah, still works. Just depends on how much effort you're putting into the mental model vs the reality. Plus, an important fact is that water is densest at ~4C.

Not sea water.
It is densest all the way down to ~ MS 1.8C and thus is an engine for sinking the coldest surface waters of the Arctic to power the AMOC.
http://en.wikiped...culation

Apr 27, 2015
Wasn't it in an article here two months ago that a lot of work still had to be done to retool the climate change models? Is that done yet?

Apr 27, 2015
If anyone wants to see "the Pause."
Here it is. (Look at the graph, the article is optional.)
http://www.hughhe...im-dunn/

Apr 27, 2015
gkam, I with you, but how do you fight someone who has the time and irreverence to take a one-liner like this one, and write 3000 words about it?

In my experience, and there are many wrecked user-names driven off the site to prove it; insanity usually wins.

Sounds like you're on the brink of departure yourself. Hang in there.

Apr 28, 2015
Naa experience does not count much when most answers are given a resounding 1 out of 5 rating to clowns that are currently already in mental school, irrelevant to science, the good ? the world gets to see them and their oil/political superiors stupidity unfold right here on physorg... putting a smile on our faces everytime... :)

Apr 28, 2015
Water_Prophet proves he lacks cognition yet again
gkam, I with you, but how do you fight someone who has the time and irreverence to take a one-liner like this one, and write 3000 words about it?
its NOT about a fight, that sort of comment is from children who have not learned or recall when they make arbitrary claims they may well be challenged to PROVE them ?

Instead of focusing on a dumb teenage fight, focus instead on proving arbitrary claims & LEARN not to make dumb claims in future KNOWING many others are smarter AND better educated

Water_Prophet claims
In my experience, and there are many wrecked user-names driven off the site to prove it; insanity usually wins
Water_Prophet unfortunately shows NO experience, NO useful education & STILL can't prove ANY of this claims !

Water_Prophet asks
Sounds like you're on the brink of departure yourself
Oh please apply this to Water_Prophet, other than being an idiot example, he has no value here

Apr 28, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
Everyone on the internet has a PhD, and is an expert on the subject.
I'm just a guy with a brass bowl, some ice, a candle, and a working gedanken model that easily and intuitively predicts climate change, according to the idea that heat is causing global warming
Crap. Proves definitively Water_Prophet has NIL understanding of a key aspect in Science, which is the value of Evidence & how to make sense of it rising from a well designed experiment:-
http://en.wikiped...eriments

We STILL have the issue that Water_Prophet has NOT proven any of his claims, the most stupid of all is that his claim of 0.00009W/m^2 is in "great agreement" with wikis of 1.5W/m^2

How can any sane, smart person EVER claim 0.00009 is in "great agreement" with 1.5 ?

They are different by 16,666 times !!!!!!!!!

Water_Prophet states sarcastically
Heat causing warming, I know, ridiculous!
Its been known in early school, new for Water_Prophet

Apr 28, 2015
Water_Prophet LIES openly yet again with
Mikey didn't know what a mole of a substance was, or even fundamentals of the electronics he "has" degrees in
Prove it - its simple ?

Yet another facile claim but, WHY can't Water_Prophet actually prove it along with the (growing) list:-

1. 4 technical degrees
2. CO2's radiative forcing of 0.00009W/m^2
3. "great agreement" with wiki
4. Degree in Physical Chemistry
5. Is the same "Gregory M, Tyler" who wrote for the US Military
6. Is a leader in Predictive Analytics
7. Business uses his results
8. Small water bowl models climate
9. CO2's effect is measurable in arbitrary naive home experiment
10+. Lesser puerile claims re people, what he imagines they think, monkeys & wristwatches

Water_Prophet clearly is in need of mental care, he acts definitively like a Pathological Liar
http://en.wikiped...al_lying

Should come to notice of police/fbi as unchallenged liars can be a real danger to others !

Apr 28, 2015
If anyone wants to see "the Pause."
Here it is. (Look at the graph, the article is optional.)
http://www.hughhe...im-dunn/


Apr 28, 2015
Water_Prophet repeated
If anyone wants to see "the Pause."
Here it is. (Look at the graph, the article is optional.)
http://www.hughhe...im-dunn/
What is Water_Prophet on about, repeating his post of 10hrs earlier ?

His link does not show a graph for me on Firefox, despite adobe flash & java being enabled, what is his problem, doesnt he check it first, details matter, what browser etc ?

All I see is a few sentences and few blank areas despite reload & latest Firefox browser...

Is there a sublink and Water_Prophet made another mistake or is he ?

Note: Water_Prophet STILL hasn't proven or qualified ANY of his claims, the list grows, the clock is ticking, will Water_Prophet qualify all his claims or be a man and acknowledge he has lied ?

Apr 28, 2015
TheGhostofOtto1923 claims
Everybody uses a pseudonym, havent you noticed?
Wrong.
I don't use a pseudonym or nickname (my stud no. 07602128) , easy to check so ph Curtin university or easier email them & have them email me, so I can pass it on to "close the circle"
http://niche.iine...physorg/

Eg. Your sumb claims re just what training strategy is re EE's, Mech & HVAC elsewhere has me wondering why you are even here if you NEVER check your claims & act like Water_Prophet or you are just plain angry/jealous & projecting on the educated to make you feel better :-(

Sorry you didn't get education in uni Physics but, hey you still can, heck you've been here since 2010, didnt you consider going to some College courses & get practice with the basics - geesh ?

TheGhostofOtto1923 with immense hypocrisy
You have no respect for others and certainly none for science or the truth
Its YOU to a tee TheGhostofOtto1923, especially false claims so easy to check !

Apr 28, 2015
All I see is a few sentences and few blank areas despite reload & latest Firefox browser...

Is there a sublink and Water_Prophet made another mistake or is he ?


He basically spoke his mind...(cough...cough.. and as we can see it is quite blank inside it..as if we don't already know though....just like that link...cough..) lol... ;)

C'mon monkey i said 200 posts, you've not nearly got to 5% of that yet, if you want the world to know how utterly dumb and stupid you and your political monkeys are, you have to put in the elbow grease ! keep 'em coming...

Apr 29, 2015
@WP You are not a physical chemist. Perhaps you have taken P-chem courses once upon a time, but if so you have forgotten most of what you learned. No one who understands p-chem doubts the mechanism of the greenhouse effect ... there are p-chemists who don't accept AGW, but none of them dispute that the GHE is responsible for the temperature at the surface of the earth being ~33 degrees C warmer than at the top of the atmosphere .. a fact that you apparently hadn't heard until I pointed it out to you in another thread a few months ago, at which point you ridiculed it. You waste an inordinate amount of other people's time with your trivial claims and scientifically weak "gedanken" experiments, and then you refuse to acknowledge when they are debunked with well-supported, well-referenced scientific arguments. You also refuse to engage in meaningful scientific discourse, fading into the background when challenged to go slowly and stay on point. A p-chemist would not do these things.

May 01, 2015
If anyone wants to see "the Pause."
Here it is. (Look at the graph, the article is optional.)
http://www.hughhe...im-dunn/


So we have direct correlation with the pause and fossil fuel expenditure. Temperature goes up and dow with fossil fuels, and rides the changes in the Sun.

It's cool, seems CO2-ers are the new Deniers.

May 01, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
So we have direct correlation with the pause and fossil fuel expenditure
No. Can someone more patient than I remind the little fetus Water_Prophet - "correlation is NOT proof of causation" ?

Water_Prophet claims
Temperature goes up and dow with fossil fuels, and rides the changes in the Sun
Where is Evidence AND in respect of timing in respect of increased CO2's radiative forcing over that same period ?

Water_Prophet deluded claims
It's cool, seems CO2-ers are the new Deniers
ONLY if Water_Prophet can ever prove that CO2's radiative forcing is LESS than fossil fuel heat production ?

Why is it Water_Prophet has never proven ALL his claims ?
This is unfortunately yet another naive, immature & unscientific attempt to aggrandize his ego :-(

When will Water_Prophet ever learn anything useful in Science or appreciate mature dialectic based upon the Evidence in Physics & maths ?

so sad, Water_Prophet with nothing useful yet again :-(

May 01, 2015
It really is funny.
We can visually inspect the effects of economy on temperature. Proof.
We can run experiments with a humidifier, dry ice, CO2 meter, thermometer, humidity sensor, our thermostat., heat source (oven), that demonstrate how ineffective CO2 is, period.

We can show the Earth is responding as if heated, not as if insulated.

There is proof positive for climate change and it's mechanism, available to everyone, and yet people argue about it.

Why argue? Run the experiments.

May 01, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
It really is funny. We can visually inspect the effects of economy on temperature. Proof. We can run experiments with a humidifier, dry ice, CO2 meter, thermometer, humidity sensor, our thermostat., heat source (oven), that demonstrate how ineffective CO2 is, period
No. Simply because Water_Prophet has NIL understanding of "Experimental Methods" but, hey he has been told this before & ignored it - therefore he is not just stupid to proclaim it again but completely inept at cognition & naive !

Water_Prophet claims We can show the Earth is responding as if heated, not as if insulated....
...
Run the experiments. No. Because Water_Prophet's experiments are flawed as the human body has NIL sensory apparatus for CO2 & in any case the path length re radiative emissions is FAR too short - a Physical Chemist should know this !

Why can't Water_Prophet prove ANY of his claims, is he; a troll, ill, stupid or mentally deficient ?

May 01, 2015
[duplicated post. Please delete]

May 01, 2015
We can show the Earth is responding as if heated, not as if insulated.
Please explain the thermodynamic difference between adding an extra 10^15 J of heat every second, or retaining an extra 10^15 J of heat every second due to added insulation.
There is proof positive for climate change and it's mechanism
A scientific theory cannot be proven, only disproven. But what you are talking about isn't even a theory .. it's more like a casual observation coupled to a poor mathematical analysis.
Run the experiments.
Experiments are meaningless, or worse .. misleading, if not properly designed and interpreted. Since you haven't a clue what you are talking about, your "experiments" are poorly designed, and your interpretation of them is laughably naive. Finally, you can't supplant an existing theory with a new one until you establish the flaws in the existing theory. You can't even begin to do that with the GHE (the lynchpin of AGW) because you don't understand how it works.

May 01, 2015
I mean what stronger proof is there then a demonstrable linear correlation, or proof you can do yourself?
None.

You can keep changing the variables to refine it, eliminate variables, develop metrics, it's unavoidable.

Really what more is there then running your own experiments?

One can observe that Solar flux plus burned fossil fuel (and nuclear) have a direct correlation to temperature change. It's an observable and if you want to do the math, a demonstrable.

It's just there. Right in front of you.

May 01, 2015
I mean what stronger proof is there then a demonstrable linear correlation, or proof you can do yourself?
First, your use of "proof" when you really mean "evidence" is just another way you are revealing your scientific ineptitude. Second, correlation is not causation, and a the existence of a linear correlation is meaningless unless it matches a mechanism that predicts a linear correlation, versus say, a quadratic or inverse one.
You can keep changing the variables to refine it, eliminate variables, develop metrics
Ok, but you don't do that .. you just keep posting the same ol' baloney over and over.
Really what more is there then running your own experiments?
Understanding the existing science so that you can properly put your own "experiments" into context
One can observe that Solar flux plus burned fossil fuel (and nuclear) have a direct correlation to temperature change.
Wait, didn't you say "temperature change" was a poor metric for global warming?

May 01, 2015
No, temperature is a poor indicator of climate change. Because the Earth is mightily buffered against extreme temperature change. It can go up and down short term.

Pay attention, buddy.

May 01, 2015
I've got a brilliant idea!!!!

Since I don't know science... YOU design an experiment demonstrating the effects of CO2, humidity, etc., one we can do at home.

May 01, 2015
I've got a brilliant idea!!!!

Since I don't know science... YOU design an experiment demonstrating the effects of CO2, humidity, etc., one we can do at home.

I don't need to, there are plenty that you can just look up. I already posted a terrarium example, but you didn't understand its claims, interpretation or significance, so you just scoffed and dismissed it. If you want more examples, look 'em up yourself. I am not going to waste the effort. I have already told you what I am willing to engage with you on (GHE mechanism), but you fade into the background every time there is actual science content to be discussed.

May 02, 2015
Your terrarium experiment, or should I say, joke- considering how lousy you claim my ability to be;
Had easily 40x the atmospheric concentrations, and also increased water vapor.

Water vapor, you recall, is far more powerful than CO2, and even mainstream AGWers acknowledge this.

So, even CO2's narrow absorption band, multiplied by 40 is going to have SOME effect. But the water vapor is still going to trump.

It has no quantification, does not eliminate variables, it is essentially CO2 propoganda.

In short, [rule of Thumper, #2].

May 02, 2015
Your terrarium experiment, or should I say, joke- considering how lousy you claim my ability to be;
Had easily 40x the atmospheric concentrations, and also increased water vapor.

Water vapor, you recall, is far more powerful than CO2, and even mainstream AGWers acknowledge this.

So, even CO2's narrow absorption band, multiplied by 40 is going to have SOME effect. But the water vapor is still going to trump.

It has no quantification, does not eliminate variables, it is essentially CO2 propoganda.

In short, [rule of Thumper, #2].

Yep .. like I said, you didn't understand anything about that experiment. Furthermore, it's trivial to control for water vapor using a second, identically configured terrarium where no CO2-producing reaction is carried out. I have run the two terrarium version myself, with additional controls. It's worth doing if you are interested in this stuff.

May 02, 2015
DarkLordKelvin offered
I already posted a terrarium example, but you didn't understand its claims, interpretation or significance, so you just scoffed and dismissed it
Sorry missed it, can't find it on this thread and my net access is sporadic, would you mind reposting the link please ?

Re: Water_Prophet & his abysmal knowledge of "Experimental Methodology" (& Design), he has been told many times over course of last 12 months by runrig & thermodynamics that the path length re CO2's radiative foricing is of considerable importance in regards to Beer-Lambert Law.

Water_Prophet claims to have me on ignore, so along with the link to a terrarium experiment for our local group who are watching phys.org for coffee discussions :-) would you be so kind to inform the little fetus Water_Prophet that running experiment for CO2 can be made rather more definitive in respect of knowing the path length in order to calculate substantively an actual thermal resistivity effect ?

May 02, 2015
Tried to edit comment, but it timed out
Had easily 40x the atmospheric concentrations, and also increased water vapor.

Water vapor, you recall, is far more powerful than CO2, and even mainstream AGWers acknowledge this.

So, even CO2's narrow absorption band, multiplied by 40 is going to have SOME effect. But the water vapor is still going to trump.
Higher concentration is necessary due to short path length for radiation, and like I said, the water vapor can easily be controlled for.
It has no quantification
it's there if you want it .. terrarium volume, mass of CO2 released, fluence from light source, humidity, etc
it is essentially CO2 propoganda.
Only you would qualify a science experiment (much better designed than your own) as "propaganda".

The reason I linked that experiment was to show contrast between a proper experiment, and your nonsense. Yes, it can be improved in several ways, but even the "vanilla" version actually measures something meaningful.

May 02, 2015
If that's your analysis DLK.
LOL.
Think, there are other people on this sight, and it's apparent your comments are just plain [rule of Thumper#2].

If you are educated, you've just exposed yourself as a propagandist yourself. I'm pretty sure most people with a high school edu, or half a brain wouldn't be lost by your [rule of Thumper #2] counter argument.

May 02, 2015
DarkLordKelvin offered
I already posted a terrarium example, but you didn't understand its claims, interpretation or significance, so you just scoffed and dismissed it
Sorry missed it, can't find it on this thread and my net access is sporadic, would you mind reposting the link please ?


Here's the one I posted before (high-school level): http://www.kentsc...-Lab.pdf

Here's a more elaborate college-level one (that I have run as a demonstration experiment myself): http://core.ac.uk...0812.pdf

It should be acknowledged that there ARE issues with separating the convective and radiative effects in this sort of experiment. However, the effects can be separated if one is careful.

inform Water_Prophet that running experiment for CO2 can be made rather more definitive in respect of knowing the path length in order to calculate substantively an actual thermal resistivity effect ?
Done.

May 02, 2015
So WP, have you educated yourself about the GHE mechanism yet? Anything you want to discuss about the science? Maybe if you learn about the importance of path length in experiments measuring radiative effects, you can modify your own "experiments" so they actually measure something.

May 02, 2015
If that's your analysis DLK.
LOL.
Think, there are other people on this sight, and it's apparent your comments are just plain [rule of Thumper#2].
If you are educated, you've just exposed yourself as a propagandist yourself. I'm pretty sure most people with a high school edu, or half a brain wouldn't be lost by your [rule of Thumper #2] counter argument.
I haven't got a clue what you are talking about with this "rule of thumper" nonsense. I stand by every comment I have made, and so far, I don't think any of my claims relevant to physics have ever been refuted .. certainly you haven't ever refuted any of them. You really never even tried, to be honest, because you aren't interested in putting any actual science into your statements. You prefer extrapolations based on your "intuition", often with blatant disregard for fundamental principles of physics. I'd say you oughta worry more about what readers think, but it has been clear for a long time that you just don't care.

May 02, 2015
Rule of Thumper #1 is about eating greens.
#2 is if I don't have anything nice to say, I'm not saying anything at all.

and it isn't about MY intuition you [rule of Thumper rule #2], it is about making the science intuitive to anyone.

Maybe if you rule #1, you'll be able to get that.

Putting GHE into the realm of it's too esoteric for the layman to understand is propaganda. It is simple.
Sun drives the bulk of climate change. Temperature is not a strong indicator of change. Imagine we magically made the temperature all over the world 0C for one day tomorrow, or even for three days, what effect would it have on climate?

See what I mean, intuitive, anyone can see.

Oh, wait, you're got some objection that has to do with defaming me rather than making a point. I can hardly wait.

May 02, 2015
Rule of Thumper #1 is about eating greens.
#2 is if I don't have anything nice to say, I'm not saying anything at all.
It's not about "nice", it's about "scientifically valid".
it isn't about MY intuition, it is about making the science intuitive to anyone.
How does attempting to mislead "anyone" make the science "intuitive"?
Putting GHE into the realm of it's too esoteric for the layman to understand is propaganda.
I have never done that. In fact I have linked several sites that do their best to provide explanations accessible to laypeople. But you claim not to be a layperson, yet refuse to engage on the science, all while claiming "GHE is wrong". Why is that?
It is simple. Sun drives the bulk of climate change.
Of course it does .. via the GHE, which is CURRENTLY driving a net imbalance between radiation emitted & absorbed by the earth.
Temperature is not a strong indicator of change.
It's a clear indicator of LONG TERM trends, which is how it's used.

May 02, 2015
Here, let me put it in terms you can understand.
I have been educated in GHE for 30 yrs now. Self-educated initially, instituionally afterwards.

I am familiar with all the arguments either way. Which you are not. I have arrived at observations and conclusions that fits what we have been observing for those 30 years, and agreed with since about 1997. That's right the state of the art caught up with me in 1997.

You have been arguing about CO2 since before I was born and haven't reached a conclusion everyone can agree on. This is simply because it's a non-dependent variable, like gambling. Temp goes up, you blame CO2, temp goes down, it's cycles.

My premise fits all data +/- 2 yrs.

or put another way:
You can prove the true. Like velocity slows time.
You can disprove the false, like the world is flat.
But you can't prove or disprove the imaginary: Like unicorns or CO2 induced warming.

Over 50? years is far to long to prove it conclusively to everyone.

May 02, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
..I have been educated in GHE for 30 yrs now. Self-educated initially, instituionally afterwards
Lets stop HERE !

Just HOW has Water_Prophet been educated "instituionally" (watch your spelling) afterwards, is there ANY evidence, Name of an Institute & When started & What course ?

Why would this NOT include CO2's radiative forcing re its vibrational states & in concert with accepted Physics taught internationally ?

Eg.
http://www.chem.a.../sim/gh/
https://en.wikipe...transfer

Physics is VERY clear on all issues of heat transfer but, Water_Prophet cannot seem to understand !

Water_Prophet clearly has significant issues with comprehension & even basic cognition in how to manage straightforward dialectic :-(

So sad Water_Prophet caught yet again the exact opposite of ALL he claims, mere impotence !
https://en.wikipe...al_lying

so sad Water_Prophet, why didn't he study ?

May 02, 2015
I have been educated in GHE for 30 yrs now. Self-educated initially, instituionally afterwards.
Hmm ... if that is true, why didn't you realize that the overall GHE contributes 33 degrees C to the temperature at the Earth's surface? That is a completely standard part of the GHE that you had apparently never heard about, so that you scoffed dismissively when I mentioned it in an earlier thread. Why won't you engage in a discussion about that aspect (or any other) of the GHE, so that we can move past your silly models and experiments?
I am familiar with all the arguments either way. Which you are not.
How could you possibly know that? You've refused to discuss them with me.
I have arrived at observations and conclusions that fits what we have been observing for those 30 years, and agreed with since about 1997. That's right the state of the art caught up with me in 1997.
A beautiful example of your Dunning-Kruger; a vague and unverifiable claim of success/expertise.

May 03, 2015
Another beautiful example of you being Captain Stumpy/"thermodynamincs."

Why is it the denier contingency here feels the need to use self congratulating sock-puppets to prove its points. And why do I fool myself into believing you might be separate individuals with changeable opinions?

Just hope.

Any real scientist could look at evidence and change their theory. You've been presented with new data, and it was like water off a ducks back.

Bye again.

May 03, 2015
Another beautiful example of you being Captain Stumpy/"thermodynamincs."

And why do I fool myself into believing you might be separate individuals with changeable opinions?
And once again, when presented with scientific questions you don't want to face, you trot out a goofy conspiracy theory that supports your D/K-fueled fantasy that you are actually the expert in this conversation ... as opposed to the actuality that you are a monkey, screaming and throwing poo when you feel threatened.
Any real scientist could look at evidence and change their theory. You've been presented with new data, and it was like water off a ducks back.
There was no "new data" .. there were just well-known facts, spun with your own personal misinterpretation of their significance.
Bye again.
Consistent with your D/K pathology, you withdraw from contact with those who actually understand science ... eventually there'll be no-one left to talk to. Enjoy your echo chamber.

May 10, 2015
Water_Prophet claims
Why is it the denier contingency here feels the need to use self congratulating sock-puppets to prove its points. And why do I fool myself into believing you might be separate individuals with changeable opinions?
Water_Prophet failed to understand the people mentioned are not AGW deniers, they deny your feeble "intuitive" maths, as I do - ugly.

Water_Prophet claims
Any real scientist could look at evidence and change their theory. You've been presented with new data, and it was like water off a ducks back
What evidence ?

Water_Prophet proves he cannot understand radiative transfer and ONLY focuses on feeble high school level "gedanken" maths as he said.

But Water_Prophet STILL hasn't proven ANY of his claims Eg CO2 & his claim of 0.00009 W/m^2

Why is that & whilst at it, where are his "4 technical degrees" ?

so sad


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